William M. Hart, MD, Patricia Doerr, MD, Yuxiao Qian, MD, and Peggy M. McNaull, MD
When errors happen, too often clinicians are at odds with each other about how to respond to a patient or a patient’s loved ones after that patient suffers harm.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(4):E298-304. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.298.
Haley Moulton, Benjamin Moulton, JD, MPH, Tim Lahey, MD, MMSc, and Glyn Elwyn, MD, PhD, MSc
Shared decision making in research informed consent conversations is complex due to diverse and potentially divergent interests of investigators and patient-subjects.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(5):E365-371. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.365.
AI might improve patient-clinician relationships, but various underlying assumptions will need to be addressed to bring these potential benefits to fruition.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(5):E395-400. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.395.
William F. Parker, MD, MS and Marshall H. Chin, MD, MPH
Given organ scarcity, transplantation programs state that patient promises of compliance cannot be taken at face value, excluding candidates who are deemed untrustworthy.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(5):E408-415. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.408.
Shared decision making is practically difficult to implement in mental health practice but remains an ethical ideal for motivating therapeutic capacity.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(5):E446-451. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.446.
Aminu Yakubu, Nchangwi Syntia Munung, and Jantina De Vries, PhD
African cancer research is embedded in underresourced health care infrastructures, illuminating ethical questions about benefit sharing and governance.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(2):E156-163. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.156.