By virtue of their education and expertise, physicians have a responsibility to challenge scientifically inaccurate information about sexual health, but they may not opine about sexual norms for society in their professional capacity.
Physicians have a duty to educate lawmakers and the public about misinformation but they should not advocate for specific policies and thereby foreclose social dialogue on issues related to public health.
When a seriously ill mature minor and his parent disagree about his receiving an experimental intervention, who should decide what treatment he will receive?
Julian Savulescu's writing on conscientious objection is guided by an emphasis on the principle of distributive justice that does not allow religion to have a special status as justification.
Jalayne J. Arias, JD, MA and Kathryn L. Weise, MD, MA
Even when external factors such as nonaccidental injury weigh heavily on clinicians' perceptions, they should not lose focus on the patient's best interest when deciding whether to continue or withdraw treatment.
Conducting community-based research in the community where one resides demands careful planning, sensitivity to community members’ privacy, and a strong commitment to full and respectful communication.
The differences between CBPR and traditional research have been enumerated, but how to overcome them is still up for discussion, collaboration with community members is advocated, and examples are given.
Lynn Monrouxe, PhD, Malissa Shaw, MSc, PhD, and Charlotte Rees, MEd, PhD
Students’ decision making about ethical dilemmas can be supported via education, faculty development, and structures for reporting professionalism lapses.
AMA J Ethics. 2017; 19(6):568-577. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.6.medu1-1706.
Monica Peek, MD, MPH, MSc, Bernard Lo, MD, and Alicia Fernandez, MD
Gender-concordant care requests involve principles of beneficence, respect, and fairness and, when they occur on rotations, require a team-based approach.
AMA J Ethics. 2017; 19(4):332-339. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.4.ecas2-1704.