How can clinicians respond to the health challenges associated with global climate change? This month on Ethics Talk, we learn about how art can communicate the health effects of climate change, the challenges that hot and humid days pose for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and what the global health risk of climate change means for individual clinicians.
Global health outreach programs can risk benefitting students from resource-rich areas of the world more than the patients in resource-poor areas of the world. This month’s episode of Ethics Talk explores an alternative to academic health center-based health outreach programs.
Labels commonly used in clinical settings, like “elective” or “therapeutic,” influence how we think about the justifiability of abortion. We talk with Professor Katie Watson and Dr Maryl Sackeim about how the language clinicians use to describe abortion can affect patients’ experiences and even cause harm.
Dr Esha Bansal joins Ethics Talk to discuss her article, coauthored with Drs Saran Kunaprayoon and Linda P. Zhang: “Opportunities for Global Health Diplomacy in Transnational Robotic Telesurgery.”
Dr Amy Collins joins Ethics Talk to discuss her article, coauthored with Dr Shanda Demorest: “How Should We Respond to Health Care Generating Environmental Harm?”
Dr Isa Ryan joins Ethics Talk to discuss her article, coauthored with Dr Ashish Premkumar and Professor Katie Watson: “Why the Post-Roe Era Requires Protecting Conscientious Provision as We Protect Conscientious Refusal in Health Care.”
Dr Anne Graff LaDisa joins Ethics Talk to discuss her article, coauthored with Drs Erica Chou, Amy Zelenski, and Sara Lauck: “How to Use Improv to Help Interprofessional Students Respond to Status and Hierarchy in Clinical Practice.”
Professor Katie Watson joins Ethics Talk to discuss what clinicians need to know about changes to the post-June 2022 legal, ethical, and clinical landscape of abortion care in the US.
Professor Michele Bratcher Goodwin joins Ethics Talk to consider how members of different US Supreme Courts have interpreted the US Constitution in ways that have supported or undermined liberty in surprising ways.
