Smith points out the potential legal pitfalls when submitting papers
which might breach patient confidentiality. This is an issue discussed
frequently at the regular quarterly meetings of editor members of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Examples include: the frustration
of an author unable to obtain publication of his discovery of a new
technique for confirming deliberate contamination of a sample sent for
laboratory analysis; a paper describing a symptom in infants the authors
believed associated with abuse was turned down by UK journals but eagerly
accepted in Europe; an editor was very concerned that her journal might
lose a major role in professional development of doctors engaged in
psychosexual counselling if it were to demand consent in every case
described; a paper had to be shelved which demonstrated that a rare
neurological syndrome, previously ascribed to a specific brain lesion, was
factitious. Although, as suggested by Smith, one solution might be to
anonymise authors and their institutions, in many cases the benefit of
attribution apparently overrules the desire to enhance understanding.
In my role as editor of BMJ ‘fillers’ this is a daily problem with
the majority of contributions under such rubrics as ‘My most interesting
patient’ unaccompanied by consent. When its necessity is pointed out to
authors, many are amazed and some outraged. I have been accused of
political correctness and the journal of unnecessary bureaucracy and
cowardice in the face of regulators.
Frequently authors and editors have been misled by their belief in a
‘public interest’ defence as outlined in the current General Medical
Council advice in its booklet Confidentiality:Protecting and providing
information (2004)[1]. Notwithstanding that the law and professional
regulation are not identical and while Smith points to a helpful QandA
that can be found on the GMC website, that body’s written guidance deals
with research, clinical audit, administration and epidemiology but not
with such mundane matters as the publication of case reports or small case
series. At present the GMC is consulting on a new edition. Hopefully
these types of publication will be included so helping clarify the
situation for editors and authors.
Competing interests:
The author chairs General Medical Council Fitness to Practice Panels. The views expfressed are hois own and do not purport to be those of the GMC. He is also an associate editor of the BMJ but has no idea whether it agrees with is opinions.
Rapid Response:
Editors and authors vexed and confused by consent
Smith points out the potential legal pitfalls when submitting papers
which might breach patient confidentiality. This is an issue discussed
frequently at the regular quarterly meetings of editor members of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Examples include: the frustration
of an author unable to obtain publication of his discovery of a new
technique for confirming deliberate contamination of a sample sent for
laboratory analysis; a paper describing a symptom in infants the authors
believed associated with abuse was turned down by UK journals but eagerly
accepted in Europe; an editor was very concerned that her journal might
lose a major role in professional development of doctors engaged in
psychosexual counselling if it were to demand consent in every case
described; a paper had to be shelved which demonstrated that a rare
neurological syndrome, previously ascribed to a specific brain lesion, was
factitious. Although, as suggested by Smith, one solution might be to
anonymise authors and their institutions, in many cases the benefit of
attribution apparently overrules the desire to enhance understanding.
In my role as editor of BMJ ‘fillers’ this is a daily problem with
the majority of contributions under such rubrics as ‘My most interesting
patient’ unaccompanied by consent. When its necessity is pointed out to
authors, many are amazed and some outraged. I have been accused of
political correctness and the journal of unnecessary bureaucracy and
cowardice in the face of regulators.
Frequently authors and editors have been misled by their belief in a
‘public interest’ defence as outlined in the current General Medical
Council advice in its booklet Confidentiality:Protecting and providing
information (2004)[1]. Notwithstanding that the law and professional
regulation are not identical and while Smith points to a helpful QandA
that can be found on the GMC website, that body’s written guidance deals
with research, clinical audit, administration and epidemiology but not
with such mundane matters as the publication of case reports or small case
series. At present the GMC is consulting on a new edition. Hopefully
these types of publication will be included so helping clarify the
situation for editors and authors.
[1] http://www.gmc-
uk.org/guidance/current/library/confidentiality.asp (accessed 11.9.08)
Competing interests:
The author chairs General Medical Council Fitness to Practice Panels. The views expfressed are hois own and do not purport to be those of the GMC. He is also an associate editor of the BMJ but has no idea whether it agrees with is opinions.
Competing interests: No competing interests