This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: The AMA's heavy-handed and explicitly political intrusion into the editorial policies of THE JOURNAL, cynically disguised as an attack on the mixing of politics and medicine, is extremely discouraging, though hardly unexpected, given the AMA's long reactionary history. It can be no surprise that, in contrast to other countries where virtually all physicians are members of their medical association, a substantial majority of US physicians do not belong to the AMA.

Although we applaud the sentiments expressed by the remaining members of the editorial board in their subsequent editorial,¹ we believe their comments ring hollow, given their ultimately far more eloquent actions. Claim though the board may to "reaffirm" THE JOURNAL's independence, its tacit compliance with Dr Lundberg's ouster affirms only the members' acceptance of the AMA's authority to control editorial policy for its own political ends and their personal unwillingness to stand up for the principles . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

JAMA and Editorial Independence
The authors are listed at the end of this article.
JAMA. 1999;281(5):460.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT