Although advisory groups like the World Health Organization question whether certain forms of gene editing should be permitted, the US Patent Office routinely issues patents protecting this technology.
AMA J Ethics. 2019; 21(12):E1049-1055. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1049.
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.
Workplace wellness programs contribute to the wellness movement by enlisting nontraditional health partners and influencing social determinants of health.
AMA J Ethics. 2016; 18(4):393-398. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.4.nlit1-1604.
A look at current literature and work by a statewide initiative can motivate development of policies that help respond to unrepresented patients’ needs.
AMA J Ethics. 2019; 21(7):E611-616. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.611.