Published 29 October 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b4444
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b4444

Editor's Choice

Gagging for it

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

First, the good news on transparency. Drug company Merck is following Eli Lilly’s lead by publishing details of fees paid to experts for speaking on behalf of the company or its products (doi:10.1136/bmj.b4409). GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer have promised to follow suit. If drug companies were also to publish details of grants made to patient groups, along with the raw data from their research studies, then truly we would have entered a golden age.

The bad news on transparency is that certain NHS trusts’ idea of a golden age is one where tongues can be ripped out and mouths stitched up. Jonathan Gornall documents the lengths to which Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust went to stop senior consultant Peter Bousfield from going public with his concerns about management and patient safety (doi:10.1136/bmj.b3202). Part of its armoury was to incorporate a gagging clause into his termination agreement. Too . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

18 Liverpool consultants reply

Elizabeth Adams, Iwan Lewis-Jones, Zarko Alfirevic, Robert MacDonald, Feroza Dawood, Shuba Mallaiah, Edwin Djabatey, Derek Parkinson, Roy Farquharson, David Patrick, Gillian Fowler, Mark Turner, Dharani Hapangama, Todd Wauchob, Charles Kingsland, Andrew Weeks, Robert Kingston, and John Kirwan
BMJ 2009 339: b4981. [Extract] [Full Text]

Author’s reply

Jonathan Gornall
BMJ 2009 339: b4986. [Extract] [Full Text]

The Doctor is sick

Francis J Bowden
BMJ 2009 339: b4392. [Extract] [Full Text]

The price of silence

Jonathan Gornall
BMJ 2009 339: b3202. [Extract] [Full Text]

Falling foul of gagging clauses

Jane Cassidy
BMJ 2009 339: b4203. [Extract] [Full Text]

Merck discloses $3.7m paid to US doctors for speeches over three months

Janice Hopkins Tanne
BMJ 2009 339: b4409. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Adams, E., Lewis-Jones, I., Alfirevic, Z., MacDonald, R., Dawood, F., Mallaiah, S., Djabatey, E., Parkinson, D., Farquharson, R., Patrick, D., Fowler, G., Turner, M., Hapangama, D., Wauchob, T., Kingsland, C., Weeks, A., Kingston, R., Kirwan, J. (2009). 18 Liverpool consultants reply. BMJ 339: b4981-b4981 [Full text]  
• Gornall, J. (2009). Author's reply. BMJ 339: b4986-b4986 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Gagging clauses do not fly in the face of Department of Health guidance

Nigel Dudley
bmj.com, 30 Oct 2009 [Full text]

It is amazing how complete is the delusion that medical care is health care!

BM Hegde
bmj.com, 31 Oct 2009 [Full text]

Gagging:BMJ Makes a Mountain Out Of a Molehill

Jay Ilangaratne
bmj.com, 31 Oct 2009 [Full text]

What was in it?

susanne stevens mccabe
bmj.com, 1 Nov 2009 [Full text]

Response to Tony Delamothe's Article 'Gagging for it'

Helen Gavin
bmj.com, 17 Nov 2009 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>