Clinically and ethically relevant questions are related to patient safety, therapeutic efficacy, equitable access, and global governance over humanity’s genetic legacy.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1079-1088. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1079.
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.
Ashok, a Nepali man with neurofibromatosis, has undergone 3 surgeries to remove facially disfiguring tumors. His portrait is one of over 200 exhibited by this artist-researcher and mother.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(6):E513-524. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.513.
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.
Kyle B. Brothers, MD, PhD and Esther E. Knapp, MD, MBE
Direct-to-consumer genetic testing requires that physicians share decision making with patients, not order unnecessary tests or interventions, and refer to genetic specialists when necessary.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E812-818. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.812.
The meaning of “disability” has shifted with US public policy changes over time. People with disability are protected under civil rights law, and open questions remain about whether and when policy-level interventions and reasonable accommodations create equal opportunity.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(10):1025-1033. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.10.pfor2-1610.