Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Correspondence

Correspondence TO THE EDITOR: There can be no question about the universality of fundamental human rights with regard to the conduct of human clinical research. In "Editorial. Human Experimentation" (79-A: 959–960, July 1997), Einhorn et al. presented the recent policy decision not to publish the results of any clinical study in which the reviewers and editors believe that "standards of human experimentation" may have been violated; I believe that this is unwise on three ethical grounds. 1. Such a unilateral decision, even after clarifying exchanges between the editors and authors, lacks the appearance, if not the substance, of equitable due process since the decision of the Editor in Chief is always final. I suggest that such a decision unintentionally and unnecessarily impugns the professional conduct of the authors as well as that of the Institutional Review Board that, in most cases, prospectively reviewed and approved the study protocol. 2. Furthermore, the reported study actually occurred. Whatever questions may be raised about its conduct, failure to report the results is a form of "retrospective falsification" 1 or an attempt to revise history. 3. Finally, to refuse to publish the report is to devalue the experience of the patients involved, who http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Wolters Kluwer Health

Loading next page...
 
/lp/jb-js/correspondence-m4gVj3KYlw

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wolters Kluwer Health
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
ISSN
0021-9355
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

TO THE EDITOR: There can be no question about the universality of fundamental human rights with regard to the conduct of human clinical research. In "Editorial. Human Experimentation" (79-A: 959–960, July 1997), Einhorn et al. presented the recent policy decision not to publish the results of any clinical study in which the reviewers and editors believe that "standards of human experimentation" may have been violated; I believe that this is unwise on three ethical grounds. 1. Such a unilateral decision, even after clarifying exchanges between the editors and authors, lacks the appearance, if not the substance, of equitable due process since the decision of the Editor in Chief is always final. I suggest that such a decision unintentionally and unnecessarily impugns the professional conduct of the authors as well as that of the Institutional Review Board that, in most cases, prospectively reviewed and approved the study protocol. 2. Furthermore, the reported study actually occurred. Whatever questions may be raised about its conduct, failure to report the results is a form of "retrospective falsification" 1 or an attempt to revise history. 3. Finally, to refuse to publish the report is to devalue the experience of the patients involved, who

Journal

Journal of Bone and Joint SurgeryWolters Kluwer Health

Published: Nov 1, 1997

There are no references for this article.