Academic freedom and the professional responsibilities of applied ethicists: a comment on Minerva

Academic freedom is an important good, but it comes with several responsibilities. In this commentary we seek to do two things. First, we argue against Francesca Minerva's view of academic freedom as presented in her article ‘New threats to academic freedom’ on a number of grounds. We reject the nature of the absolutist moral claim to free speech for academics implicit in the article; we reject the elitist role for academics as truth-seekers explicit in her view; and we reject a possible more moderate re-construction of her view based on the harm/offence distinction. Second, we identify some of the responsibilities of applied ethicists, and illustrate how they recommend against allowing for anonymous publication of research. Such a proposal points to the wider perils of a public discourse which eschews the calm and careful discussion of ideas

Trust, trustworthiness and health

Trust is an essential component of good healthcare. If patients trust their physicians, then the relationship between them can be a richer and more meaningful one. The patient is more likely to feel confident and able to disclose symptoms, helping diagnosis and future care. If public health and community workers are trusted, not only is it likely that their work will be easier, in that their actions will be respected and accepted, but their advice will also be sought spontaneously. Trust, can, therefore, be thought of as something that is of benefit to all: healthcare workers, individuals and communities. Trust is, generally, something to be prized and we need to do anything we can to strengthen it. However, trust can also be misplaced (1) Individuals may be trusted because of their social position and role, rather than because they necessarily deserve it

Snakes and ladders: state interventions and the place of liberty in public health policy

In this paper I outline and explore some problems in the way that the Nuffield Council of Bioethics’ report Public Health: Ethical Issues presents its ‘Intervention Ladder’. They see the metaphor of a ladder both as capturing key normative priorities and as making a real and important contribution to ethical policymaking in public health. In this paper I argue that the intervention ladder is not a useful model for thinking about policy decisions, that it is likely to produce poor decisions, and that it is incompatible with the report’s stated approach to relevant public health policy values

Why we shouldn’t always compensate people for historical wrongs

Human research ethics has often been formulated in response to scandals. However, the majority of research ethics cases are actually quite mundane. They involve committees making decisions about the likely balance between risks and benefits of the proposed research. Most researchers are well-intentioned and much research is conducted for public benefit. But what should we do when things go wrong? What about when evidence of wrongdoing is uncovered long after the event? Are survivors entitled to compensation? A current example of just such a case provides an opportunity to examine the issues involved

A validation of the Nottingham Clavicle Score: a clavicle, acromioclavicular joint and sternoclavicular joint–specific patient-reported outcome measure

Background Patients with acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) and sternoclavicular joint (SCJ) injuries and with clavicle fractures are typically younger and more active than those with other shoulder pathologies. We developed the Nottingham Clavicle Score (NCS) specifically for this group of patients to improve sensitivity for assessing the outcomes of treatment of these conditions compared with the more commonly used Constant Score (CS) and Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS). Materials and methods This was a cohort study in which the preoperative and 6-month postoperative NCS evaluations of outcome in 90 patients were compared with the CS, OSS, Imatani Score (IS), and the EQ-5D scores. Reliability was assessed using the Cronbach α. Reproducibility of the NCS was assessed using the test/retest method. Effect sizes were calculated for each score to assess sensitivity to change. Validity was examined by correlations between the NCS and the CS, OSS, IS, and EQ-5D scores obtained preoperatively and postoperatively. Results Significant correlations were demonstrated preoperatively with the OSS (P = .025) and all subcategories of the EQ-5D (P < .05) and postoperatively with the OSS (P < .001), CS (P = .008), IS (P < .001), and all subcategories of EQ-5D (P < .02). The NCS had the largest effect size (1.92) of the compared scores. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach α = 0.87). Conclusion The NCS has been proven to be a valid, reliable and sensitive outcome measure that accurately measures the level of function and disability in the ACJ, SCJ and clavicle after traumatic injury and in degenerative disease

The nature and ethics of natural experiments

Natural experiments are an important methodology often used to answer research questions that would, otherwise, be impossible to address, or employed because of ethical concerns about the use of randomisation to interventions that carry known risks. The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) recently produced an extremely useful document discussing the nature and significance of natural experiments within medical and public health research. In this paper, however, we suggest that the MRC document's definition of the term ‘natural experiment’ is insufficiently precise. In response, we offer a taxonomy of different types of natural experiments and related methods, and explore the ethical implications of these different types. We argue that while the ethical issues that may arise within natural experiments in relation to risks of harm or informed consent may differ from those within the randomised controlled trial, they are not thereby less pressing. The implications of the argument are explored and recommendations made for those involved in research governance