Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Falling out of love
- John Hopkins (7 June 2003)
-
Re: Falling out of love
- David Jenkins (8 June 2003)
-
David Horrobin Obituary
- Ewan D Millar (9 June 2003)
-
Who may judge an editor
- Simon P Kay (10 June 2003)
-
THE FURRY BEAR EDITOR
- Rita Pal (11 June 2003)
-
The PCC is a waste of time
- Trevor LP Watts (11 June 2003)
-
The wriggling worm
- Denys N Wheatley (11 July 2003)
|
|
|||
|
John Hopkins, GP Stockton TS17 6EY
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Dr Smith For what its worth I think the BMJ owes David Horrobin’s family an apology although I did not agree with those who decided to refer the matter to the PCC. As for the rest, if the purpose of a medical journal is to give people the opportunity to make fools of themselves (1) that privilege must extend to its editor. However, a newspaper’s relationship with its readers can amount to a kind of affair. If the British Medical Journal seems to be saying that it’s fallen out of love with the British medical profession, perhaps because it has found a better beau, then those who feel left behind won’t be happy bunnies. Yours sincerely, Dr John Hopkins (1) John Milton defends BMJ editor Richard Smith bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7245/1349#8076, 28 May 2000 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David Jenkins, consultant physician Worcestershire Royal Hospital
Send response to journal:
|
I find the debate concerning David Horrobin's obituitary fascinating. I met David Horrobin only once, back in 1986. He gave a talk about the benefits of Evening Primrose Oil, focussing on the theoretical advantages of gammalinoleic acid. Even now I can remember much of what he said. The talk was entertaining and thought-provoking. It was clear that he enjoyed the cut and thrust of robust defence of his controversial views. I cannot help feeling that Professor Horrobin would have thoroughly enjoyed reading his obituitary and ensuing correspondence. If only he could have contributed to it! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ewan D Millar, Consultant Pharmaceutical Physician EH49 6 SL
Send response to journal:
|
I note Smith's comments on the PCC with interest and he is no doubt aware of the activity on this front re the offensive obituary by Richmond. I have a question for Smith and/or Richmond. As Richmond claims that David and his company had dubious ethics does this mean that I who was medical director at Scotia as well as other physicians working for the company whom I know are alive is taking the stance that professionaly we also have dubious research ethics and thus doubts on our medical integrity. What qualifies Richmond to make such statements? Dr Ewan Millar Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Simon P Kay, Consultant Plastic Surgeon, Leeds Leeds Teaching Hospitals LS9 7TF
Send response to journal:
|
In saying of the Press Complaints Commission that "I will of course accept its ruling. The commission wrestles mostly, however, with the monster that is the British tabloid press and is not well suited to pass judgment on more scientific and professional issues." Richard Smith at once places himself under the purlieu of the PCC and at the same time pre- empts the (unlikely) result that this Commission will criticise him by devaluing its' competence to do so. The idea that COPE or a similarly well intentioned but non-statutory quango might have a monitoring role is an interesting one, but an editor may be held to account on any of a large number of attributes of his/her journal or text. The criticisms in relation to the obituary mentioned are criticisms not only of fact but also of taste and fairness, and the PCC is as well able to judge these as any other member of our society. For medical professionals the standard of common decency is no different than for any other person. We can all make our own judgement about the standard of decency employed in the obituary, and decide for ourselves (as can Dr Smith) whether an apology is owed by the author or the editor.In the event I would support the right of an editor to be wrong on matters of taste, and to fail to respond appropriately to the readerships opprobrium, provided matters of fact are correct and he/she is prepared to live with the consequent opinion of their readers and their employers: perhaps in this respect controversy is no bad thing for an otherwise rather abstruse journal, and I even know some "monster" tabloids that have employed this as a promotional strategy! Competing interests: I am the editor of the British Journal of Plastic Surgery |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rita Pal, Editor NHS Exposed XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Send response to journal:
|
Richard, Like all human beings Richard, you are prone to making decisions that may be unpopular with some people. I think it is important to realise that no one is perfect. I know you feel you are superhuman or Godlike sometimes but this editor thing does get to your head sometimes :). In addition, I was surprised that the Press Commission are involved. There is something called free speech.I remember the Press Commission did not lift a finger when the newspaper x accused a junior doctor in London of being a murderer ( without any evidence). Why on earth would they wish to prevent the BMJ's free speech? Talking of free speech; you like all editors are prone to being a victim of society. By this I mean - you often worry what other people think of you. Controversy sells and you are certainly more daring than you used to be in your old days when you used to be "stuck in your ways" and reluctant to publish any material by us simple mere mortals known as rebellious doctors. Personally, you may get it wrong or right but in the end, I am sure the BMJ sells better than before. Controversiality breeds popularity and you are certainly more animated than certain more stuffy editors. Perhaps you remember the days when you poked fun at my internet site www.nhs-exposed.com. I should remind you that you wittered