Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;335 (21 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.39280.634977.47
Fiona Godlee, editor
fgodlee@bmj.com
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Last week we heard from Richard Smith that revenues from drug advertising may be an important pillar of editorial independence (doi: 10.1136/bmj.39259.472998.AD). His article, and a news story this week, have got me thinking about what independence means, what its limits are—since limits there must be—and what it's for. On the previous page in the print journal (and at bmj.com/bmj/about-bmj if you're online) you'll see some small but crucial words: "The BMA grants editorial freedom to the editor of the BMJ." Why are these words crucial? Because they mean that what you read in the BMJ has been judged by the editor to be in the best interests of science, medicine, and patient care.
Not so for America's former surgeon general, Richard Carmona, who now that he has left office has told a Congressional committee that he was effectively silenced by the Bush administration for four years (doi:
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
UK medical students have published unreleased government plans to restrict failed asylum seekers' access to medical care