Although I've freelanced for 20 years, my stomach still plummets when I hear "the question."

It always comes after I've done my very best to behave like a professional. I've researched enough ahead of time to know something about the interviewee and the subject. I've worked to establish rapport with him or her, and to be as reasonable and cooperative as I can in the process of conducting the interview.

Then, just as I'm about to wrap it up, I hear the dreaded words: "You'll send me a copy for review before it's published, right?"

The request often comes as an offhand statement tossed out at the end of the interview. The writer, usually eager to close out, can easily hear herself saying yes, when she really doesn't want to – and generally should not – do so.

Most editors agree that it's unprofessional to ask (though I don't recommend you advise the subject that this is so) and unprofessional to comply. There are also some instances in which writers may CHOOSE to accommodate this request in a modified way.

As a writer, your obligation – both to the interviewee and to the publication for which you're writing – is to be fair, accurate, and unbiased in using the material disclosed in the interview. Unless subjects themselves are contracting your services to write the piece, you owe them nothing more than that. Allowing them to see a manuscript and have control over its content will usually compromise its integrity, and blur the distinction between unbiased reporting and promotional material. Bear in mind that it's YOUR professional reputation that will be at stake if that happens.

My usual response is to tell the person politely and without apology that the publication/editor for whom I'm writing does not allow this, as indeed most do have a policy against it. If that is not a sufficient answer in itself, I may elaborate a little bit about the essentials of journalistic integrity involved.

At the same time, I try to convey my respect for the person's dignity and my appreciation that the subject is opening up to me, in order to boost confidence and goodwill. I've noted that when this request comes up, I've often already sensed that the subject isn't comfortable in the interview. The person may be wary and guarded, or working carefully not to say something "wrong," rather than relaxing with me and sharing the information that would help me write the article.

Subjects may be inexperienced at giving interviews, or may perceive that they or someone they know has been "burned" or misquoted in an interview experience. (As I have myself, so I can be empathetic about that, and have shared with subjects that this makes me extra careful in handling quoted material.) I've even asked subjects directly, "What will help you feel more comfortable about this interview?" when their discomfort has been obvious. Almost every time, they've opened up with a "horror story" that has prompted their concern.

If interviewees remain attached to the idea that they want to see what I write before it's published, I may offer them the option of seeing the quoted material I plan to use. That is all I share – their quotes and, to some extent, the context in which they'll appear. And I only offer this when it becomes clear that the subject is very uneasy.

An exception I've made about showing whole articles to sources pre-publication is when the person is an expert in their field, or the topic itself is a complex one. When I interviewed an endocrinologist for a story about diabetes and pregnancy, I had him look at my manuscript to ensure I'd included certain medical information accurately. I'd worked as a nurse in maternity and other hospital settings and even had some background in the topic, but I wanted my source, the magazine, and myself all to look professional.

Freelancer Tracey Meloni, who also does a lot of medical writing, often runs her manuscript past some of the more renowned experts she interviews, especially when they contribute a significant amount of the content. She does this both to ensure accuracy of what she submits, and to equip herself in advance in case an editor's changes somehow jeopardize a story's accuracy. "I always set firm deadlines [with the source], telling them that the copy must be returned by a certain date or that I will otherwise assume that everything is OK," she notes.

In summary, a writer has no obligation to show a manuscript to an interview subject, although you have the CHOICE of enlisting that person's help if you feel it would benefit your article. Just never forget who is editor and who is interview subject.

At the time of this writing, New Hampshire writer Phyllis Edgerly Ring's work has appeared this year in American Profile, Baby Years, Christian Science Monitor, Hope, Liguorian, and Ms. Her children's picture book will be published by Brilliant Books, and she is writing a book for parents about gender equality in the family.