professional association

American Medical Association

Industry Health

A national physician professional association whose ethics code condemns unreasonable restraint while still giving physicians professional permission to order involuntary chemical or physical restraint. American Medical Association remains weak because of documented human harm, person-dependent governance, and coercive violence, even where the product or service has practical value.

Why this matters: AMA ethics is a major professional legitimacy layer for medicine; its restraint exceptions help normalize bodily coercion in hospitals and psychiatric settings where patients have weak practical power.

Letter grade D Extractive High confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 11, 2026

Final Score 6* D - Extractive

DEXTRACTIVE6 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material29

Bonus+0

Cap41Ownership <= 4 and Governance <= 4

After Cap29

Penalties-23

Private Government badge

American Medical Association receives the Private Government badge because it combines large-scale private rule-setting over customers, workers, users, members, or counterparties with OpenLobby-documented lobbying of about $922K on public policy issues.

Evidence: [15]

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

D - Extractive

The score turns mainly on Ownership, with the largest penalty coming from Human Harm.

Strengths

Ownership4/10
Governance4/10
Extraction4/10

Penalties

Human Harm-6
Policy Capture-6
Reversibility-5
Coercive Violence-4

Evidence state

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessPartial (AI)
Linked claims15
Direct axis claims14
Coverage14/14

