In what circumstance can ghostwriting in medical publications be considered ethically acceptable?

Ghostwriting in medical publications is considered ethically unacceptable in all circumstances due to several important principles of medical publishing and ethics. The practice fundamentally undermines the credibility of the scientific literature, compromises the integrity of medical discourse, and violates the trust between authors, publishers, and the audience.

Ethical guidelines from various organizations emphasize the importance of transparency and accountability in authorship. True authorship requires a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of research work, and ghostwriting typically involves a third party who does not meet these criteria. Allowing ghostwriting could result in potential conflicts of interest and biases in the presentation of data, particularly when financial or promotional interests of sponsors influence the content.

While some might argue that there could be scenarios where ghostwriting could be minimized through appropriate crediting or author review of content, these do not resolve the fundamental ethical issues at play. The essence of good ethical practice in medical writing insists that those who contribute to the intellectual work should be openly recognized as authors. Thus, ghostwriting is deemed unacceptable regardless of the circumstances.