Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Needs a clarification?
- Jay Ilangaratne (17 October 2003)
-
Missing link to career focus article
- Rhona MacDonald (20 October 2003)
-
Equality for people with disabilities in medicine
- Peter Rubin (23 October 2003)
-
Not all one way
- Kenneth M Black (27 October 2003)
-
Disability - let`s all change
- Joyce M. Carter, Stephen Marsh, Disability Equality Officer (30 October 2003)
-
Medical Editor Spanish
- Martha Castilleja, Martha Castilleja (4 January 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Jay Ilangaratne, Founder Medical-Journals.com
Send response to journal:
|
In the fourth paragraph of this editorial it is said: "Owing to the timing of the case, the incorporation of the Human Rights Act into the law of member states of the European Union (which took place in 2001) was not applicable." I wonder whether the authors are trying to say, since the European Convention on Human Rights(rather than the Human Rights Act)was formaly incorporated into the domestic Human Rights Act 1998,only in October 2000(rather than 2001),the GMC's alleged act(which predates October 2000)was not applicable to be considered under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, it is a fact that in some instances, the application of the Human Rights Act 1998, can be considered retrospectively. Perhaps, the authors might care to offer a clarification. Competing interests: Disabled within the meaning of the DDA 1995 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rhona MacDonald, editor career focus BMJ
Send response to journal:
|
This editorial should link to an article in this week's career focus where Professor Peter Rubin,chairman of the GMC's Medical Education Committee, sets the record straight about the GMC's policy on admitting people with disabilities into medical school. We unintentionally missed out this link so here it is now http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7420/s123 many apologies Competing interests: one of the authors of this editorial and editor of career focus |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Rubin, Chairman GMC Education Committee
Send response to journal:
|
Editor: The view of the General Medical Council in respect of students with disabilities going to medical school is crystal clear and very positive. We believe that students with a wide range of disabilities can – and we know that they do – successfully complete the medical curriculum. We would only get concerned in the rare instances where public safety might be at risk. This is spelled out in Tomorrow’s Doctors (www.gmc- uk.org/med_ed). Being in a wheel chair, for example, should not of itself be a bar to studying medicine and I am personally aware of one such student who recently began their medical studies. I set this position out in Career Focus in the Journal of 18 October 2003. I was therefore surprised and disappointed by your editorial in the same issue because it gave the erroneous impression that the GMC gets in the way of students with disabilities going to medical school – we don’t. Since the editorial was not cross referenced to my article, despite the latter being commissioned by one of the authors of the former, quite the wrong message was conveyed. Your editorial is also misleading in its references to the Heidi Cox case by stating that she “won her initial complaint” against a “ruling” by the GMC that she should not study medicine. This is incorrect. Ms Cox has never won any complaint against the GMC and her case had no basis in law. Peter Rubin
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kenneth M Black, Public Health Specialist Scottish Executive, Health Department, St Andrew's House, Regent Road, Edinburgh. EH1 3DG
Send response to journal:
|
This editorial draws attention to the need for the NHS to change. The NHS is in increasing competition with other employers for suitable employees. The "poor record of the medical profession"(1) may well make it less attractive to suitable candidates - some of whom will be disabled. In addition, the ability of the NHS to retain people who become disabled whilst working for it may well not match the attraction of organisations outwith it. There is benefit to be gained from doctors with disabilities engaging with "other health professionals with disabilities and with the wider disability movement." There is benefit too in disabled doctors recognising that their disability is not the only feature that defines them. Other 'groups' (including those defined by race and sex) may well also feel disadvantaged. And further, they have, at least partially, addressed these matters. Disabled people may well benefit by considering how these ‘groups’ have addressed their disadvantage. Doctors and students with disabilities may indeed require support as their career progresses. Their able-bodied colleagues however, including those who are well-meaning, may lack both the knowledge and the ability to offer that support. Disabled doctors and students have a responsibility to facilitate their learning. Able-bodied people have the duty to learn about this subject, but disabled people should facilitate it. If there is co- operation, rather than antagonism, the benefit to all will be greater. If the current attitude of the NHS to disabled staff continues the gap between the increasing needs of disabled people and the ability of staff to treat them will become even wider. The editorial by Mercer et. al. draws attention to an area that has for too long been neglected. Mercer S (et. al.) Equality for people with disabilities in medicine. BMJ. 2003 Oct 18;327(7420):882-3 Competing interests: Disabled within the meaning of the DDA 1995, |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joyce M. Carter, Consultant in Public Health Medicine Central Liverpool PCT, 24 Pall Mall, Liverpool, L3 6AL, Stephen Marsh, Disability Equality Officer
Send response to journal:
|
We participated in the excellent multidisciplinary conference which addressed disability and doctors, to which reference is made in a recent editorial (1). It is encouraging that disability is at last being recognised as a major issue. However, we believe that radical change is needed in the way that disability is addressed in society in general and by the medical profession in particular. There are many parallels with racism and sexism. The editorial made brief mention of this, and the need to engage with the wider disability movement: we believe that this should be the focus in addressing disability. Disabled people have used the Social Model of Disability to identify the fact that much of the disadvantage they experience is due to physical, social, and attitudinal barriers rather than their own impairments (2)(3). As such, disability is fundamentally a civil rights issue. Increasing the proportion of disabled people who become medical students means realising that disabled people are more likely to live in poverty than the general population (4). Therefore the current debate about student tuition fees is very relevant. It also means removing any barriers that the education system puts in the way of disabled children achieving the high standard in public examinations necessary for medical school entry. These barriers are not just physical, but also attitudinal and they can consign disabled children to a life of exclusion and underachievement (5). Medical students are currently campaigning for a more inclusive medical profession; this is welcomed, but they need to take these barriers into account. The medical profession cannot expect to be taken seriously when talking about equality for disabled people whilst it is actively involved in antenatal screening programmes in the UK. These programmes were set up to identify so-called “handicapped” fetuses in order to destroy them, thus reducing the number of disabled people who are born. Medicine also develops increasingly sophisticated and expensive ways of trying to make disabled people conform to society`s perception of normal. Instead, why not focus on changing society so that diversity is valued and groups perceived as different (and inferior) are fully included rather than marginalised? Doctors, in general, are reluctant to acknowledge that disability is about oppressing certain members of society. Is this because if they acknowledged that, they would also have to acknowledge that they number among the oppressors? References 1. Mercer S, Dieppe P, Chambers R, MacDonald R. Equality for people with disabilities in medicine. British Medical Journal 2003; 327: 882-883 2. Carter J, Markham N. Disability discrimination. British Medical Journal 2001; 323: 178 – 179 3. Oliver, M. The Politics of Disablement. London: Macmillan,1990 4. Barnes, C. Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination: A Case for Anti Discrimination Legislation. London: Hurst and Co/BCODP, 1991 5. Rae, A. Bolton Data for Inclusion: Survivors from the Special School System. Bolton: Bolton Institute,1997 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Martha Castilleja, Medical Editor Spanish 8842 W Flagler st apt 107 Miami Fl 33174, Martha Castilleja
Send response to journal:
|
I am a medical editor and translator in Spanish, I worked for the news agency Reuters during four years, but they closed my position on December 31, 03, so I am unemployed now. I am a disabled doctor (polio, right leg) and I want to work close to people with disabilities in medicina, because I know that it is time for action and partnership, as your article says. Please get in touch with me. Martha Castilleja, MD Competing interests: None declared |
|||