on about its " low counter" condescendingly. Ofcourse, these days we even have advertisers and people actually come and visit! Imagine that eh! Then our internet site is something you got completely wrong as well. We even got the Communicator Award from the US and our hit counter has gone off the scales. Lots of people disagree with me including you. I suspect if I gave a damn about any of it, we would all keep depending on the BMJ to publish our views. I ofcourse have you to thank for NHS Exposed as I published something you considered libellous. Shhhhhhhhh........... don't tell anyone but I was never sued for it! By the way, the site was started with £10. Now I understand even the domain name is worth a lot more. The last offer I had was a few thousand. I am ofcourse not going to sell it. Then I keep telling you to change your outlook, never give a damn about everyone elses attacks and keep going. Indeed, you need to buy a leather jacket, wear some designer clothes and start getting into the trend of life.I think that BMA building keeps you in the dark ages. It has to have an impact on your psychology. Part of you wishes to be accepted and the other part wishes to rebel. Your journal is an example of an editor in search of a comfortable medium that suits his personality. In the end, you need to go forth and be daring and forget about what the world thinks. All that matters is whether you journal sells. I do think though that you need to get out of the environment of pin stripe suits and stand on your own - and be proud of it. If you want to get the public's attention - the journal needs to be more animated, simpler, wittier and something they can understand. I see there is a new patient's addition of the BMJ. You may like to pay some attention to what I have said. Despite the fact, I consider you as the furry bear editor of the BMJ ( to bring you out of the pin stripe era), it brings it all into perspective that even Richard Smith can be man enough to take that remark in the spirit it is meant :). Kind Regards Dr Rita Pal Editor www.nhs-exposed.com The Truth Behind the White Coat Competing interests: Numerous spats with the BMJ editor. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trevor LP Watts, Head of Department of Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry Guy's, King's and St Thomas' Dental Institute, London Bridge, SE1 9RT, UK.
Send response to journal:
|
With regard to the Press Complaints Commission, I fully agree with Richard Smith's assessment that it "is not well suited to pass judgment on more scientific and professional issues". A year or so ago, I made a complaint that The Times had printed some misleading nonsense about my specialist subject and had then refused to publish my short, evidence- based reply (no other reply appeared). The only thing The Times was willing to do was to publish a heavily edited version of my reply which made the whole thing a matter of "in my opinion" (the phrase was inserted several times) rather than the factual correction it was intended to be. The PCC then turned down my complaint on the grounds that The Times had agreed to publish my letter, which it had not. I think the PCC is a waste of time. Competing interests: I think the PCC is a waste of time, for the reasons given in my letter. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Denys N Wheatley, Head of Cell Pathology Unit, University of Aberdeen
Send response to journal:
|
Caught in an inextricable mesh, a worm will wriggle and wriggle until it finally has to give up the ghost. The question concerning Dr Richard Smith is how much longer will he go on wriggling (Editorial: Editorial misconduct; BMJ 326, 1224-1225, 2003). I have read the rapid responses, which are not about his editorial, but about his character emerging with all its warts and bumps in regard to the Horrobin affair. But what about responses to the editorial itself? Has no one else any problem with it? Dr Smith is correct that editors have considerable freedom, but not unlimited freedom. He can call me what he likes to my face, but if he were to publish defamatory remarks about me in "his" journal, then I would sue him. Freedom, as in "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", denies the associated responsibility, and an editor's position is a very responsible one. I believe he should accept this responsibility and not be arrogant in his several attempts to wriggle out of it time and again. He should also retract such nonsensical statements as suggesting in this bizarre editorial that "the roof will fall in" if an editor is fired. What rubbish! Others are waiting to breach the gap - possibly someone who will do a much better job. Dr Smith goes on - equally nonsensically - in his editorial diatribe to tar all editors with the same brush. These statements themselves seriously challenge the judgement of someone who has been left to wallow in this highly responsible position long after he has gone way beyond the limits of acceptable practice. "Self regulation" is taken too literally by Dr Smith - an expression implying that you judge yourself and adjust your behaviour accordingly, which is just what he seems to be doing. If "self" means a bunch of editors regulating each other, then that is a little more acceptable, but surely the best regulation is by an independent set of experts and laypeople who cover the range of interests expressed in this case in a medical journal. I believe Dr Smith should shut up. However, it seems that he will have to be shut up - but who will act? There is no way this continued wriggling will lead to his behaviour being exonerated, which just gets worse at every turn. He has lost the battle, and from his beleaguered position, a simple note of resignation would be the honourable course. Since considerable time has elapsed since the beginning of the Horrobin affair, it is now abundantly clear than Dr Smith is not an honourable man. Meanwhile one Caroline Richmond continues to carry the quill for the grim reaper… Competing interests: Editor of two biomedical journals, and an old friend of David Horrobin |
|||