Abstract
AbstractIn their 2018 article in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Little, Lipworth, and Kerridge unpack the concept of corruption and clarify the mechanisms that foster corruption and allow it to persist, noting that organizations are “corruptogenic.” To address the “so-what” question, I draw on research about trust and trustworthiness, emphasizing that a person’s well-being and sense of security require trust to be present at both the individual and organizational levels—which is not possible in an environment where corruption and misconduct prevail. I highlight similarities in Little et al.’s framing of corruption to the persistent problem of scientific misconduct in research and publishing. I acknowledge the challenges in stemming corruption in science and medicine and conclude with a discussion about the need to reinvigorate a web of stakeholders to actively engage in professional regulation.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Health(social science)
Reference21 articles.
1. Balaban, J. 2020. (Mis-)Trust in Healthcare. Healthcare Leadership Blog. https://hcldr.wordpress.com/2020/07/14/mis-trust-in-healthcare/. Accessed June 15, 2021.
2. Brainard, J., and J. You. 2018. What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s “death penalty.” Science, October 25. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/what-massive-database-retracted-papers-reveals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty. Accessed June 15, 2021.
3. Broad, W.J. 1981. Fraud and the structure of science. Science 212: 137−144.
4. Culliton, B. 1983. Coping with fraud: The Darsee Case. Science 220: 31−35.
5. Faden, R., and T. Beauchamp. 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献