No abstract

In this paper we describe our approach to understanding wrongdoing in medical research and practice, which involves the statistical analysis of coded data from a large set of published cases. We focus on understanding the environmental factors that predict the kind and the severity of wrongdoing in medicine. Through review of empirical and theoretical literature, consultation with experts, the application of criminological theory, and ongoing analysis of our first 60 cases, we hypothesize that 10 contextual features of the medical environment (including financial rewards, oversight failures, and patients belonging to vulnerable groups) may contribute to professional wrongdoing. We define each variable, examine data supporting our hypothesis, and present a brief case synopsis from our study that illustrates the potential influence of the variable. Finally, we discuss limitations of the resulting framework and directions for future research.

Virtues define how we behave when no one else is watching; accordingly, they serve as a bedrock for professional self-regulation, particularly at the level of the individual physician. From the time of William Osler through the end of the 20th century, physician virtue was viewed as an important safeguard for patients and research participants. However, the Institute of Medicine, Association of American Medical Colleges, and other policy groups-relying on social science data indicating that ethical decisions often result from unconscious and biased processes, particularly in the face of financial conflicts of interest-have increasingly rejected physician virtue as an important safeguard for patients.The authors argue that virtue is still needed in medicine-at least as a supplement to regulatory solutions (such as mandatory disclosures). For example, although rarely treated as a reportable conflict of interest, standard fee-for-service medicine can present motives to prioritize self-interest or institutional interests over patient interests. Because conflicts of interest broadly construed are ubiquitous, physician self-regulation (or professional virtue) is still needed. Therefore, the authors explore three strategies that physicians can adopt to minimize the influence of self-serving biases when making medical business ethics decisions. They further argue that humility must serve as a crowning virtue-not a meek humility but, rather, a courageous willingness to recognize one's own limitations and one's need to use "compensating strategies," such as time-outs and consultation with more objective others, when making decisions in the face of conflicting interests.

“Ethical disasters” or egregious violations of professional ethics in medicine often receive substantial amounts of publicity, leading to mistrust of the medical system. Efforts to understand wrongdoing in medical practice and research are hampered by the absence of a clear taxonomy. This article describes the authors’ process of developing a taxonomy based on: (1) reviews of academic literature, ethics codes, government regulations, and cases of wrongdoing; (2) consultation with experts in health law and healthcare ethics; and (3) application of the taxonomy to published cases of wrongdoing in medical research and practice. The resulting taxonomy includes 14 categories of wrongdoing in medical practice, and 15 categories of wrongdoing in medical research. This taxonomy may be useful to oversight bodies, researchers who seek to understand and reduce the prevalence of wrongdoing in medicine, and librarians who index literature on wrongdoing.

BackgroundNo published curricula in the area of medical business ethics exist. This is surprising given that physicians wrestle daily with business decisions and that professional associations, the Institute of Medicine, Health and Human Services, Congress, and industry have issued related guidelines over the past 5 years. To fill this gap, the authors aimed (1) to identify the full range of medical business ethics topics that experts consider important to teach, and (2) to establish curricular priorities through expert consensus.MethodsIn spring 2012, the authors conducted an online Delphi survey with two heterogeneous panels of experts recruited in the United States. One panel focused on business ethics in medical practice (n = 14), and 1 focused on business ethics in medical research (n = 12).ResultsPanel 1 generated an initial list of 14 major topics related to business ethics in medical practice, and subsequently rated 6 topics as very important or essential to teach. Panel 2 generated an initial list of 10 major topics related to business ethics in medical research, and subsequently rated 5 as very important or essential. In both domains, the panel strongly recommended addressing problems that conflicts of interest can cause, legal guidelines, and the goals or ideals of the profession.ConclusionsThe Bander Center for Medical Business Ethics at Saint Louis University will use the results of the Delphi panel to develop online curricular resources for each of the highest rated topics.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-235) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.