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	4 / 10	The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. That places American Medical Association in the middle of Ownership: there is some mission, member, producer, or public-interest constraint, but decisive control is not fully democratic. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 110 scored entries below, 7 tied, 109 above on Ownership. Linked evidence context The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. [1] context AMA ethics formally recognizes a right against unreasonable bodily restraint, but it still gives physicians professional permission to order involuntary chemical or physical restraint in danger-framed situations; in institutions where patients have little practical power, that exception can legitimize coercive practices that are vulnerable to overuse and abuse. [2] The American Medical Association is a professional physician association, so institutional authority is held through physician membership and association governance rather than by patients affected by medical rules. [3]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	4 / 10	The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. That places American Medical Association in the middle of Governance: there are accountability mechanisms, but they stop short of broad democratic control. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 108 scored entries below, 18 tied, 100 above on Governance. Uncertainty Priority page: add more axis-specific research over time to make the comparative placement harder to dispute. Linked evidence The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. [1] context AMA ethics formally recognizes a right against unreasonable bodily restraint, but it still gives physicians professional permission to order involuntary chemical or physical restraint in danger-framed situations; in institutions where patients have little practical power, that exception can legitimize coercive practices that are vulnerable to overuse and abuse. [2]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	4 / 10	The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. That places American Medical Association in the middle of Extraction: the institution creates real value but still leaves room for rent extraction, unequal bargaining, or surplus capture. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 62 scored entries below, 32 tied, 132 above on Extraction. Linked evidence context The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. [1] context AMA ethics formally recognizes a right against unreasonable bodily restraint, but it still gives physicians professional permission to order involuntary chemical or physical restraint in danger-framed situations; in institutions where patients have little practical power, that exception can legitimize coercive practices that are vulnerable to overuse and abuse. [2] AMA professional authority creates value through medical ethics and policy infrastructure, but that authority can extract legitimacy from patients when contested coercive practices are defined by physicians rather than affected people. [4]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	3 / 7	The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. That places American Medical Association in the middle of Labor Sovereignty: workers or participants have some protection or agency, but not enough binding power to control the relationship. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 45 scored entries below, 66 tied, 115 above on Labor Sovereignty. Linked evidence context The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. [1] context AMA ethics formally recognizes a right against unreasonable bodily restraint, but it still gives physicians professional permission to order involuntary chemical or physical restraint in danger-framed situations; in institutions where patients have little practical power, that exception can legitimize coercive practices that are vulnerable to overuse and abuse. [2] The AMA restraint ethics record concerns physician authority over patient bodies, not worker or patient sovereignty over the institutional conditions in which restraint is ordered. [5]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	2 / 7	The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. That keeps American Medical Association low on Solidarity with the Unemployed: the model provides little protection for people who leave, are excluded, or cannot bargain from employment. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 31 scored entries below, 49 tied, 146 above on Solidarity with the Unemployed. Linked evidence context The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. [1] context AMA ethics formally recognizes a right against unreasonable bodily restraint, but it still gives physicians professional permission to order involuntary chemical or physical restraint in danger-framed situations; in institutions where patients have little practical power, that exception can legitimize coercive practices that are vulnerable to overuse and abuse. [2] AMA policy and ethics work can improve medical standards, but the sourced record does not show a structure specifically protecting people without employment, insurance, or professional power. [6]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	3 / 7	The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. That places American Medical Association in the middle of Loss-Bearing Fidelity: there is some willingness to preserve obligations, but the record still leaves meaningful risk-shifting concerns. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 48 scored entries below, 39 tied, 139 above on Loss-Bearing Fidelity. Linked evidence context The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. [1] context AMA ethics formally recognizes a right against unreasonable bodily restraint, but it still gives physicians professional permission to order involuntary chemical or physical restraint in danger-framed situations; in institutions where patients have little practical power, that exception can legitimize coercive practices that are vulnerable to overuse and abuse. [2] AMA ethics limits restraint in principle while still permitting physician-ordered chemical or physical restraint in danger-framed situations, leaving patients to bear serious bodily-risk costs when the system fails. [7]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	3 / 5	The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. That places American Medical Association in the middle of Market Conduct: the product has real value but still uses meaningful lock-in, gatekeeping, market power, or dependency. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 54 scored entries below, 51 tied, 121 above on Market Conduct. Linked evidence context The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. [1] context AMA ethics formally recognizes a right against unreasonable bodily restraint, but it still gives physicians professional permission to order involuntary chemical or physical restraint in danger-framed situations; in institutions where patients have little practical power, that exception can legitimize coercive practices that are vulnerable to overuse and abuse. [2] The AMA combines professional standard-setting with documented healthcare lobbying, making its market conduct partly a private professional influence over public medical rules. [8]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	3 / 5	The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. That places American Medical Association in the middle of Product Integrity: the product has real use value but is compromised by incentives, monetization, lock-in, quality degradation, or risk. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 37 scored entries below, 23 tied, 166 above on Product Integrity. Linked evidence context The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. [1] context AMA ethics formally recognizes a right against unreasonable bodily restraint, but it still gives physicians professional permission to order involuntary chemical or physical restraint in danger-framed situations; in institutions where patients have little practical power, that exception can legitimize coercive practices that are vulnerable to overuse and abuse. [2] The AMA provides useful professional ethics and medical-policy infrastructure, but product integrity is compromised where that infrastructure legitimates coercive restraint instead of being controlled by affected patients. [9]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	3 / 5	The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. That places American Medical Association in the middle of Scale Integrity: scale brings useful reach but also weakens accountability, transparency, or local constraint. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 50 scored entries below, 58 tied, 118 above on Scale Integrity. Linked evidence context The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders. [1] context AMA ethics formally recognizes a right against unreasonable bodily restraint, but it still gives physicians professional permission to order involuntary chemical or physical restraint in danger-framed situations; in institutions where patients have little practical power, that exception can legitimize coercive practices that are vulnerable to overuse and abuse. [2] Because AMA ethics and lobbying influence medicine at national scale, any weakness in patient control over coercive rules is magnified across hospitals, physicians, and public policy. [10]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Reversibility ? Applied when positive conduct depends on current living leaders, founders, family owners, or other person-contingent governance rather than durable structure. Range: -5 to 0.	-5	AMA professional ethics restricts restraint but remains a physician-governed professional framework rather than direct patient or survivor control over institutional coercion rules. AMA professional ethics restricts restraint but remains a physician-governed professional framework rather than direct patient or survivor control over institutional coercion rules. That warrants a severe Reversibility penalty because favorable conduct depends on current people or discretionary leadership rather than locked stakeholder structure. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 95 tied, 131 above on Reversibility. Linked evidence AMA professional ethics restricts restraint but remains a physician-governed professional framework rather than direct patient or survivor control over institutional coercion rules. [11]
Human Harm ? Severity, scale, culpability, vulnerable targets, willful reoffense, reputation laundering, pattern escalation, and time decay. Range: -20 to 0.	-6	AMA ethics allows physician-ordered chemical or physical restraint in specified cases, creating professional legitimacy for bodily coercion in institutions where restraint and forced drugging are vulnerable to overuse, abuse, and post-hoc justification. AMA ethics allows physician-ordered chemical or physical restraint in specified cases, creating professional legitimacy for bodily coercion in institutions where restraint and forced drugging are vulnerable to overuse, abuse, and post-hoc justification. That warrants a limited Human Harm penalty because ordinary operation, documented misconduct, or institutional power creates serious injury, deprivation, abuse, or foreseeable human damage. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 39 scored entries below, 1 tied, 186 above on Human Harm. Linked evidence AMA ethics allows physician-ordered chemical or physical restraint in specified cases, creating professional legitimacy for bodily coercion in institutions where restraint and forced drugging are vulnerable to overuse, abuse, and post-hoc justification. [12]
Coercive Violence ? Direct or institutionally enabled killing, torture, detention abuse, armed repression, forced displacement, violent domination, or nonconsensual crisis-line emergency escalation that exposes callers to confinement or force. Range: -30 to 0.	-4	AMA ethics formally recognizes a right against unreasonable bodily restraint, but it still gives physicians professional permission to order involuntary chemical or physical restraint in… AMA ethics formally recognizes a right against unreasonable bodily restraint, but it still gives physicians professional permission to order involuntary chemical or physical restraint in danger-framed situations; in institutions where patients have little practical power, that exception can legitimize coercive practices that. That warrants a limited Coercive Violence penalty because the institution uses, enables, profits from, or materially supports violent domination, detention abuse, war, or armed coercion. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 15 scored entries below, 2 tied, 209 above on Coercive Violence. Linked evidence AMA ethics formally recognizes a right against unreasonable bodily restraint, but it still gives physicians professional permission to order involuntary chemical or physical restraint in danger-framed situations; in institutions where patients have little practical power, that exception can legitimize coercive practices that are vulnerable to overuse and abuse. [2]
Policy Capture ? Private-interest attempts to bend law, regulation, subsidies, taxes, enforcement, trade, labor, safety, competition, environmental, healthcare, housing, surveillance, civil-liberties, or consumer policy against workers, customers, citizens, affected communities, or ecological life. Public-interest advocacy is not penalized merely because it is lobbying. Range: -15 to 0.	-6	OpenLobby records AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION lobbying on healthcare with about $922K in spending across 14 filings; the reviewed filings document private institutional lobbying over public rules rather than a public-interest advocacy role. OpenLobby records AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION lobbying on healthcare with about $922K in spending across 14 filings; the reviewed filings document private institutional lobbying over public rules rather than a public-interest advocacy role. That warrants a substantial Policy Capture penalty because private institutional pressure is being applied to public rules while affected people cannot democratically govern that agenda. The value is substantial but not at the floor because the linked record shows serious conduct without the strongest aggravating factors on this axis. Linked evidence OpenLobby records AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION lobbying on healthcare with about $922K in spending across 14 filings; the reviewed filings document private institutional lobbying over public rules rather than a public-interest advocacy role. [14]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-2	American Medical Association's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because American Medical Association exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while… American Medical Association's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because American Medical Association exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity, or public service. That warrants a substantial Ideological Disavowal penalty because the institution presents situated, contested choices as neutrality, expertise, inevitability, safety, or common sense. The value is substantial but not at the floor because the linked record shows serious conduct without the strongest aggravating factors on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Ideological Disavowal 0 to -3 recalibration: 0 for explicit standpoint or no penalty-level neutrality theater; -1 for bounded softening of contested choices; -2 for strong neutrality theater by a powerful institution; -3 for major gatekeeping or coercive power presented as neutral, necessary, objective, or non-ideological. Uncertainty This recalibration uses public self-presentation and profile evidence; later review should add direct language-analysis evidence for high-impact institutions. Linked evidence American Medical Association's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because American Medical Association exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity, or public service. [13]

