Physician advocacy for climate change mitigation is justified by seven criteria including physicians’ efficacy, expertise, public trust, and proximity.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1202-1210. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.msoc1-1712.
Climate change mitigation reforms of government policy, medical curricula, and health professions organizations should be the focus of physician advocacy.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1222-1237. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.sect1-1712.
The advent of force-feeding in the new century in the context of conflict and protest made it necessary to clarify and revise the whole concept of artificial feeding and force-feeding.
The adverse health effects of climate change should be the focus of physician advocacy efforts and of conversations between physicians and their patients.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1174-1182. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.ecas3-1712.
Gene editing to enhance humans’ adaptability to climate change should consider safety, harm to be averted, succeeding generations, and social consequences.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1186-1192. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.stas1-1712.
Although physicians do not have legitimate authority over patients, professional associations may have such authority over physicians, even nonmembers.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(2):207-213. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.sect1-1702.
Public health and climate stabilization historically have competed for public funds, but investment in either good has the potential to advance both goods.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1193-1201. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.pfor1-1712.
There is no morally compelling reason to distinguish a doctor from a tank driver on the battlefield except for the fact that both sides agree to protect medical personnel.