Although advisory groups like the World Health Organization question whether certain forms of gene editing should be permitted, the US Patent Office routinely issues patents protecting this technology.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1049-1055. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1049.
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.
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.
The DSM-5 Task Force’s handling of the ethical controversy over the bereavement exclusion demonstrates the need for more inclusive deliberative processes.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(2):192-198. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.pfor2-1702.
Grace Kim, Uriel Sanchez Molina, and Altaf Saadi, MD, MSHPM
Undocumented patients can be subject to discrimination, reporting, detention, or deportation in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, so what goes in the record is critical.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(1):E8-16. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.8.
Being undocumented is a risk factor for mental illness, and immigration status relates prominently to overall health. That’s enough to consider it protected health information under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(1):E32-37. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.32.