Bonus Credits

No bonus credits applied in this version.

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

High 82/100

14 verified linked claims 14 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 14/14 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 14/20

14 verified linked claims

Source quality 16/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

14 direct claims across 14 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

14/14 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessPartial (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is an authoritative physician ethics framework interpreted by AMA governance structures rather than by affected patients as binding democratic stakeholders.

Governance Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 7, 2026

AMA Code of Medical Ethics: Use of RestraintsGeneral web source · 58%

2AMA ethics formally recognizes a right against unreasonable bodily restraint, but it still gives physicians professional permission to order involuntary chemical or physical restraint in danger-framed situations; in institutions where patients have little practical power, that exception can legitimize coercive practices that are vulnerable to overuse and abuse.

Coercive Violence Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 7, 2026

AMA Code of Medical Ethics: Use of RestraintsGeneral web source · 58%

3The American Medical Association is a professional physician association, so institutional authority is held through physician membership and association governance rather than by patients affected by medical rules.

Ownership Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

AMA Code of Medical Ethics: Use of RestraintsGeneral web source · 58%
WHO guidance on community mental health services: person-centred and rights-based approachesPrimary public record · 100%
American Medical Association official siteGeneral web source · 58%
OpenLobby — AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

4AMA professional authority creates value through medical ethics and policy infrastructure, but that authority can extract legitimacy from patients when contested coercive practices are defined by physicians rather than affected people.

Extraction Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

AMA Code of Medical Ethics: Use of RestraintsGeneral web source · 58%
WHO guidance on community mental health services: person-centred and rights-based approachesPrimary public record · 100%
American Medical Association official siteGeneral web source · 58%
OpenLobby — AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

5The AMA restraint ethics record concerns physician authority over patient bodies, not worker or patient sovereignty over the institutional conditions in which restraint is ordered.

