The risks of misinformation being spread through online patient forums can be mitigated by communication strategies aimed at physicians and organizations.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(11):1088-1095. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.11.ecas3-1711.
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.
Carly P. Smith, PhD and Daniel R. George, PhD, MSc
Invisibility of racial inequity and gender inclusion in clinical research means key features of disease etiology and symptom presentation are unaccounted for.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(7):E563-568. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.563.
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.
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.