Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

Conflicts of interest.

¹Center for Ethics and Social Justice, Loyola University of Chicago, IL 60627, USA. dozar@loc.edu

The Journal of the American College of Dentists

|November 24, 2004

Summary

Navigating dental conflicts of interest requires balancing potential harms from secondary interests against harms from withholding services. A five-question framework aids ethical decision-making for dentists and researchers.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

From Solo Decision Maker to Multi-Stakeholder Process: A Defense and Recommendations.

The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2020

Same author

Who Are "Unrepresented" Patients and What Count as "Important" Medical Decisions for Them?

AMA journal of ethics·2019

Same author

Is there hope for dental ethics? An interview with ethics expert Dr. David Ozar. Interview by Michael Maihofer.

The Journal of the Michigan Dental Association·2004

See all related articles

Area of Science:

Dental Ethics
Conflict of Interest Management
Professional Responsibility

Background:

Conflicts of interest are inherent in dental practice and research.
Secondary interests can potentially bias professional judgment.
Withholding necessary dental services also carries potential harm.

Purpose of the Study:

To provide a structured approach for evaluating conflicts of interest in dentistry.
To offer a framework for ethical decision-making when secondary interests are present.
To compare the risks associated with secondary interests versus withholding services.

Main Methods:

Development of a five-question framework for conflict assessment.
Analysis of potential harm and likelihood of harm from secondary interests.
Evaluation of potential harm and likelihood of harm from withholding services.
Application of the framework to case examples.

Main Results:

The framework systematically assesses the balance between risks of disclosed secondary interests and risks of undisclosed conflicts.
It highlights the need to consider the potential damage caused by both acting on and withholding services.
Case examples demonstrate practical application in research and patient care.

Conclusions:

A structured ethical framework can effectively guide dentists in managing conflicts of interest.
Informed decision-making requires weighing the potential harms of secondary interests against the harms of service omission.
This approach promotes transparency and patient welfare in dentistry.

Keywords:

Biomedical and Behavioral Research Health Care and Public Health

Related Experiment Videos