Журнал. World association for medical law. The COVID-19 pandemic. Volume 39 2

163 World Association for Medical Law Medicine and Law Editorial Prerogative and Explanation Introduction At the time of going to press, with this special issue of the Journal, Medicine and Law, every paper contained, within this issue, was subjected to independent academic referral and review from experts in the field. Authors were invited to respond to the referee(s)’ comments and their contribution further reviewed. Once accepted for publication, every paper, within this issue, was edited by two independent English speakers to adjust for language, grammar and syntax and returned to the relevant author(s) for final approval of content and format, to ensure that none of the import had been inappropriately modified, consequent to the process. With the exception of the following paper, this process was adhered to with absolute rigor, resulting in some author(s) declining to proceed because of the need for considerable additional effort required to accommodate the expectations of the referee(s). The paper to follow went someway down this path, but not all the way, and it is for that reason, and for the fact that its inclusion is as a direct consequence of editorial decision to meet the needs of this particular special issue, that it was felt that an additional explanation was mandated. As set out in the editorial which has accompanied this special issue of the Journal the evolution of this issue was as a consequence of the cancellation of the August, World Congress on Medical Law, planned for Toronto, Canada. Each national representative, on the World Association for Medical Law (WAML) Board of Governors, was invited to provide a focused national perspective of that country’s experience of the Covid Pandemic in its first half year. Most of the Governors responded positively with few exceptions. Late within this process, the WAML was advised of the resignation of the Chinese representative, Prof Chunfang Gao, from the Board of Governors. This would result in an obviously highly relevant gap and a deficiency in what was to be an authoritative ‘time capsule’ to cover the first half year of the Covid Pandemic. Based on the widely held premise, still to be verified by stringent academic investigation, the pandemic originated in China and any ‘time capsule’, reviewing the pandemic, without a Chinese commentary, would be considered either biased, deficient or at least incomplete. Upon the advice of the resignation of the Chinese governor from the WAML, the editor in chief approached a number of highly regarded, internationally recognised Chinese academics who, with the exception of Prof Yushen Sha, politely declined the offer of inclusion. Med Law (2020) 39:2:163-164