WB - a medicolegal argument.pdf (216.76 kB)
Whistleblowing: a medico-legal argument
1. Pre-peer review manuscript submitted to The BMJ (March 13th, 2017).
2. Cover letter:
"Dear Editors,
The BMJ
I had enough time to write a short cover letter, any attempt to summarise the submitted manuscript surely would be deemed not only as biased and overly-redundant - but also contradictory by the usual politically correct language of unnecessary long introductions, aimed to highlight the relevance of words by persuasion of busy editors handling thousands of editorial processes.
Why this manuscript should be openly peer-reviewed?
Why this manuscript should be published with (or without) corrections?
Why this manuscript was submitted?
I don’t have the answers to these questions. This paper wasn’t written to be published but to present an alternative viewpoint about whistleblowing and corruption, naturally occurring events in different jurisdictions, across blurred geopolitical borders unable to prevent transnational bribery with complex legislations.
Sincerely,
Jorge Ramírez
Embargo disclosure: this paper wasn’t shared with anyone else, except The BMJ."
3. Editor's decision letter: reject without peer-review (March 29th, 2017).
"29-Mar-2018 Dear Prof. Ramírez # BMJ.2018.044104 entitled "Whistleblowing: a medico-legal argument" Thank you for sending us your paper. We read it with interest but I regret to say that we have decided not to publish it in the BMJ. We receive over 8000 submissions a year and accept less than 10%. We do therefore have to make hard decisions on just how interesting an article will be to our general clinical readers, how much it adds, and how much practical value it will be. Thank you for considering BMJ for the publication of your article. I am sorry to disappoint you on this occasion, and I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts. Best wishes Yours sincerely Richard Hurley.
If you elected during submission to send your article on to another journal the article will be transferred in 5 working days. If you intend to appeal against this decision please notify us before then. The journal(s) (if any) you have selected at submission are: Journal of Medical Ethics If you want to speed up or stop this onward transmission please email the editorial office: papersadmin@bmj.com"
4. Brian Martin. Information liberation: challenging the corruptions of information power. London: Freedom Press, 1998 189 pages, ISBN 0 900384 93 X
www.bmartin.cc/pubs/98il/
Licence: CC-0
"The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. See Other Information below.
Other Information
In no way are the patent or trademark rights of any person affected by CC0, nor are the rights that other persons may have in the work or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the person who associated a work with this deed makes no warranties about the work, and disclaims liability for all uses of the work, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.
When using or citing the work, you should not imply endorsement by the author or the affirmer."
5. Introduction
Libel laws and ad hominems are well-known tactics of legal intimidation combined with
character assassination. Cases of extreme dissent threatening powerful people (i.e., natural
and legal persons) might unleash severe reprisals, exemplary punishments (e.g., political
abuse of psychiatric and murder) are also social deterrents promoting a culture of
intimidation and self-censorship. The loyalty of wrongdoers is frequently rewarded with job
promotions and participation in attractive business opportunities, undisclosed conflicts of
interests (i.e., secrets) protected by confidentiality agreements and prevarication with
impunity. Being a public accusator is a complex and risky legal job - usually ad honorem
(i.e., no salary or contract).
Public prosecution requires living under the cognitive dissonance of two opposite
psychological forces, a conflict created by the fusion of the biased mind of a lawyer with the
impartial thoughts of a judge.(1) Reaching the point of equilibrium demands excessive
caution, constant correction of ideas - impossible to measure in continuous arithmetical units
- warrants patience, fortitude, and temperance. Fictional weights of two different thought
processes, compared in a imaginary balance that only exist in the prosecutor’s mind, Perfect
equilibrium is only possible in a utopian reality. Certainly, it is not a typical personality
disorder surpassing the threshold of specific diagnostic criteria of a mental illness (e.g.,
DSM-V).(4) Extreme caution is recommended to avoid legal backfires and - more terrifying -
primitive justice unleashed by the natural rights of the masses, or - even more dreadful -
punishment from the highest hierarchical levels of authority by messianic leaders and their
sinister henchmen (e.g., Álvaro Uribe, to not fall into the trap of Godwin's Law).(5)
Nevertheless, Martin Luther King once said: "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.", having quoted that, let’s move forward with this discussion - it is not a
debate, yet.
Read more: download pdf