The allocation of scarce resources, such as HLA platelets, involves a conflict between the medical ethics principles of beneficence and social justice.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(8):764-770. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.8.ecas1-1608.
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.
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.
After years of funding disease-specific treatment, donation trends have shifted to support broader health systems infrastructure development. A remaining challenge is how to sustain antiretroviral therapy (ART) for patients in resource-poor regions.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(7):681-690. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.7.ecas3-1607.
Lydia Smeltz, Susan M. Havercamp, PhD, and Lisa Meeks, PhD, MA
Lack of disability-competent health care contributes to inequitable health outcomes for persons with disabilities, the largest minoritized population in the world.
AMA J Ethics. 2024;26(1):E54-61. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2024.54.
Jonathan S. Towner, PhD, Luke Nyakarahuka, PhD, MPH, BVM, and Patrick Atimnedi, BVM
Marburg virus is carried by the Egyptian rousette bat, a common cave-dwelling fruit bat endemic to sub-Saharan Africa, where populations can exceed 50 000.
AMA J Ethics. 2024;26(2):E109-115. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2024.109.
Some disability advocates take issue with the “normalization” goals of the medical model of rehabilitation, but expressions of that position can be dismissive of rehabilitationists’ efforts to remediate oppressive functional deficits.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(6):562-567. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.6.msoc1-1506.