A framework for assessing the ethics of doctors' strikes

The first aim of this article is to offer a framework for constructive and rigorous discussions of the ethics of doctors' strikes, beginning with an in-principle distinction between the questions of how one should conduct oneself while working as a doctor and when and how one can suspend that work. The second is to explore how that framework applies to the contemporary British case of strikes by English junior doctors, with my suggestion being that those strikes do meet all of the criteria proposed. In closing, I gesture towards a further ethical dimension to strikes which is too often overlooked: namely, the responsibilities of employers and others not to misrepresent or demonise those doctors who are engaged in or considering taking industrial action.

Testing ground GDR: Western pharmaceutical firms conducting clinical trials behind the Iron Curtain

Western pharmaceutical companies conducted clinical trials in the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. Recently, media reports about alleged human experimentation provoked a wave of indignation. However, a scientific and objective account of these trials is lacking. The aim of this study was to describe and evaluate the clinical trials performed in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) based on archival material from the health system and the secret service. We found documents relating to 220 trials involving more than 14,000 patients and 68 Western companies. However, no record of patient information forms or systematic documentation regarding the provision of patient consent was discovered. There was no evidence to suggest that the trials systematically and intentionally damaged patients. The trials were conducted without the knowledge of the public. GDR legislation stipulated that patients must consent to the trials, but no evidence was found to suggest that patients were systematically informed. Documents suggest that at least some of the trials were carried out without patients having a comprehensive understanding of what the trial involved. The GDR agreed to the trials due to impending bankruptcy and Western pharmaceutical companies capitalised on this situation.

Views of health journalists, industry employees and news consumers about disclosure and regulation of industry-journalist relationships: an empirical ethical study

Bioethicists and policymakers are increasingly concerned about the effects on health journalism of relationships between journalists and private corporations. The concern is that relationships between journalists and manufacturers of medicines, medical devices, complementary medicines and food can and do distort health reporting. This is a problem because health news is known to have a major impact on the public's health-related expectations and behaviour. Commentators have proposed two related approaches to protecting the public from potential harms arising from industry-journalist interactions: greater transparency and external regulation. To date, few empirical studies have examined stakeholders' views of industry-journalist relationships and how these should be managed. We conducted interviews with 13 journalists and 12 industry employees, and 2 focus groups with consumers. Our findings, which are synthesised here, provide empirical support for the need for greater transparency and regulation of industry-journalist relationships. Our findings also highlight several likely barriers to instituting such measures, which will need to be overcome if transparency and regulation are to be accepted by stakeholders and have their intended effect on the quality of journalism and the actions of news consumers.

Depictions of 'brain death' in the media: medical and ethical implications

BACKGROUND

Debates and controversies have shaped the understanding and the practices related to death determined by neurological criterion (DNC). Confusion about DNC in the public domain could undermine this notion. This confusion could further jeopardise confidence in rigorous death determination procedures, and raise questions about the integrity, sustainability, and legitimacy of modern organ donation practices.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the depictions of 'brain death' in major American and Canadian print media to gain insights into possible common sources of confusion about DNC and the relationship between expert and lay views on this crucial concept.

METHODS

We gathered 940 articles, available in electronic databases, published between 2005 and 2009 from high-circulation Canadian and American newspapers containing keywords 'brain dead' or 'brain death'. Articles were systematically examined for content (eg, definitions of brain death and criteria for determination of death) using the NVivo 8 software.

RESULTS

Our results showed problematic aspects in American and Canadian media, with some salient differences. DNC was used colloquially in 39% (N=366) of the articles and its medical meaning infrequently defined (2.7%; N=14 in the USA and 3.6%; N=15 in Canada). The neurological criterion for determination of death was mentioned in less than 10% of the articles, and life support in about 20% of the articles. Organ donation issues related to DNC were raised more often in Canadian articles than in American articles (33.5% vs 21.2%; p<0.0001).

INTERPRETATION

Further discussion is needed to develop innovative strategies to bridge media representations of DNC with experts' views in connection with organ donation practices.

The neglected repercussions of a physician advertising ban

Although the adverse implications of physician advertising are the subject of a fierce and sustained debate, there is almost no scholarly discussion on the ethical repercussions of physician advertising bans. The present paper draws attention to these repercussions as they exist today in most of the world, with particular focus on three serious implications for the public: (a) uncertainty about the physician's interests, namely, that patients must trust the physician to put patient wellbeing ahead of possible gains when taking medical decisions; (b) uncertainty about alternative treatments, namely, that patients must trust in the physician's treatment decisions; and (c) uncertainty about the exclusive patient-physician relationship, namely, that patients must develop and maintain a good relationship with one physician. Physician advertising bans continue to tell the public in most of the modern world that these are irrelevant or inappropriate issues, meaning that they are effectively left to the public to resolve.

The Italian reaction to the Giubilini and Minerva paper

From 28 February to the end of March 2012, the Italian media reacted fiercely to the Giubilini and Minerva paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics a few days earlier. The first article viewed the proposal as analogous to 'barbaric invasions', but in a first stage of the debate it could be seen as a case of the usual controversy between Catholics and secularists. Then emotive reactions prevailed and a flood of papers expressed strong opposition to 'infanticide'. The authors were even deemed insane; the fact that both are Italian certainly increased interest in the subject as well as surprise at their proposal, which some reckoned to be an insult to their 'national identity'. Even freedom of academic research and discussion was put in question, and defenders of free debate were accused of being supporters of the theory of infanticide.