Journal of medical ethics
-
Journal of medical ethics · Sep 2011
Randomized Controlled TrialWhy and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008.
Journal editors are responsible for what they publish and therefore have a duty to correct the record if published work is found to be unreliable. One method for such correction is retraction of an article. Anecdotal evidence suggested a lack of consistency in journal policies and practices regarding retraction. In order to develop guidelines, we reviewed retractions in Medline to discover how and why articles were retracted. ⋯ Journals' retraction practices are not uniform. Some retractions fail to state the reason, and therefore fail to distinguish error from misconduct. We have used our findings to inform guidelines on retractions.
-
Journal of medical ethics · Sep 2011
Multicenter StudyThe 'patient's physician one-step removed': the evolving roles of medical tourism facilitators.
Medical tourism involves patients travelling internationally to receive medical services. This practice raises a range of ethical issues, including potential harms to the patient's home and destination country and risks to the patient's own health. Medical tourists often engage the services of a facilitator who may book travel and accommodation and link the patient with a hospital abroad. Facilitators have the potential to exacerbate or mitigate the ethical concerns associated with medical tourism, but their roles are poorly understood. ⋯ Facilitators play a substantial and evolving role in the practice of medical tourism and may be entering a period of professionalisation. Because of the key role of facilitators in determining the effects of medical tourism on patients and public health, this paper recommends a planned conversation between medical tourism stakeholders to define and shape facilitators' roles.
-
Journal of medical ethics · Sep 2011
Mario Monicelli's Grande guerra: the right of living and the choice of dying.
Monicelli's suicide has reawakened a political and legal dispute about the medical role in end-of-life decisions, allowing us to discuss medical, ethical, legal, religious and political debate in various paradigmatic conscious and unconscious cases of end-of-life decision. We analyse the uncertainty about the 'a priori' choice between different specific legislative systems, highlighting the need for a unifying model, dictated by the existing trust in the critical relationship between patient and doctor, whose primary mission should be not only 'to cure' but also 'to care'.