AMA Journal of Ethics theme editor Emily Johnson, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, interviewed Susan Mizner, JD, about some merits, drawbacks, and alternatives to guardianship.

Physician advocacy for climate change mitigation is justified by seven criteria including physicians’ efficacy, expertise, public trust, and proximity.

Climate change mitigation reforms of government policy, medical curricula, and health professions organizations should be the focus of physician advocacy.

The adverse health effects of climate change should be the focus of physician advocacy efforts and of conversations between physicians and their patients.

Gene editing to enhance humans’ adaptability to climate change should consider safety, harm to be averted, succeeding generations, and social consequences.

Public health and climate stabilization historically have competed for public funds, but investment in either good has the potential to advance both goods.

Although sharing health records with psychiatric patients may cause harm, clinicians also must consider beneficence and autonomy in making this decision.

When a patient challenges the use of a reusable, stainless steel speculum rather than a plastic, throw-away one, the physician should educate her on the safety and environmental benefits of reusable medical devices.

Thirty states have exceptions to child-neglect laws that provide shelter from misdemeanor violations for parents who treat their children through prayer in accord with the beliefs of a recognized religion.

Moral distress arises not only from organizational constraints on moral action but also from the environmental impacts of health care and climate change.