Therapeutic misconception—a false belief that individuals will benefit from participating in research—can bias informed consent. Ethics consultants can help by engaging participants’ and researchers’ understandings of risks and benefits and by asking good questions about the influences of researchers’ enthusiasm.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1100-1106. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1100.
Amanda Fakih, MHSA and Kayte Spector-Bagdady, JD, MBE
Testing everyone for everything identifies more fetal conditions, but confusion persists about whether clinicians should leave screening decisions to patients.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(10):E858-864. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.858.
Tom Alsaigh, MD, Laura Nicholson, MD, PhD, and Eric Topol, MD
Clinicians should have a working understanding of gene editing, controversy surrounding its use, and its far-reaching clinical and ethical implications.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1089-1097. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1089.
International debate about human genome editing governance has undergone a paradigm shift and suggests that inclusive public deliberation is still important.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1065-1070. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1065.
Shailendra Prasad, MBBS, MPH, Fatima Alwan, MS, Jessica Evert, MD, Tricia Todd, MPH, and Fred Lenhoff, MA
Short-term experiences in global health are common ways trainees engage in global health activities. Professional societies take active roles in addressing these ethical challenges.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(9):E742-748. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.742.