Physician advocacy for climate change mitigation is justified by seven criteria including physicians’ efficacy, expertise, public trust, and proximity.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1202-1210. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.msoc1-1712.
Climate change mitigation reforms of government policy, medical curricula, and health professions organizations should be the focus of physician advocacy.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1222-1237. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.sect1-1712.
Should a family’s ability to afford follow-up care for a child who needs “miracle surgery” play a role in the physician’s decision to operate? Would the answer change depending on the patient’s immigration status?
The adverse health effects of climate change should be the focus of physician advocacy efforts and of conversations between physicians and their patients.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1174-1182. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.ecas3-1712.
False clinical and ethical dilemmas may be created when physicians ignore patient characteristics and contexts that are integral to shared decision making.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(2):141-146. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.ecas1-1702.
Abraar Karan, MD, Daniel DeUgarte, MD, and Michele Barry, MD
Responsibility for physician “brain drain” can be attributed to the resource-poor countries that lose talent, the wealthy recruiting countries, and individuals.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(7):665-675. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.7.ecas1-1607.