Mandatory genetic testing of health care professionals could help structure health care organizations’ responses to a pandemic. Patients and more susceptible employees can benefit, and these benefits must be weighed against concerns about fairness, autonomy, genetic privacy, and potential loss of employment opportunities.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E819-825. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.819.
Holly K. Tabor, PhD and Aaron Goldenberg, PhD, MPH
Rare genetic disease research has something to teach precision medicine about addressing some patients’ limited access to treatment. Health disparities exacerbated by high costs and limited availability of drugs can, perhaps, be mitigated when patient activism accelerates drug development.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E834-840. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.834.
Rebekah Davis Reed, PhD, JD and Erik L. Antonsen, PhD, MD
Though the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s collection of disaggregated genetic data for occupational surveillance and research raises numerous privacy concerns, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 allows genetic information to be used to develop personal pharmaceuticals.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E849-856. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.849.
The law and medical ethics demand reconsideration of inflexible technical standards that are vulnerable to litigation under disability discrimination laws.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(10):1010-1016. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.10.hlaw1-1610.
Lisa M. Meeks, PhD and Christopher Moreland, MD, MPH
Obstacles for applicants with disabilities illuminate admission practices that could help craft a clinical workforce that is appropriately diverse and prepared to give just, patient-centered care.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(12):E987-994. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.987.
The Holocaust and the racial hygiene doctrine that helped rationalize it still overshadow contemporary debates about using gene editing for disease prevention.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(1):E49-54. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.49.
Clinicians must avoid violating professional ethical principles and patients’ legal rights and they may not ever discriminate. So, what does that mean in practice?
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(3):229-236. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.3.ecas4-1603.
Deception’s justifiability might depend on clinicians’ commitment to solidarity and awareness of social determinants of patients’ vulnerability to HIV infection.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(5):E382-387. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.382.