Adhering too strictly to biomedical thinking about diagnosis can prevent clinicians from empathically engaging with patients and helping them navigate their illness experiences.
AMA J Ethics. 2021; 23(7):E537-541. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.537.
Financial relationships are common, and ethical questions rightly emerge about how conflicts of interest compromise investigators’ approaches to research.
AMA J Ethics. 2021; 23(9):E685-691. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.685.
Charles E. Binkley, MD, Michael S. Politz, MA, and Brian P. Green, PhD
If the safe-and-effective standard for judging devices’ potential as therapy or enhancement is inadequate, one might wonder whether BCI regulation should be overseen by the FDA.
AMA J Ethics. 2021; 23(9):E745-749. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.745.
Editorial fellow Dr Ariel Wampler describes what few know about material and device regulation, and Dr Adriane Fugh-Berman explains why we should ask more questions about device representatives’ intraoperative roles during implantations.
Jeffrey Bedard joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article: "What Should Patients Be Told About Device Representatives’ Roles at the Point of Surgical Care?"
Dr Charles Binkley joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article, coauthored with Michael Politz and Dr Brian Green: "Who, If Not the FDA, Should Regulate Implantable Brain-Computer Interface Devices?"
Pharma has long marketed opioids in ways that contribute to opioid use disorder and deaths by overdose. Regulatory mistakes in approving and labeling new analgesics by the FDA didn’t make us safer.
AMA J Ethics. 2020; 22(8):E743-750. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.743.