(Editorial) Unwanted results: the ethics of controversial research

CMAJ

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
. . . We are chided for publishing flawed research and told that we should be ashamed of publishing the “opinions” of self-evidently biased researchers. We are accused of doing a disservice to women, medicine and the Journal, of failing to conduct proper peer review, and of not adequately scrutinizing the credentials of the authors.

The abortion debate is so highly charged that a state of
respectful listening on either side is almost impossible to achieve. This debate is conducted publicly in religious, ideological and political terms: forms of discourse in which detachment is rare. But we do seem to have the idea in medicine that science offers us a more dispassionate means of analysis. To consider abortion as a health issue, indeed as a medical “procedure,” is to remove it from metaphysical and moral argument and to place it in a pragmatic realm where one deals in terms such as safety, equity of access, outcomes and risk–benefit ratios, and where the prevailing ethical discourse, when it is evoked, uses secular words like autonomy and patient choice. . .


CMAJ. (Editorial) Unwanted results: the ethics of controversial research. Can. Med. Assoc. J.. 2003 Jul 22;169(2):93.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *