Journal of medical ethics
-
Journal of medical ethics · Sep 2014
Multicenter StudyOrgan retention and communication of research use following medico-legal autopsy: a pilot survey of university forensic medicine departments in Japan.
This study investigated the circumstances and problems that departments of forensic medicine encounter with bereaved families regarding samples obtained from medico-legal autopsies. A questionnaire was posted to all 76 departments of forensic medicine performing medico-legal autopsies in Japan, and responses were received from 48 (63.2%). Of the respondents, 12.8% had approached and communicated with bereaved families about collecting samples from the deceased person during an autopsy and the storage of the samples. ⋯ Few departments interacted with the bereaved families regarding the procedure for obtaining autopsy samples, and their methods for handling family concerns differed depending on the person within the department authorised to contact the family. Moreover, the procedures for engaging in such communication have long been unclear, and no legal or ethical consensus or agreement with the general public has been established. It is important for researchers to further discuss the correct way for forensic medicine departments to communicate with bereaved families.
-
Journal of medical ethics · Sep 2014
Improving biomedical journals' ethical policies: the case of research misconduct.
Scientific journals may incur scientific error if articles are tainted by research misconduct. While some journals' ethical policies, especially those on conflicts of interest, have improved over recent years, with some adopting a uniform approach, only around half of biomedical journals, principally those with higher impact factors, currently have formal misconduct policies, mainly for handling allegations. Worryingly, since a response to allegations would reasonably require an a priori definition, far fewer journals have publicly available definitions of misconduct. ⋯ Although each case may need an individual approach, I argue that posting highly visible, readily accessible, comprehensive, consistent misconduct policies could prevent the publication of fraudulent papers, increase the number of retractions of already published papers and, perhaps, reduce research misconduct. Although legally problematic, a concerted approach, with sharing of information between editors, which is clearly explained in journal websites, could also help. Ideally, journals, editors' associations, and publishers should seek consistency and homogenise misconduct policies to maintain public confidence in the integrity of biomedical research publications.