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.
Charles E. Binkley, MD, Michael S. Politz, MA, and Brian P. Green, PhD
If the safe-and-effective standard for judging devices’ potential as therapy or enhancement is inadequate, one might wonder whether BCI regulation should be overseen by the FDA.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(9):E745-749. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.745.
Dr Charles Binkley joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article, coauthored with Michael Politz and Dr Brian Green: "Who, If Not the FDA, Should Regulate Implantable Brain-Computer Interface Devices?"
Transitions in relabeling personalized medicine as precision medicine, precision health, or wellness genomics reflect shifting the locus of responsibility for health from individuals to clinicians and in shifting focus from genetic risk to genetic enhancement.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E881-890. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.881.
This portrait of a child against a backdrop of health data suggests how a patient’s individuality can be obscured when precision medicine is used in decision making and developing target therapies.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E891-893. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.891.
Large precision health initiatives like the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us campaign raise important ethical questions about consent, privacy, and inclusivity. This month on Ethics Talk, we explore with Dr Katie Johansen Taber and Ysabel Duron strategies for protecting participants and ensuring that diverse communities are represented.