Gene editing reminds professionals and the public that this technology’s reach goes beyond treating somatic disease to germline consequences yet unknown.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1056-1058. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1056.
International debate about human genome editing governance has undergone a paradigm shift and suggests that inclusive public deliberation is still important.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1065-1070. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1065.
The DSM-5 Task Force’s handling of the ethical controversy over the bereavement exclusion demonstrates the need for more inclusive deliberative processes.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(2):192-198. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.pfor2-1702.
Going to so-called safety-net clinics could mean being subject to different standards of care than those in other health care delivery settings. Learners who understand social determinants of health might be able to help patients navigate the system and access community resources.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(1):E44-49. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.44.
Michael Anderson, PhD and Susan Leigh Anderson, PhD
Two concerns (unknowability of how output is derived from input and overreliance on clinical decision support systems) are main sources of ethical questions about AI in health care.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(2):E125-130. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.125.
Some physicians who value collective bargaining remain concerned that patient services could suffer, but unionization can be driven by a focus on improving care.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(3):E193-200. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.193.