Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Banning can do wonders. Our columnist Colin Douglas
still slavers over a junior doctor writing in the BMJ that
one of his books should be banned. "The book the BMJ tried
to ban" can only be good for sales People are rightly affronted by anybody having the hubris to try and
ban a word. Language is a living thing that belongs not to any one
individual or a jumped up medical journal but to all the people who
speak it. Trying to ban a word is not only hopeless but also an insult.
Worse still, it has totalitarian overtones. The banning of words may be
followed by the burning of books and then the burning of people.
Nevertheless, it's fun. The proposal to ban a word focuses attention
on the many wrong assumptions, prejudices, and even evil thoughts that
might be contained within a word. Words like nigger, Mongol, spastic,
cretin, and queer have disappeared from polite usage, although queer is
interesting in that those whom it was used against have claimed it for
themselves. (And the use of the word "gay" to mean homosexual
infuriates homophobes.)
We tried to ban the word accident to get across the idea that accidents
are not random acts of God but events that have causes and can be
prevented. We advanced the same idea in 1993 but caused hardly a
ripple. It was the ban that attracted attention and, I believe, raised
consciousness about accidents having an epidemiology and being
preventable. We didn't of course succeed literally with our ban, even
within the BMJ. The editorial advocating a ban appeared in
June 2001. In issues published in January to May in the seven years to
2000 the BMJ used the word accident on average 137 times. We
used it 97 times in January to May in 2001 (perhaps as we debated vociferously whether we should ban the word) but then 103 times in
January to May in 2002.
Various suggestions have been made already for words to ban. "Drug"
is a word so heavily loaded with sometimes conflicting meanings that it
should perhaps be jettisoned. "Paternalism" is a sexist word
because women can be just as paternalistic as men. "Caucasian" is
an absurd word because few Caucasians come from the Caucasus. The
BMJ long ago advocated Europid, with no success. Or what
about the BMJ "Christmas" issue? Should a global,
secular, multiethnic journal have such an issue?
much more so than " BMJ says an
essential read for all doctors," which probably doesn't shift a
single copy. After our "success" in banning the word accident we
thought that we would indulge in further banning for Christmas. Please
send us a rapid response and suggest words that you would like banned. You might also tell us why. If we receive a clutch of suggestions we
will then have a vote on bmj.com and an article in our Christmas issue.
Footnotes
To receive Editor's choice by email each week subscribe via our website: www.bmj.com/cgi/customalert
Read all Rapid Responses
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.