Public and private choices about allocation of funds for research raise a social-justice question: are these funding sources making fair decisions about where to invest their resources? The NIH has the clearest obligation to do so because it is taxpayer-supported.
Clara C. Hildebrandt, MD and Jonathan M. Marron, MD, MPH
Gene editing with CRISPR/Cas9 raises concerns about equitable access to therapies that could limit research participation by minority group members. These concerns can be addressed through public education, transparency, and stakeholder partnerships.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(9):E826-833. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.826.
Holly K. Tabor, PhD and Aaron Goldenberg, PhD, MPH
Rare genetic disease research has something to teach precision medicine about addressing some patients’ limited access to treatment. Health disparities exacerbated by high costs and limited availability of drugs can, perhaps, be mitigated when patient activism accelerates drug development.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(9):E834-840. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.834.
The allocation of scarce resources, such as HLA platelets, involves a conflict between the medical ethics principles of beneficence and social justice.
AMA J Ethics. 2016; 18(8):764-770. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.8.ecas1-1608.
After years of funding disease-specific treatment, donation trends have shifted to support broader health systems infrastructure development. A remaining challenge is how to sustain antiretroviral therapy (ART) for patients in resource-poor regions.
AMA J Ethics. 2016; 18(7):681-690. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.7.ecas3-1607.