Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
The ban of kitchen knives is not the way to act.
- May Wung (27 May 2005)
-
An unworkable proposal
- Alan R Denison (27 May 2005)
-
An extreme measure to make a point
- David J Hartin (27 May 2005)
-
Are they serious?
- Andrew Philip Lessnoff (27 May 2005)
-
Accidents involving long pointed kitchen knifes
- Yahaya Mt Hassan (27 May 2005)
-
The Spork solution
- Saif S Rathore (27 May 2005)
-
God save the Queen from kitchen knives!
- Heather E. Chase (28 May 2005)
-
Disappointing responses
- David Abrahamson (28 May 2005)
-
Aichmophobia?
- Godfrey S Bartlett (28 May 2005)
-
Knives, forks and crime
- Giusto Giusti, "Tor Vergata" Rome University, via Montpellier 1 (28 May 2005)
-
Homicide
- Ian S Sturrock (29 May 2005)
-
Control Group.
- Michael R Neal, pe304et (29 May 2005)
-
Knives don't kill people, people kill people.
- Gary B. Carpenter (29 May 2005)
-
Re: Disappointing responses
- Peter KK Au-Yeung (30 May 2005)
-
Are you missing the point?
- Harvey J. Marrable (30 May 2005)
-
Think before you ban
- Mike Daube (30 May 2005)
-
Is it practical to ban long pointed knives?
- Martin Pool (31 May 2005)
-
How cool is a kitchen knife?
- Brian J Anthony (31 May 2005)
-
Re: Disappointing responses
- Michael R Neal (31 May 2005)
-
Nixing Nibs.
- Robert I. Rudolph, M.D., FACP (31 May 2005)
-
A proper risk assessment
- Ravi A Ramaswami, Paul S. Turnbull (31 May 2005)
-
Please stick to being doctors.
- Collin W. Rink (1 June 2005)
-
Shaky hypothesis, poor analysis
- Matthew B Craver (1 June 2005)
-
Deja Vu (All Over Again)
- Robert C. Solomon (1 June 2005)
-
The BMJ devolves into farce
- Kevin C. Fleming (2 June 2005)
-
A sound proposal
- Víctor Lipovetzky (3 June 2005)
-
Re: Deja Vu (All Over Again)
- Thomas J Helling (3 June 2005)
-
Banning Knives
- Christopher M Milroy (3 June 2005)
-
Stabbing: data support public perception
- Charles H Knowles, Tom Konig, Alison West, Alastair Wilson, Frank Cross (5 September 2006)
-
Cllr Joan Mctigue
- Joan McTigue (30 December 2007)
-
A lack of priorities
- Richard Hemingway (2 June 2008)
-
Need for moral teachings in Schools
- Dr Theetam Thinnunna Panni (10 November 2008)
|
|
|||
|
May Wung, Medical Student Imperial College
Send response to journal:
|
Sirs, Whilst I understand the meat of your letter, what I do not understand is why you have reached that conclusion. Ten 'top chefs' may have commented that they could not think of a useful practical use in the domestic setting for a kitchen knife of such a size. However, for a survey of how large kitchen knives are used in the domestic setting, perhaps it would have been more worthy to ask not chefs, but those in the domestic setting, and ask how frequently they use such knives, and what for. It may have been (unfairly) assumed by the chefs that you questioned that in the current domestic setting, the use of the kitchen knife extends no further than putting holes in the plastic top of microwave meals. Perhaps for people who do not cook for themselves, the banning of large kitchen knives would not have so much of an effect on their cooking, but in the case of roasting and carving large joints of meat, or cleaving roast poultry, I see no other utensil more useful than a large kitchen knife with a pointed tip. It would be impossible to slice a four kilo shoulder of lamb with nothing more than a knife measuring less than 5cm in length. Your letter concludes that 'many assaults are impulsive, often triggered by alcohol or misuse of other drugs...' Then perhaps it would have a greater effect on prevention by tackling alcohol misuse and drug abuse, rather than banning a very useful kitchen utensil. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alan R Denison, Specialist Registrar, Radiology Aberdeen, UK AB10 6SS
Send response to journal:
|
The logical extension of the authors' argument is to ban all items that have the potential to cause harm, in which case we will have to resort to eating jelly and soup. Removal of pointed knives will merely change the instrument used to inflict pain and suffering. What about skewers? Forks? Frying Pans? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David J Hartin, Specialist Registrar in Emergency Medicine Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge. CB2 2QQ
Send response to journal:
|
