This Article  • References  • 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  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David A. Hyman, JD
University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine Chicago, Ill

JAMA. 1990;263(9):1199-1200.

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

To the Editor.—

The article by Dr Morreim¹ and the accompanying commentaries^2,3 on conflict of interest were most interesting. However, she utterly fails to explain why common law principles of the sort she describes have not already been effective at mandating disclosure and enforcing fiduciary duties. What evidence there is suggests that physicians have disregarded even explicit statutory requirements of disclosure (Wall Street Journal. March 1, 1989:A1, A6). The reason the common law approach will never work is that in these entrepreneurial arrangements, there is no potential plaintiff to raise these issues. Unlike an informed consent case, no damages are traceable to the failure to disclose. Thus, there is no incentive to bring suit, and no reason to comply with the common law.

Dr Morreim also is mistaken in her assertion that the proposed federal initiatives may "occasion antitrust concerns." It is axiomatic that state action is immune . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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