Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics in Academic Medicine

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Changing Landscape of Academic Women's Health Care in the United States

Part of the book series: International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine ((LIME,volume 48))

  • 452 Accesses

Abstract

Membership in academic medicine carries with it special challenges and responsibilities in such matters as patient-physician relations, physician conduct and practice, and conflict of interest. This chapter addresses a limited selection of ethical issues in academic medicine that particularly apply to women’s healthcare.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. World Health Organization. 2009. Women and health: Today’s evidence, tomorrow’s agenda. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241563857_eng.pdf.

  2. Jonsen, A.R. 1998. The birth of bioethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. 2007. Committee Opinion #390: Ethical decision making in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstetrics & Gynecology 110(6):1479–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beauchamp, T., and J. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Little, M. 1996. Why a Feminist approach to bioethics? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 6(1):1–18.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rayburn, W.F., B.L. Anderson, J.V. Johnson, M.A. McReynolds, and J. Schulkin. 2010. Trends in the academic workforce in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstetrics & Gynecology 115(1):141–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. 2003. Common program requirements for duty hours. Chicago, IL: ACGME.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Faden, R.R., and T.L. Beauchamp. 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. 2007. Committee opinion 385: The limits of conscientious refusal in reproductive medicine. Obstetrics & Gynecology 110:1203–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tang, T.S., and E.P. Skye. 2009. When patients decline medical student participation: the preceptor’s perspective. Advances in Health Sciences Education 14:645–653.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. 2009. Committee opinion number 439: Informed consent, August 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Studdert, D.M., M.M. Mello, and T.A. Brennan. 2004. Financial conflicts of interest in physicians’ relationships with the pharmaceutical industry—self-regulation in the shadow of federal prosecution. New England Journal of Medicine 351:1891–1900.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Katz, D., A.L. Caplan, and J.F. Merz. 2003. All gifts large and small: Toward an understanding of the ethics of pharmaceutical industry gift-giving. American Journal of Bioethics 3(3):39–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wazana, A. 2000. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: Is a gift ever just a gift? Journal of the American Medical Association 283:373–380.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Brennan, T.A., D.J. Rothman, L. Blank, D. Blumenthal, S.C. Chimonas, J.J. Cohen, J. Goldman, J.P. Kassirer, H. Kimball, J. Naughton, and N. Smelser. 2006. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: A policy proposal for academic medical centers. Journal of the American Medical Association 295(4):429–433

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rothman, D.J., and S. Chimonas. 2008. New developments in managing physician-industry relationships. Journal of the American Medical Association 300(9):1067–1069.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. 2008. Committee opinion #401: Relationships with industry. Obstetrics & Gynecology 111(3):799–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Singer, N. 2010. Stanford Medical School to expand ethics rules. New York Times, 21 Mar 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lyerly, A.D. 2009. Review of test tube families: Why the fertility market needs regulation, by Naomi Kahn. New England Journal of Medicine 310:429–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lyerly, A.D. 2010. Marking the fine line: Ethics and the regulation of innovative technologies in human reproduction. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 11(2):685–712.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wall, L. 2010. The perils of commercially driven surgical innovation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 202:30.e1–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Knowles, L., and G. Kaebnick, eds. 2007. Reprogenetics: Law, policy and ethical issues. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mastroianni, A.C., R.R. Faden, and D. Federman, eds. 1994. Women and health research: Ethical and legal issues of including women in clinical studies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lyerly, A.D., L.M. Mitchell, E.M. Armstrong, L.H. Harris, R. Kukla, M. Kuppermann, and M. Little. 2009. Risk and the pregnant body. Hastings Center Report 39(6):34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lyerly, A.D., M.O. Little, and R. Faden. 2008. Pregnancy and clinical research. Hastings Center Report 38(6):53.

