Considering Dignity of Risk in the Care of People with Intellectual Disabilities: A Clinical Perspective.

The dignity of risk implies respect for individuals' right to make their own decisions, to participate in a broad range of desired activities, even if those activities have risk, and to expose themselves to potential consequences or learning opportunities. Historically, a more paternalistic approach, done as a benevolent assurance of safety, has been taken with individuals with intellectual disabilities. While optimizing safety, this approach can limit opportunity and, more importantly, limit the dignity of the individual.

If Not Now, Then When? Taking Disability Seriously in Bioethics.

The impression of bioethicists as "dangerous," as articulated in Mouth Magazine in 1994, has continued to be a theme in the disability movement. We respond to three common responses by bioethicists to this impression-namely, this is from the past, and bioethicists are different now; this is an angry and extremist position; and the Americans with Disabilities Act and other disability rights and justice efforts have solved historical inequities. We draw on the historical record and on our collective experiences as bioethicists engaged in clinical consultation and education and as the founding, former, and current directors of a program focused on disability and rehabilitation ethics to argue that ableism and unexamined assumptions about people with disabilities have persisted in bioethics despite decades of counternarratives, research, and divergent perspectives.

Ableism at the Bedside: People with Intellectual Disabilities and COVID-19.

People with intellectual and developmental disabilities have a higher risk of mortality from COVID-19 than the general population. Providers may assume that this is due to the burden of comorbidities for this population; however, the disparity in mortality persists even when controlling for comorbidities. We review the current policies and practices that may be contributing to this higher level of mortality.

Disability activism and non-invasive prenatal testing: A response to Breimer.

In his recent Comment in IJME, Dr Breimer casts disability advocates as "special interest groups" and pits them against the abstracted concept of "women's autonomy." Against this, we assert that, far from only being a conflict of interest category, disability activism related to prenatal screening and testing is a robust part of bioethical debate and scholarship. Here, we disagree with Dr Breimer's characterisation of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) related disability activism as a threat to women's autonomy and respond to the underlying assumptions of his claims.

Drama and Trauma: Unpacking Moral Distress in the Context of Discharge Planning.

This series of personal stories about hospital discharge experiences expose how fraught this transition can be. Not only do the authors reveal personal angst, feelings of endangerment, frank safety problems, lack of structural supports, but even more concerning are their perceptions of callous disregard, lack of adequate preparation and education, and unilateral decision-making by the health care teams. The "invisible hand" of our corporate health care system percolates, with some authors questioning whether the health professionals are advocating for their (i.

Exploring Cancer Treatment Experiences for Patients With Preexisting Mobility Disability.

Objective: We explored the process of cancer care for patients with preexisting mobility disability, focusing on treatment decisions and experiences.

Design: We recruited 20 participants with preexisting mobility disability, requiring use of an assistive device or assistance with activities of daily living, subsequently diagnosed with cancer (excluding skin cancers). We conducted open-ended individual interviews, which reached data saturation and were transcribed verbatim for conventional content analysis.

Leading Practices and Future Directions for Technical Standards in Medical Education.

The medical profession first addressed the need for technical standards (TS), defining the nonacademic requirements deemed essential for participation in an educational program, in guidelines published by the Association of American Medical Colleges in 1979. Despite many changes in the practice of medicine and legal, cultural, and technological advances that afford greater opportunities for people with disabilities, the profession's approach to TS largely has not changed over the ensuing four decades. Although physicians with disabilities bring unique perspectives to medicine and contribute to a diverse physician workforce of culturally competent practitioners, they remain underrepresented in the profession.