Response—Corruption, Trust, and Professional Regulation

3Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

In 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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Montgomery, K. (2022). Response—Corruption, Trust, and Professional Regulation. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 19(1), 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-021-10149-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free