Medical Ghostwriting and Informed Consent

Ghostwriting in its various forms has received critical scrutiny from medical ethicists, journal editors, and science studies scholars trying to explain where ghostwriting goes wrong and ascertain how to counter it. Recent analyses have characterized ghostwriting as plagiarism or fraud, and have urg...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Almassi, Ben (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Interlibrary Loan:Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany)
Published: 2014
In: Bioethics
Year: 2014, Volume: 28, Issue: 9, Pages: 491-499
Further subjects:B Informed Consent
B MEDICAL writing
B patient autonomy
B research ethics
B Trust
B clinical ethics
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002c 4500
001 1781885656
003 DE-627
005 20211211042823.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 211211s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1111/bioe.12017  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1781885656 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1781885656 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Almassi, Ben  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Medical Ghostwriting and Informed Consent 
264 1 |c 2014 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Ghostwriting in its various forms has received critical scrutiny from medical ethicists, journal editors, and science studies scholars trying to explain where ghostwriting goes wrong and ascertain how to counter it. Recent analyses have characterized ghostwriting as plagiarism or fraud, and have urged that it be deterred through stricter compliance with journal submission requirements, conflict of interest disclosures, author-institutional censure, legal remedies, and journals' refusal to publish commercially sponsored articles. As a supplement to such efforts, this paper offers a critical assessment of medical ghostwriting as contrary to good patient care, on the grounds that it contradicts established general principles guiding clinical ethics. Specifically, I argue that ghostwriting undermines trust relationships between authors and their readers, and between these readers and their trusting patients, and in so doing contradicts the duty of respect for patient autonomy by obstructing informed consent. For this reason, complicity in ghostwriting practices should be understood as a violation of the professional ethical duties of physicians and other healthcare workers. 
601 |a Ghostwriter 
650 4 |a MEDICAL writing 
650 4 |a Trust 
650 4 |a patient autonomy 
650 4 |a Informed Consent 
650 4 |a research ethics 
650 4 |a clinical ethics 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Bioethics  |d Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1987  |g 28(2014), 9, Seite 491-499  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)271596708  |w (DE-600)1480658-7  |w (DE-576)078707986  |x 1467-8519  |7 nnas 
773 1 8 |g volume:28  |g year:2014  |g number:9  |g pages:491-499 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12017  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext  |7 1 
856 4 0 |u https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bioe.12017  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext  |7 1 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4019008639 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1781885656 
LOK |0 005 20211211042823 
LOK |0 008 211211||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2021-12-10#62FC9B0AF135A878F43012E49DA5D5A03B4AFEFE 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
LOK |0 939   |a 11-12-21  |b l01 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
STA 0 0 |a Trust 
STB 0 0 |a Trust 
STC 0 0 |a Trust 
STD 0 0 |a Trust 
STF 0 0 |a 托拉斯 
STG 0 0 |a Trust 
STH 0 0 |a Trust,Траст 
STI 0 0 |a Τραστ,Trust,Εμπίστευμα