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.
Using the patient’s worldview to challenge his or her decision and establish a treatment plan—implying the view is shared by the physician when it is not—could be seen as manipulative and deceptive.
Dr Charles E. Binkley joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article: "How Should Surgeons Communicate About Palliative and Curative Intentions, Purposes, and Outcomes?"
Drs Michael Young, Robert Regenhardt, and Leonard Sokol join Ethics Talk to discuss their article, coauthored with Dr Thabele Leslie-Mazwi: "When Should Neuroendovascular Care for Patients With Acute Stroke Be Palliative?"
A patient’s transition from “living” to “dying” is not socially marked in the same way death is marked, and this is both clinically and ethically relevant.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(12):E1062-1066. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.1062.
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.