The Holocaust and the racial hygiene doctrine that helped rationalize it still overshadow contemporary debates about using gene editing for disease prevention.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(1):E49-54. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.49.
Most women requesting pregnancy termination have already decided to undergo an abortion, but some jurisdictions have implemented strategies to induce doubt and regret.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(9):E792-795. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.792.
Health care reform expanded health insurance to millions, but current community benefit policies must be used by organizations hoping to address social determinants.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(3):E248-258. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.248.
Where people live and work influences how long and how well they live. Supporting community investments can diminish risk, improve outcomes, and reduce costs.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(3):E262-268. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.262.
Clinically and ethically relevant questions are related to patient safety, therapeutic efficacy, equitable access, and global governance over humanity’s genetic legacy.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1079-1088. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1079.
Gene editing reminds professionals and the public that this technology’s reach goes beyond treating somatic disease to germline consequences yet unknown.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1056-1058. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1056.
Distinguishing between elective and therapeutic abortions undermines the moral agency of patients and disproportionately amplifies moral rather than medical dimensions of the procedure.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(12):E1175-1180. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1175.