    Google Scholar 

  26. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. 2006. Committee opinion #352: Innovative practice: Ethical guidelines. Obstetrics & Gynecology 108(6):1589–1595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. DeBruin, D. 1994. Justice and the inclusion of women in clinical studies: A conceptual framework. In Women and health research: Ethical and legal issues of including women in clinical studies, vol 2, eds. A. Mastroianni, R. Faden, and D. Federman D. Workshop and Commissioned Papers, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, pp. 127–150.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rosenwaks, Z., and K. Bedikson. 2007. Further evidence of the safety of assisted reproductive technologies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:5709–5710.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Manipalviratn, S., A. DeCherney, and J. Segars. 2009. Imprinting disorders and assisted reproductive technology. Fertility and Sterility 91:305–315.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Reefhuis, J., M.A. Honein, L.A. Schieve, A. Correa, C.A. Hobbs, S.A. Rasmusses, and the National Birth Defects Prevention Study. 2008. Assisted reproductive technology and major structural birth defects in the United States. Human Reproduction 24:360–366.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kolata, G. 2009. Picture emerging on genetic risks of IVF. New York Times, 17 Feb 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Myers, E.R., D.C. McCrory, A.A. Mills, T.M. Price, G.K. Swamy, J. Tantibhedhyangkul, J.M. Wu, and D.B. Matchar. 2008. Effectiveness of assisted reproductive technology. Evidence Report Technology Assessment May(167):1–195.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lyerly, A.D., M.O. Little, and R. Faden. 2008. The second wave: Responsible inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1(2):5–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Chambers, C.D., J.E. Polifka, and J.M. Friedman. 2008. Drug safety in pregnant women and their babies: Ignorance not bliss. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 83(1):181–183.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Little, M., A.D. Lyerly, and R. Faden. 2009. Pregnant women and medical research: A moral imperative. Bioethics Forum 2:60–65.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lyerly, A.D., M.O. Little, and R. Faden. 2009. The national children’s study: A golden opportunity to advance the health of Pregnant women. American Journal of Public Health 99:1742–1745.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Heilman, M. 2001. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues 57:657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Valian, V. 2000. Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Carnes, M., and C. Bland. 2007. A challenge to academic health centers in the National Institutes of Health to prevent unintended gender bias in the selection of Clinical and Translational Science Award leaders. Academic Medicine 82(2):202–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Stone, P. 2007. Opting out? Why women really quit careers and head home. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Carnes, M., G. Vandenbosche, P. Agatisa, A. Hirschfeld, A. Dan, J.L.F. Shaver, D. Murasco, and M. McLaughlin. 2001. Using women’s health research to develop women leaders in academic health sciences: The national centers of excellence in women’s health. Journal of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Medicine 10(1):39–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Fels, A. 2004. Necessary dreams: Ambition in women’s changing lives. New York, NY: Random House, 9.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Conrad, P., P. Carr, S. Knight, M.R. Renfrew, M.B. Dunn, and L. Pololi. 2010. Hierarchy as a barrier to advancement for women in academic medicine. Journal of Womens Health 19(4):799–805.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Goodin, R.E. 1985. Protecting the vulnerable: A reanalysis of our social responsibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Fernandez Lynch, H. 2008. Conflicts of conscience in health care: An institutional compromise. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Charo, A. 2005. The celestial fire of conscience – refusing to deliver medical care. New England Journal of Medicine 352:2471–2473.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. 2007. Committee Opinion 385: The limits of conscientious refusal in reproductive medicine. Obstetrics & Gynecology 110(5):1203–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Savulescu, J. 2006. Conscientious objection in medicine. British Medical Journal 332(7536):294–297.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Curlin, F.A. 2008. Patient Rights vs. doctor conscience. Grand Rapids, MI: DeVos Medical Ethics Colloquy.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law, 73 Fed. Reg. 78,072, 78,073 (Dec. 19, 2008) (to be codified at 45 C.F.R. pt. 88).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Walker, J. 2009. The Bush administration’s midnight provider refusal rule: Upsetting the emerging balance in state pharmacist refusal laws. Houston Law Review (46):939–974.

    Google Scholar 

  52. National Women’s Law Center. 2008. What are some key organizations saying about the proposed HHS rule? Available at http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/keyorgsonhhsrule.pdf.

  53. American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. 2007. Report 6-A-07: Physician objection to treatment and individual patient discrimination (Resolution 5, A-06).

    Google Scholar 

  54. UK General Medical Council. 2008, Mar. Personal beliefs and medical practice: Guidance for doctors. Available at http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/personal_beliefs.asp#1.

  55. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. 2009. Policy statement – Physician refusal to provide information or treatment on the basis of claims of conscience. Pediatrics 124(6):1689–1693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Stout, D. 2009. Obama set to undo “conscience” rule for health workers. New York Times, 27 Feb 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  57. National Women’s Law Center. 2011. HHS Rescinds Portions of HHS Rule that Threatened Women’s Health. Available at http://www.nwlc.org/resource/hhs-rescinds-portions-health-care-denial-rule-threatened-women%E2%80%99s-health#HHS%20PDF.

  58. Dresser, R.S. 1994. Freedom of conscience, professional responsibility, and access to abortion. Freedom of conscience, professional responsibility, and access to abortion. Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics. 22(3):280–285.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Rooks, J. 1997. Midwifery and childbirth in America. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Executive Board. 2007, May. Statement of Policy: Home births in the United States.

    Google Scholar 

  61. American Medical Association House of Delegates. 2008. Resolution A-05, 208. Statement on home deliveries. Available at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/471/205.doc

  62. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. 2011. Committee opinion #476: Planned home birth. Obstetrics and Gynecology 117(2):425–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Medicine and Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA

    Anne Drapkin Lyerly

Authors
  1. Anne Drapkin Lyerly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Drapkin Lyerly .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Copper Rose St. NE., 6112, Albuquerque, 87111, New Mexico, USA

    William F. Rayburn

  2. 12th Street SW 409, Washington, 20024, District of Columbia, USA

    Jay Schulkin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lyerly, A.D. (2011). Ethics in Academic Medicine. In: Rayburn, W., Schulkin, J. (eds) Changing Landscape of Academic Women's Health Care in the United States. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 48. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0931-7_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0931-7_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-0930-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-0931-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation