Search Results Search Sort by RelevanceMost Recent In the Literature Apr 2016 A Defense of “The Case for Conserving Disability” Jasmine Zahid Rosemarie Garland-Thomson’s argument for disability as a sociocultural resource challenges the commonsense understanding of disability as a deficit. AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(4):399-405. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.4.nlit2-1604. State of the Art and Science Apr 2016 Keeping the Backdoor to Eugenics Ajar?: Disability and the Future of Prenatal Screening Gareth M. Thomas, PhD and Barbara Katz Rothman, PhD Noninvasive prenatal testing arguably constitutes a form of eugenics in a social context in which certain reproductive outcomes are not valued. AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(4):406-415. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.4.stas1-1604. History of Medicine Apr 2022 Why Restoring Birth as Ceremony Can Promote Health Equity Marinah V. Farrell Until the mid-20th century, birth in the United States for Latinx Indigenous peoples was an ancestral ceremony guided by midwives and traditional healers. AMA J Ethics. 2022;24(4):E326-332. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2022.326. Case and Commentary Mar 2022 Alignment of Abolition Medicine With Reproductive Justice Crystal M. Hayes, PhD, MSW and Anu Manchikanti Gomez, PhD Abolition medicine and reproductive justice are synergistic approaches that advance a radical vision of a racially just world. AMA J Ethics. 2022;24(3):E188-193. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2022.188. Case and Commentary Feb 2005 Quality of Life and Prenatal Decisions, Commentary 1 Ludger Schols, MD Virtual Mentor. 2005;7(2):136-140. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2005.7.2.ccas1-0502. Case and Commentary Feb 2005 Quality of Life and Prenatal Decisions, Commentary 2 Georg Marckmann, MD Virtual Mentor. 2005;7(2):136-140. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2005.7.2.ccas1-0502. Viewpoint Jan 2006 Is Prenatal Genetic Screening Unjustly Discriminatory? Jeff McMahan, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2006;8(1):50-52. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2006.8.1.oped1-0601. Viewpoint Jan 2006 The Uncertain Rationale for Prenatal Disability Screening David Wasserman, JD and Adrienne Asch, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2006;8(1):53-56. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2006.8.1.oped2-0601. Policy Forum May 2007 The Principle of Double Effect and Proportionate Reason Nicholas J. Kockler, MS, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2007;9(5):369-374. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2007.9.5.pfor2-0705. Viewpoint Oct 2005 Teens Deserve More than Abstinence-Only Education Debra Hauser Virtual Mentor. 2005;7(10):710-715. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2005.7.10.oped2-0510. Pagination Current page 1 Page 2 Next page Next › Last page Last »
In the Literature Apr 2016 A Defense of “The Case for Conserving Disability” Jasmine Zahid Rosemarie Garland-Thomson’s argument for disability as a sociocultural resource challenges the commonsense understanding of disability as a deficit. AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(4):399-405. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.4.nlit2-1604.
State of the Art and Science Apr 2016 Keeping the Backdoor to Eugenics Ajar?: Disability and the Future of Prenatal Screening Gareth M. Thomas, PhD and Barbara Katz Rothman, PhD Noninvasive prenatal testing arguably constitutes a form of eugenics in a social context in which certain reproductive outcomes are not valued. AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(4):406-415. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.4.stas1-1604.
History of Medicine Apr 2022 Why Restoring Birth as Ceremony Can Promote Health Equity Marinah V. Farrell Until the mid-20th century, birth in the United States for Latinx Indigenous peoples was an ancestral ceremony guided by midwives and traditional healers. AMA J Ethics. 2022;24(4):E326-332. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2022.326.
Case and Commentary Mar 2022 Alignment of Abolition Medicine With Reproductive Justice Crystal M. Hayes, PhD, MSW and Anu Manchikanti Gomez, PhD Abolition medicine and reproductive justice are synergistic approaches that advance a radical vision of a racially just world. AMA J Ethics. 2022;24(3):E188-193. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2022.188.
Case and Commentary Feb 2005 Quality of Life and Prenatal Decisions, Commentary 1 Ludger Schols, MD Virtual Mentor. 2005;7(2):136-140. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2005.7.2.ccas1-0502.
Case and Commentary Feb 2005 Quality of Life and Prenatal Decisions, Commentary 2 Georg Marckmann, MD Virtual Mentor. 2005;7(2):136-140. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2005.7.2.ccas1-0502.
Viewpoint Jan 2006 Is Prenatal Genetic Screening Unjustly Discriminatory? Jeff McMahan, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2006;8(1):50-52. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2006.8.1.oped1-0601.
Viewpoint Jan 2006 The Uncertain Rationale for Prenatal Disability Screening David Wasserman, JD and Adrienne Asch, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2006;8(1):53-56. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2006.8.1.oped2-0601.
Policy Forum May 2007 The Principle of Double Effect and Proportionate Reason Nicholas J. Kockler, MS, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2007;9(5):369-374. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2007.9.5.pfor2-0705.
Viewpoint Oct 2005 Teens Deserve More than Abstinence-Only Education Debra Hauser Virtual Mentor. 2005;7(10):710-715. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2005.7.10.oped2-0510.