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.
International debate about human genome editing governance has undergone a paradigm shift and suggests that inclusive public deliberation is still important.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1065-1070. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1065.
The DSM-5 Task Force’s handling of the ethical controversy over the bereavement exclusion demonstrates the need for more inclusive deliberative processes.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(2):192-198. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.pfor2-1702.
Women who are pregnant might not treat their mental illnesses because they overestimate risks of medication and underestimate risks of leaving their illness untreated.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(6):614-623. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.6.stas1-1606.
John is one patient-sitter whose cancer and portraiture experiences illuminate what it means to witness, to express regard for another’s difficult health and health care experiences.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(6):E470-475. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.470.
Lisa is one patient-sitter who took comfort in the permanence of portraiture amidst the uncertainties of tongue cancer. Her experience offers an abundance of lessons for art and healing.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(6):E482-487. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.482.