Labor Sovereignty Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

AMA Code of Medical Ethics: Use of RestraintsGeneral web source · 58%
WHO guidance on community mental health services: person-centred and rights-based approachesPrimary public record · 100%
American Medical Association official siteGeneral web source · 58%
OpenLobby — AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

6AMA policy and ethics work can improve medical standards, but the sourced record does not show a structure specifically protecting people without employment, insurance, or professional power.

Solidarity Unemployed Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

AMA Code of Medical Ethics: Use of RestraintsGeneral web source · 58%
WHO guidance on community mental health services: person-centred and rights-based approachesPrimary public record · 100%
American Medical Association official siteGeneral web source · 58%
OpenLobby — AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

7AMA ethics limits restraint in principle while still permitting physician-ordered chemical or physical restraint in danger-framed situations, leaving patients to bear serious bodily-risk costs when the system fails.

Loss Bearing Fidelity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

AMA Code of Medical Ethics: Use of RestraintsGeneral web source · 58%
WHO guidance on community mental health services: person-centred and rights-based approachesPrimary public record · 100%
American Medical Association official siteGeneral web source · 58%
OpenLobby — AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

8The AMA combines professional standard-setting with documented healthcare lobbying, making its market conduct partly a private professional influence over public medical rules.

Market Conduct Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

AMA Code of Medical Ethics: Use of RestraintsGeneral web source · 58%
WHO guidance on community mental health services: person-centred and rights-based approachesPrimary public record · 100%
American Medical Association official siteGeneral web source · 58%
OpenLobby — AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

9The AMA provides useful professional ethics and medical-policy infrastructure, but product integrity is compromised where that infrastructure legitimates coercive restraint instead of being controlled by affected patients.

Product Integrity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

AMA Code of Medical Ethics: Use of RestraintsGeneral web source · 58%
WHO guidance on community mental health services: person-centred and rights-based approachesPrimary public record · 100%
American Medical Association official siteGeneral web source · 58%
OpenLobby — AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

10Because AMA ethics and lobbying influence medicine at national scale, any weakness in patient control over coercive rules is magnified across hospitals, physicians, and public policy.

Scale Integrity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

AMA Code of Medical Ethics: Use of RestraintsGeneral web source · 58%
WHO guidance on community mental health services: person-centred and rights-based approachesPrimary public record · 100%
American Medical Association official siteGeneral web source · 58%
OpenLobby — AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

11AMA professional ethics restricts restraint but remains a physician-governed professional framework rather than direct patient or survivor control over institutional coercion rules.

Reversibility Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 7, 2026

AMA Code of Medical Ethics: Use of RestraintsGeneral web source · 58%

12AMA ethics allows physician-ordered chemical or physical restraint in specified cases, creating professional legitimacy for bodily coercion in institutions where restraint and forced drugging are vulnerable to overuse, abuse, and post-hoc justification.

Human Harm Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 7, 2026

AMA Code of Medical Ethics: Use of RestraintsGeneral web source · 58%
WHO guidance on community mental health services: person-centred and rights-based approachesPrimary public record · 100%

13American Medical Association's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because American Medical Association exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity, or public service.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 9, 2026

AI scaffold

American Medical Association official siteGeneral web source · 58%
AMA Code of Medical Ethics: Use of RestraintsGeneral web source · 58%
WHO guidance on community mental health services: person-centred and rights-based approachesPrimary public record · 100%

14OpenLobby records AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION lobbying on healthcare with about $922K in spending across 14 filings; the reviewed filings document private institutional lobbying over public rules rather than a public-interest advocacy role.

Policy Capture Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 11, 2026

AI scaffold

OpenLobby — AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

15American Medical Association receives the Private Government badge because it combines large-scale private rule-setting over customers, workers, users, members, or counterparties with OpenLobby-documented lobbying of about $922K on public policy issues.

Private Government Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 11, 2026

AI scaffold

OpenLobby — AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

Competitors

AGOOD66 Patient Advocate Foundation nonprofit patient case-management and financial-aid resource · same market AGOOD54 Federally Qualified Health Centers publicly supported community health-center system · same market AGOOD53 OpenNotes academic healthcare-transparency initiative · same market AGOOD50 CPESN USA network of independent community pharmacies · same market BQUALIFIED49 Civica Rx nonprofit generic medicine company · same market BQUALIFIED43 Planned Parenthood nonprofit reproductive and sexual healthcare federation · same market CPERFORMATIVE41 En-Vision America / ScriptAbility accessible prescription-labeling company · same market CPERFORMATIVE41 Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company public-benefit online pharmacy · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for American Medical Association Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

May 7, 2026 at 12:00 AM UTC ai-scaffolding seed-added

Added psychiatric, professional-ethics, coercive psychiatric-system, peer-respite, or psychiatric-survivor alternative institution with source-backed claims and full score components.

View Full Audit Log