More than a third of GPs on commissioning groups have conflicts of interest, BMJ investigation shows

Conflict of interest causes confusion in decision making. It's therefore inappropriate to have a private interest as it it's impossible to make unbiased judgements.

Surely, there should be full declaration of interests by members of commissioning boards in the NHS. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If all other organisations, even the House of Commons, now demand such declaration, for whatever it is worth, the NHS cannot operate in default of such widely accepted 'best practice'.

And where a member has a competing interest he / she should stand aside or be forced to do so.

It may be worth debating the option of people found to have shares in pharma industry or other industry mothballing their shares and receiving no benefits of any kind from owning those shares while they serve on NHS Boards and commissions. Should a member sign up to such restriction(s), maybe he / she should be allowed to serve.

it is illusory to imagine that a person can sit on a decision-making board over issues, the deliberation of which will affect his fortunes directly and still be expected to remain neutral;

it is possible but not probable.

there are not many saints on the streets or boardrooms today;

simply human beings struggling with basic values and virtues at best

or

at worst unconcerned about such, be they doctors or politicians or priests.

more likely to be found than neutrality

are those who will either

become unduly hard on themselves to avoid perception and reality of a self-favouring bias

or

concoct enough rationalisation to justify patent or cryptic self favouring bias.

either way, the quality of deliberation becomes undermined;

in the one at the expense of a sanctimonious/pious individual and perhaps therefore the society as a result

and

in the other at the expense of the society and ultimately that of the corrupt individual himself.

generally it is no good to hunt with the hound and run with the rabbit; neither the rabbit nor the hound gets a fair shake in the end.

yet the scenario ought to be avoided whereby a dominantly clinical enterprise is bereft of significant clinical input cos propriety disqualifies clinical personnel in such numbers that effective and experiential impact is lost or too whittled.

a compromise will be to be recused on 'home turf'( howsoever 'home' comes to be defined) but incorporated on 'away turfs' ( howsoever 'away' comes to be defined)

it is no different from making sure that no matter how trustworthy or professional a sports refree is or perceived to be, he cannot be allowed to referee any game/race in which he has a 'horse'

nobody should be put thro the pains or stress of having to decide by himself for himself, the extent to which he should rein in himself in a potentially conflicted bargaining.

it is neither fair to the person nor to the situation and should anything untowards follow in the future, retrospective analysis might not spare such a person even were he a 'solomon' at the time ,for good or bad reasons.

Investigation into conflict of interests of GPs on the boards of the new clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England resulting from directorships or shares held in private companies has been a timely exercise in transparency. To be on CCGs with declaration of such personal conflict of interests may be too much about the reform. There may be no options, but, doctors with history of interests conflicting placement on board CCGs should need to step down.