Graphic pathographies can illustrate how overreliance on statistics can obscure the clinical relevance of patients’ experiences of anxiety when they’re presented with prognoses.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E897-901. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.897.
Joel T. Wu, JD, MPH, MA and Jennifer B. McCormick, PhD, MPP
False health-related speech can cause harm, but it’s not restricted unless it’s obscene. Physicians are obliged not only to correct patients’ false beliefs, but to engage digital spaces in which false claims thrive.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1052-1058. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1052.
Government can regulate false speech and professional speech, which bans “gag laws” and compelled speech about laws to restrict abortion, for example. How should health professions share regulatory responsibility with government to prevent true speech about health information from being stifled?
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1041-1048. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1041.
Michele C. Gornick, PhD, MA and Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, PhD, MA
How information is provided can change a choice. Decision science helps reveal affective forecasting errors and can generate choices congruent with patients’ and families’ values.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(10):E906-912. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.906.
Decision making in health care demands that we balance multiple considerations, like quality of life, statistics, and how different options could affect others. Dr Brian Zikmund-Fisher shares his own experience as a patient and explains how decision science can help us navigate ethically complex health decisions.