Editors and authors vexed and confused by consent

doi:10.1136/bmj.a1879

Published 1 October 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a1879
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a1879

Letters

Consent for publication

Editors and authors vexed and confused by consent

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Smith points out the potential legal pitfalls when submittingpapers that might breach patient confidentiality.¹ This is anissue often discussed at the regular quarterly meetings of editormembers of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Examplesinclude the frustration of an author unable to obtain publicationof his discovery of a new technique for confirming deliberatecontamination of a sample sent for laboratory analysis.

In my role as editor of BMJ fillers, this is a daily problemwith most contributions under such rubrics as "My most interestingpatient," which are unaccompanied by consent. When its necessityis pointed out to authors, many are amazed and some outraged.I have been accused of political correctness and the journalof unnecessary bureaucracy and cowardice in the face of regulators.

Authors and editors have often been misled by their belief ina "public interest" defence, as outlined in the General MedicalCouncil’s . . . [Full text of this article]

Harvey Marcovitch, chairman, Committee on Publication Ethics¹

¹ Banbury OX15 6JW

h.marcovitch@btinternet.com