Management of uncomplicated miscarriage. Patients' safe with expectant management.

R. Dickey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.307.6898.259-B

1993-07-24

British Medical Journal

Abstract:EDrroR,-I am evaluating the factors that contributed to the delay in the recognition and acknowledgment of the health hazard of exposure to asbetos dust and the consequent delay in the implementation of effective intervention. Scientists have had an important role in this history and in the study of dose-response relations-none more pominently than the members of the subcommittee on asbetos of the British Occupational Hygiene Society. The society's reports and related literature show that an account would be incomplete without a review of the data handled by members of this committee and of the details of their methods of working and decision making. This can be found only in their working papers, correspondence, and minutes, which extend over a quarter of a century. In May 1990 I wrote to the president of the British Occupational Hygiene Society, requesting access to the files of the committee on asbestos. The reply stated that this was not possible on two counts: that there was no central archive and that much of the material had been made available on a confidential basis and it would not be acceptable for later councils to break that confidence. I wrote more recently to the society, requesting its permission for access to files containing its records that were preserved elsewhere, but I was informed that the society is still unable to allow anyone access to these data. If commercial confidentiality ever applied to the data it must have lapsed after some 20 years and more. Medical confidentiality would never have applied to data from which individual subjects could notbe identified. This experience raises certain matters of principle in relation to scientific work and publication. Should it be a condition that data and analyses that have formed the basis of a publication be preserved and kept accessible for further study? What constraints of confidentiality are unacceptable in the field of scientific publication? If the accessibility of data constitutes part of the scientific ethic whose ultimate responsibility is it to ensure this-the author's or the editor's?