A lot has been said about "patient's rights". Is there a good medical or legal treatises about "physician's rights"?

Patient bill of rights

An academic journal asked the author to exclude references or anonymise sources that are potentially damaging to the reputation of a commercial company. While there are guidelines for dealing with grey literature in research, it seems that some grey literature (company's own reports) are accepted, while other (e.g. critical reports by NGO's, social media, etc.) need to be excluded.

As an example, let's say that an article contained some criticism of a large soft drink company. The editor wrote to the author:

"...about other sources using real names, that can be allowable, but, in order to name companies in a paper, the language 1) must not be potentially damaging to the reputation of a company) and 2) the conclusions drawn (if negative) must be based on publicly available data (e.g., taken from their annual reports), with no opinion or supposition. Academic articles need to be much more careful than other forms of reporting (like social media at the other extreme), because they are held in high regard and can be cited and used in legal proceedings".

Does this imply that data reported should be based on companies self-reports, not on outside criticism? Is this 'right' of a publisher to do or is this a kind of censorship that should not be allowed in academia?

Physicians most of the time take risk and plead innocence when something goes wrong during a medical act, in criminal discipline they say they have a "dolus bonus", is that truth ? Never a physicians will practice a crime during a procedure. How we can explain the great amount of deaths by iatrogenic diseases and medical errors ?  

I'm not entirely certain how this "Start a discussion" feature works, but I'll give it a shot anyways.

I can't be the only one experiencing a co-author paraphrasing all my work so that person can maintain complete control over the publishing process. Some have said this issue happens often at the graduate level but never at the undergraduate level. I'm a non-traditional 40-something year old student who has extensive experience with civil rights and so I'm particularly sensitive to people trying to pull a fast-one on me.

In this case, the professor glitched a few times which had me researching copyrights and IP laws a long time ago. However, I waited until after graduation to raise the issue because the university has a history of retaliation when people express concerns of possible civil rights violations. The corruption runs deep at this particular institution, which bases most of its decisions on their intentional lack of policies and procedures addressing fundamental rights such as free speech and intellectual property. In other words, they remain silent on key issues in order to have as much lateral discretion as possible when making critical decisions even when those decisions are inconsistent with both laws and ethics and could potentially ruin a student's entire academic career.

One of the biggest red flags I noticed early on was the professor neglected to go over the section in our textbook that addresses authorship order and publishing rights in the chapter titled "Research Ethics."

I think my mistake was taking for granted that I viewed this entire project as my own because it was based almost entirely on my research into safe consumption sites. The experimental design, methodologies, protocols, and procedures were created by myself during her class in "Research Methods" as graded assignments. It was, and always has been, my original ideas and content from the very beginning; it just never occurred to me that this professor could, or would, even try to scrub me out like this. I trusted this person and considered her a friend and mentor!

Looking back, I cannot remember even a single instance where we had this conversation despite it being a core principle of the American Psychology Association Code of Ethics. The professor is a licensed psychologist and my degree was in psychology so you'd think that would have been something we should have covered at least once. Right?

Has anyone else experienced issues similar to this? How did you handle it? What should I do, or have done, to prevent this from becoming an issue?

Sometime it has been seen that surgical team approach the patient party / attendant for a radical procedure (for example - consent taken and planned for cystectomy and introp surgeon decided to do hysterectomy) in an general anaesthetized patient. Is it valid or acceptable? The operation is elective, patient is otherwise capable to give consent when awake and consent; taking consent from attendant / party isn't against patients autonomy?

I want to write thesis by making comparison of techniques being utilized by VCs to predict risk and make investment decisions. I think this comparison will help to add value by revealing new information and practices. For the same purpose, I am wondering for the sources to get relevant data. Kindly suggest if there are resources available online or Do I need to approach individuals working in these companies (I am not sure if they will be interested to share the information due to ethical or legal reasons).

Are international legal principles absolutely not reviewable , Under what conditions can the principles be revised ?

Medical Errors.

Sometimes we witness a legal action or practice that is not considered ethical or moral. So what is the reason for this decomposition? Where do the concepts of ethics, laws, and morals differ? Traditions? Tolerance? or is it intolerance?

What do you think?