Gene editing with CRISPR/Cas9 raises concerns about equitable access to therapies that could limit research participation by minority group members. These concerns can be addressed through public education, transparency, and stakeholder partnerships.

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.

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.

Cytopathologists frequently interact directly with patients at their bedsides to perform fine needle aspiration procedures. When, if ever, should cytopathologists share preliminary diagnostic impressions directly with patients?

The DDR requires organ donors to be dead according to legal criteria prior to organ removal, and it’s rooted in fears of civil and criminal liability.

The Holocaust and the racial hygiene doctrine that helped rationalize it still overshadow contemporary debates about using gene editing for disease prevention.

Equal access is a goal even when patients present with taboo illnesses. But, the date of a patient’s last drink still matters.

Invisibility of racial inequity and gender inclusion in clinical research means key features of disease etiology and symptom presentation are unaccounted for.

A 3-panel comic illustrates an offer of data to pay for health care services.

Once focused on hospital liability, risk managers now navigate a broader set of enterprise risk management responsibilities.