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.
Claudia O. Gambrah-Sampaney, MD, Jesse E. Passman, MD, MPH, Andrielle Yost, MPA, and Glen N. Gaulton, PhD
In the past decade, more students than ever entered medical school with the desire, if not the expectation, of participating in meaningful global health experiences.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(9):E772-777. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.772.
How would gathering preclinical data and improving research infrastructure facilitate clearer definitions of “population vulnerability” and “risk acceptability”?
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(1):E43-49. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.43.
Wandy D. Hernandez-Gordon, CD(DONA), BDT(DONA), CLC, CCE(ACBE)
CHWs’ work underscores need for clinicians and organizations to respond to deeply entrenched, long-standing patterns of oppression in ways that draw upon lived experience.
AMA J Ethics. 2022;24(4):E333-339. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2022.333.
On this episode of Ethics Talk, Zahra H. Khan, Yoshiko Iwai, and Dr Sayantani DasGupta outline how “abolition medicine” can motivate critical responses to medicine’s expressions of hyper-punitive, deeply racialized exercises of state authority.