Sir, I am disturbed regarding the proposal to ban pointed knives with blades more than 5 centimetres in length and its publication. Sporting equipment, mechanical devices and everyday containers in the wrong hands can be just as deadly as knives both by blunt and penetrating trauma yet we do not call for a ban on cricket bats, wheel braces or glass bottles. Is not a surgical scalpel in a hypothetical situation a deadly stabbing weapon with a short blade? Having worked in various restaurants in my youth and seen all sorts of professional knives, they are carried in sheaths or briefcase style safety carriers and not in the back pocket of jeans or the inside of a “hoody”. Persons under the age of 16 are already banned from buying knives and this is correct. As an amateur cook in my spare time, a range of long knives are used for cutting, filleting, paring and chopping and I like the variety they afford me as I am not skilled enough to use one knife for all purposes. I also like my heavy cleaver but I assume as this does not have a point it would escape the proposed ban. Knives in the hands of the ordinary law abiding citizen are dangerous by their nature in that they are designed to cut and may injure the unwary by misadventure but are not deadly as in the hands of one who intends to injure. We already live in a society where personal responsibility for one’s actions is diluted daily by the press, the legal profession and the government in no particular order. The knife is inanimate and will not injure on its own. It requires a human with free will to pick it up and use it offensively. It is against the law to injure someone with a knife and any competent person knows this. They should face the full force of the judiciary and hopefully do in most cases. A law to ban the sale of knives with pointed blades over 5 centimetres in length is not sensible or practical but expensive, unfeasible and pointless. The problem is not with sharp culinary cutting implements but with a society that believes that carrying and/or using a knife as an offensive weapon is not only acceptable but admirable. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andrew Philip Lessnoff, MSc Student (Hydrographic surveying) University College London, WC1E 6BT
Send response to journal:
|
I am writing in response after seeing an article about this editorial on the BBC news website. When I was first alerted to this idea, my first thought was it must be a spoof. The notion that anyone, let alone people as educated as doctors, would consider banning (types of) kitchen knives to be either justified or practicable seems incredible. Various criticisms / points to consider (in no particular order): • Contrary to the implication of the editorial, long pointed knives are useful. I use them when preparing food. True, I could use a different design, but often a large knife with a point is simply the most effective tool for the job. • But even if they were not “needed”, why should people not be allowed to use them if they so wish? This is (supposedly) a free country. Surely people should not have to prove a “need” in order to be “allowed” to do anything. Rather, the government should have to prove a need to ban something. And I would insist that such a ban is neither “needed”, justified, nor practical. • If a criminal or violent person wishes to cause harm, then there are many, many “weapons” they could use. Bricks. Bottles. Baseball bats. Hammers. Chisels. Frying pans. No laws can remove all potential weapons, and violent criminals by their very nature will tend to break or circumvent laws. And even if all such “weapons” were somehow removed from the world, death or serious injury can still easily be inflicted with fists or feet. (Should the possession of steel-toe-capped boots be prohibited except for licensed builders?) • On the other hand, kitchen knives, and any other improvised (or even genuine) weapon have no mind of their own. Without a criminal or violent person to wield them, they are harmless. They are harmless when sitting in a kitchen draw. And they are harmless when held or used by the overwhelming majority of the people. The vast majority of the owners of kitchen knives are of no danger to anyone, and will not be made any less dangerous by the removal of (some of) their knives. • Further more, banning and removing these knives will require enforcement: if someone chooses to ignore the ban, then home searches, arrests, the potential threat (or actual use) of force by the arresting officers, fines, imprisonment, etc. All of which are harmful to the arrestee, and their family, and out of all proportion the “danger” that they pose to the public. Not to mention the waste of police and court time and resources that could be spent on pursuing those who are an actual danger to the public. Yours sincerely, Andrew Lessnoff Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Yahaya Mt Hassan, Financial planner Public Mutual Bhd, 1 Jalan PJU 8/51, 47820 Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
