Rapid Responses to:

EDITOR'S CHOICE: Kamran Abbasi The case for slowing down BMJ 2005; 330: 0-h [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Answer to your question and 2 further questions

Nick Archer   (18 March 2005)

Answer to your question and 2 further questions 18 March 2005
Nick Archer, Consultant Paediatric Cardiologist John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU Send response to journal: Re: Answer to your question and 2 further questions	Editor The answer to your question about data which may have indicated an underperforming cardiac centre is clearly b, that is passing the data to the appropriate NHS authorities should have been the approach. This would allow a proper analysis and review (such as subsequently took place) without causing all the distress and confusion to patients, families and health care workers. In return I ask two further questions. a) Who has been damned following the publication? The families wrongly traumatised by the misleading information, the clinical staff unfairly criticised, the authors of the paper, the referees, the editorial staff at BMJ, the credibility of BMJ as a solid scientific journal or all of these? b) Is your use of the expression 'publish and be damned' and acknowledgement of the inaccuracy of the data an apology for publishing it? Competing interests: I work for Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust