Denisse Rojas Marquez, MD, MPP and Hazel Lever, MD, MPH
“Very important persons” care contributes to multitiered, racially segregated health service delivery streams that influence clinicians’ conceptions of what patients deserve from them.
AMA J Ethics. 2023;25(1):E66-71. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2023.66.
Unchallenged supra-geographic segregation perpetuates racial medical mythology, exacerbates myopia in health professions practice and education, and perpetuates injustice.
AMA J Ethics. 2023;25(1):E72-78. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2023.72.
Principles of respect for autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence guide trauma-informed care. Care ethics should also support this framework for responding to the health needs of trafficked patients.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(1):80-90. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.1.msoc2-1701.
S. Michelle Ogunwole, MD, PhD and Francheska D. Starks, PhD
Testimonial injustice is an expression of racism that uses identity to undermine individuals’ credibility as authoritative “knowers” of their own bodies, selves, and experiences.
AMA J Ethics. 2024;26(1):E72-83. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2024.72.
Instead of succumbing to the urge to portray cultural differences as a dichotomy between clashing opposites, we should endeavor to note our common humanity, acknowledge the plurality of viewpoints within a given culture, and appreciate that cultures can evolve without being untrue to themselves.
State laws prohibiting sodomy were on the books throughout US history until struck down by the US Supreme Court, which argued in Lawrence v Texas (2003) that the state cannot criminalize private sexual conduct.
Amanda Fakih, MHSA and Kayte Spector-Bagdady, JD, MBE
Testing everyone for everything identifies more fetal conditions, but confusion persists about whether clinicians should leave screening decisions to patients.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(10):E858-864. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.858.
An argument that the concept of judicious dissent can resolve the debate over a physician’s conscience-based right to refuse to provide lawful services.
An argument that an individual physician’s conscience-based decision not to offer specific, lawful medical services should not restrict patients’ access to those services.