Gene editing to enhance humans’ adaptability to climate change should consider safety, harm to be averted, succeeding generations, and social consequences.
AMA J Ethics. 2017; 19(12):1186-1192. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.stas1-1712.
Joel A. DeLisa, MD, MS and Jacob Jay Lindenthal, PhD, DrPH
Research on experiences of practicing physicians who have disabilities could help medical schools counsel applicants and increase enrollment among students with disabilities. This can ultimately improve care for patients with disabilities.
Amy Scharf(理学硕士), Louis Voigt(医学博士), Santosha Vardhana(医学博士、哲学博士), Konstantina Matsoukas(图书情报硕士), Lisa M. Wall(哲学博士、注册护士、临床护理专家、高级肿瘤临床护理专家、已获认证的医疗保健伦理顾问), Maria Arevalo(注册护士、肿瘤专科护士), and Lisa C. Diamond(医学博士、公共卫生硕士)
Amy Schart, MS, Louis Voigt, MD, Santosha Vardhana, MD, PhD, Konstantina Matsoukas, MLIS, Lisa M. Wall, PhD, RN, CNS, AOCNS, HEC-C, María Arévalo, RN, OCN, and Lisa C. Diamond, MD, MPH
The Holocaust and the racial hygiene doctrine that helped rationalize it still overshadow contemporary debates about using gene editing for disease prevention.
Amy Scharf, MS, Louis Voigt, MD, Santosha Vardhana, MD, PhD, Konstantina Matsoukas, MLIS, Lisa M. Wall, PhD, RN, CNS, AOCNS, HEC-C, Maria Arevalo, RN, OCN, and Lisa C. Diamond, MD, MPH
Patients’ cultural, religious, and social norms deserve respect, but some decisions’ effects on patients’ outcomes can be unjust and ethically troubling.