I have been assisting a client in respect of her concerns arising out of the unauthorised use of her research material and the inclusion of that material in an article written by McKenna and MacLeod which is proposed for publication in NZMJ. You will have also noted that the questionnaire used by McKenna and MacLeod was adapted, without consent, from that designed and used by my client in 2001.

I note that you have passed on some of my client’s concerns to the authors of the proposed article and as a result the authors have deleted Figure 4 and any mention of its data in the text.

You have advised that after studying the amended manuscript and associated correspondence, the editor of NZMJ considers the proposed article is now suitable for publication in either the August or September issue.

My client has not been given the opportunity to review the amended article so cannot make any specific comment. However she wishes to emphasise that she does not wish to be associated in any way with the article and assumes that references to her have been deleted.

My client is committed to the improvement of palliative care in New Zealand. She does not see the publication of a flawed article in the NZMJ as being in the best interests of palliative care generally. As noted above, my client has not seen the amended article so she does not know whether her concerns are well founded or not.

She suggests that the amended article be peer reviewed by an independent reviewer with recognised standing and expertise in palliative care and management of motor neurone disease.

My client is raising her concerns with NZMJ in a hope that whatever is published is accurate and a true reflection of palliative care in New Zealand. I would be happy to discuss this further with you.