This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Medical Ethics  • Otolaryngology/ Head & Neck Surgery, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

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

In reply

Dr Gates' elegant and thought-provoking letter does a superb job in lending clarity to the distinctions between surgical innovation, experimental surgery, and surgical research. I wholeheartedly agree with him that innovation is crucial to the advancement of medical science and that it should be protected and encouraged. As surgeons, our primary responsibility is to our patients. In the course of practicing our profession and caring for our patients, however, we are accountable to a number of outside agencies. These include state licensing boards and hospital credentialing committees, among others. We comply with the requirements of these agencies because we believe that ultimately it is in our patients' best interests. Accountability to a local IRB ought to be viewed in the same light. While it may be cumbersome, and may require paperwork that we would rather not do, it ultimately demonstrates our commitment to our patients and our willingness . . . [Full Text of this Article]

John D. Casler, MD
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
Walter Reed Army Medical Center
Washington, DC 20307-5001
(e-mail: John.Casler@na.amedd.army.mil)

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

RELATED ARTICLE

Surgical Innovation and Research
George A. Gates
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;129(12):1352-1353.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT