Scientific evidence and best patient care practices should guide the ethics of Lyme disease activism

Paul G. Auwaerter, Johan S. Bakken, Raymond J. Dattwyler, J. Stephen Dumler, John Halperin, Edward McSweegan, Robert B. Nadelman, Susan O'Connell, Sunil K. Sood, Arthur Weinstein, Gary P. Wormser

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Johnson and Stricker published an opinion piece in the Journal of Medical Ethics presenting their perspective on the 2008 agreement between the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Connecticut Attorney General with regard to the 2006 IDSA treatment guideline for Lyme disease. Their writings indicate that these authors hold unconventional views of a relatively common tick-transmitted bacterial infection caused by the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that their opinions would clash with the IDSA's evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. Their allegations of conflict of interest against the IDSA resemble those made against the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2000, which were found to be baseless. It is the responsibility of all physicians and medical scientists to stand up to antiscientific, baseless and unethical attacks on those who support an evidence-based approach to caring for patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)68-73
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Medical Ethics
Volume37
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Lyme Disease
Ethics
patient care
Communicable Diseases
Patient Care
moral philosophy
Guidelines
Disease
Conflict of Interest
Spirochaetales
Medical Ethics
Lawyers
Borrelia burgdorferi
contagious disease
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Ticks
United States Food and Drug Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)
Bacterial Infections
evidence

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Health(social science)
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Auwaerter, P. G., Bakken, J. S., Dattwyler, R. J., Dumler, J. S., Halperin, J., McSweegan, E., ... Wormser, G. P. (2011). Scientific evidence and best patient care practices should guide the ethics of Lyme disease activism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(2), 68-73. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.032896
Auwaerter, Paul G. ; Bakken, Johan S. ; Dattwyler, Raymond J. ; Dumler, J. Stephen ; Halperin, John ; McSweegan, Edward ; Nadelman, Robert B. ; O'Connell, Susan ; Sood, Sunil K. ; Weinstein, Arthur ; Wormser, Gary P. / Scientific evidence and best patient care practices should guide the ethics of Lyme disease activism. In: Journal of Medical Ethics. 2011 ; Vol. 37, No. 2. pp. 68-73.
@article{77e225fc96b6473fa33cd53e5a4cdf8d,
title = "Scientific evidence and best patient care practices should guide the ethics of Lyme disease activism",
abstract = "Johnson and Stricker published an opinion piece in the Journal of Medical Ethics presenting their perspective on the 2008 agreement between the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Connecticut Attorney General with regard to the 2006 IDSA treatment guideline for Lyme disease. Their writings indicate that these authors hold unconventional views of a relatively common tick-transmitted bacterial infection caused by the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that their opinions would clash with the IDSA's evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. Their allegations of conflict of interest against the IDSA resemble those made against the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2000, which were found to be baseless. It is the responsibility of all physicians and medical scientists to stand up to antiscientific, baseless and unethical attacks on those who support an evidence-based approach to caring for patients.",
author = "Auwaerter, {Paul G.} and Bakken, {Johan S.} and Dattwyler, {Raymond J.} and Dumler, {J. Stephen} and John Halperin and Edward McSweegan and Nadelman, {Robert B.} and Susan O'Connell and Sood, {Sunil K.} and Arthur Weinstein and Wormser, {Gary P.}",
year = "2011",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/jme.2009.032896",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "68--73",
journal = "Journal of Medical Ethics",
issn = "0306-6800",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "2",

}

Auwaerter, PG, Bakken, JS, Dattwyler, RJ, Dumler, JS, Halperin, J, McSweegan, E, Nadelman, RB, O'Connell, S, Sood, SK, Weinstein, A & Wormser, GP 2011, 'Scientific evidence and best patient care practices should guide the ethics of Lyme disease activism', Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 68-73. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.032896

Scientific evidence and best patient care practices should guide the ethics of Lyme disease activism. / Auwaerter, Paul G.; Bakken, Johan S.; Dattwyler, Raymond J.; Dumler, J. Stephen; Halperin, John; McSweegan, Edward; Nadelman, Robert B.; O'Connell, Susan; Sood, Sunil K.; Weinstein, Arthur; Wormser, Gary P.

In: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 37, No. 2, 01.02.2011, p. 68-73.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Scientific evidence and best patient care practices should guide the ethics of Lyme disease activism

AU - Auwaerter, Paul G.

AU - Bakken, Johan S.

AU - Dattwyler, Raymond J.

AU - Dumler, J. Stephen

AU - Halperin, John

AU - McSweegan, Edward

AU - Nadelman, Robert B.

AU - O'Connell, Susan

AU - Sood, Sunil K.

AU - Weinstein, Arthur

AU - Wormser, Gary P.

PY - 2011/2/1

Y1 - 2011/2/1

N2 - Johnson and Stricker published an opinion piece in the Journal of Medical Ethics presenting their perspective on the 2008 agreement between the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Connecticut Attorney General with regard to the 2006 IDSA treatment guideline for Lyme disease. Their writings indicate that these authors hold unconventional views of a relatively common tick-transmitted bacterial infection caused by the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that their opinions would clash with the IDSA's evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. Their allegations of conflict of interest against the IDSA resemble those made against the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2000, which were found to be baseless. It is the responsibility of all physicians and medical scientists to stand up to antiscientific, baseless and unethical attacks on those who support an evidence-based approach to caring for patients.

AB - Johnson and Stricker published an opinion piece in the Journal of Medical Ethics presenting their perspective on the 2008 agreement between the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Connecticut Attorney General with regard to the 2006 IDSA treatment guideline for Lyme disease. Their writings indicate that these authors hold unconventional views of a relatively common tick-transmitted bacterial infection caused by the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that their opinions would clash with the IDSA's evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. Their allegations of conflict of interest against the IDSA resemble those made against the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2000, which were found to be baseless. It is the responsibility of all physicians and medical scientists to stand up to antiscientific, baseless and unethical attacks on those who support an evidence-based approach to caring for patients.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79251482457&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79251482457&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/jme.2009.032896

DO - 10.1136/jme.2009.032896

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 68

EP - 73

JO - Journal of Medical Ethics

JF - Journal of Medical Ethics

SN - 0306-6800

IS - 2

ER -