BMJ 2013;347:f7149 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f7149 (Published 4 December 2013)
Page 1 of 1
Letters
LETTERS EDITORIAL POLICY ON ADVERTISING
BMJ is not always impartial about the advertisements it includes Tim Harlow chair, Idris Baker member, Rachel Bullock member, Craig Gannon member, Rob George member, Andrew Shuler member, Derek Willis member Association Palliative Medicine Ethics Committee, Association Palliative Medicine, Southampton SO31 1BA, UK
The BMJ prizes impartiality and is the official journal of the BMA. As the ethics committee of the Association Palliative Medicine, we were interested to see that the 16 November print issue of the BMJ contained an insert from Dignity in Dying promoting physician assisted suicide.1 You have, rightly, encouraged an? informed debate on this important matter, while the BMA currently remains opposed to the proposed change in the law. We understand that the BMJ’s criterion for accepting advertisements and inserts is solely whether this material meets UK advertising code rules of being legal, decent, and honest. But that is perhaps not the whole story, and the BMJ seems to use other filters. We suspect that the BMJ would not accept inserts advertising online gambling or promotion of boxing matches for instance, even if the narrow criteria of the UK advertising code were satisfied.
We consider that the inclusion of this insert is not an impartial act and might be interpreted as support for Dignity in Dying’s position. This illustrates the need for the filters the BMJ uses to decide advertisements and inserts to be open to scrutiny, impartial, and to reflect the agreed views of the members of the BMA. Competing interests: The Association Palliative Medicine Ethics Committee opposes changing the law on physician assisted suicide. 1
Godlee F. We need to separate “old” and “age.” BMJ 2013;347:f6823. (14 November.)
Cite this as: BMJ 2013;347:f7149 © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2013
[email protected] For personal use only: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions
Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe
Page 1 of 1
Letters
LETTERS EDITORIAL POLICY ON ADVERTISING
BMJ is not always impartial about the advertisements it includes Tim Harlow chair, Idris Baker member, Rachel Bullock member, Craig Gannon member, Rob George member, Andrew Shuler member, Derek Willis member Association Palliative Medicine Ethics Committee, Association Palliative Medicine, Southampton SO31 1BA, UK
The BMJ prizes impartiality and is the official journal of the BMA. As the ethics committee of the Association Palliative Medicine, we were interested to see that the 16 November print issue of the BMJ contained an insert from Dignity in Dying promoting physician assisted suicide.1 You have, rightly, encouraged an? informed debate on this important matter, while the BMA currently remains opposed to the proposed change in the law. We understand that the BMJ’s criterion for accepting advertisements and inserts is solely whether this material meets UK advertising code rules of being legal, decent, and honest. But that is perhaps not the whole story, and the BMJ seems to use other filters. We suspect that the BMJ would not accept inserts advertising online gambling or promotion of boxing matches for instance, even if the narrow criteria of the UK advertising code were satisfied.
We consider that the inclusion of this insert is not an impartial act and might be interpreted as support for Dignity in Dying’s position. This illustrates the need for the filters the BMJ uses to decide advertisements and inserts to be open to scrutiny, impartial, and to reflect the agreed views of the members of the BMA. Competing interests: The Association Palliative Medicine Ethics Committee opposes changing the law on physician assisted suicide. 1
Godlee F. We need to separate “old” and “age.” BMJ 2013;347:f6823. (14 November.)
Cite this as: BMJ 2013;347:f7149 © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2013
[email protected] For personal use only: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions
Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe
