A UPAC is an alternative to engaging a guardianship court appointment process or to using physicians or ethics committees as decision makers.

Physicians, committees, and guardians all make decisions for unrepresented patients in the US. This article considers a “tiered” approach as an alternative.

When a patient’s preference expresses injustice, how should clinicians respond? We discuss individual and organizational responses.

Ethics questions arise about the usefulness of a system that pegs Medicaid drug spending to net prices negotiated by others in the market.

When patients are unable to express their wishes and do not have surrogates or advance directives, which and whose values should inform decision making for them? We discuss ethical complexities of caring for unrepresented patients.

Closed formularies can be justified when they enable spending on other socially valuable aims, but they can single out poor patients.

Low-resource areas are heterogeneous and changing, so establishing an evidence base for decision making about technology use is an important priority.

A guardian’s request to sterilize a woman with intellectual disabilities is not ethically justifiable unless the woman assents and it is to her benefit.

Guidance for organizations using AI tools to diagnose and to develop treatment recommendations can also help clinicians consider risks and benefits.

In 2018, the AMA provided a broad framework for evolving AI in health care designed to help realize the benefits it promises for patients and clinicians.