Send response to journal:
|
I wish to respond to your article entitled "Reducing knife crime". It would be more useful if doctors and police authorities in Malaysia were to respond to this article since there has been a high number of stabbing crimes in Malaysia in the last 2 years. In addition, it would also be fruitful if statistics on accidents relating to the long pointed kitchen knives were to be compiled. I have a family of seven kids, and when my daughter recently bought such a knife as a gift for my wife, I protested. This was because some of the younger children have been involved in an accident whereby a small blade had accidentally ruptured the left-eye cornea of my youngest son. Fortunately the doctors manage to save the eye. Hence I was traumatised to have a pointed stainless steel kitchen knife introduced into the house. Thank you. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Saif S Rathore, Student Yale University School of Medicine
Send response to journal:
|
This editorial raises an important issue - how best to reduce the tools available for use in violent activities. Having virtually eliminated handgun-related crimes, it is reassuring to realize that those concerned with the public's health are now addressing another leading source, sharp knives. My only complaint is that this action has taken too long. We have strong evidence - well over 4000+ years of recorded human history - documenting the horror knives inflict on the world. Why have we waited until 2005 to consider addressing this issue? I would further suggest that we pre-emptively act (a concept that's quite popular in government circles on both sides of the pond) to eliminate other putative tools of violence. Continuing the culinary theme, I suggest that forks be removed next. Forks present several sharp edges that may be used for harm. Much as no parent would encourage their child to play with knives, few would offer them a fork as a replacement. Anecdotal evidence from correctional facilities suggests that forks are often used as weapons. In lieu of forks, I suggest that we adopt the spork. The fast food spork - the hybrid spoon fork widely available in North America - provides much of the benefits of the fork with few of its risks. Based on this more advantageous side effect profile, the spork merits adoption, recognizing that data concerning its cost-effectiveness and utility in various sub-groups remains unassessed. I encourage the BMA to adopt a pro-spork platoform fortwith. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Heather E. Chase, Restaurant reviewer Houston Hospitality, 3355 Westheimer, Houston, TX, 77027
Send response to journal:
|
I could make a number of mocking comments about the British culinary scene, but that’s probably not fair, and impolite even for an American. I am a gourmand, I spend a large amount of time in the kitchen surrounded by lots of dangerous things like heat, microwaves, all manner of potentially fatal bacteria, large cooking vessels that could be easily used to bludgeon someone, and yes, knives. Long, sharp pointy knives constructed by people whose sole intent was to render a weapon so sharp and strong that it could slice through a piece of flesh, even bone, as if it were jello. I received this particular set as a birthday gift from the knife-company owners who were in from Chicago. My knives are my favorite tool. The one I use the most often is a menacing eight long inches of expertly forged German steel alloy, and it is called… a Chef’s knife. No really, that’s what it is called. I use it every day for things like cutting vegetables, slicing meats and other miscellany. Technically, it isn’t a carving knife, but it serves perfectly well in that function. I also have a scary 7-inch utility knife which is useful for finer work, and could easily stab a man right through his sternum. And you should see my boning knife! I could rend the flesh from your very bones with it, being as how that is, well, the point. I rarely using my paring knife, which is a mere four inches. It’s good for halving avocados. Clearly, these doctors do not spend very much time in the kitchen, which is a shame. They probably just don’t have the time or proper perspective to see how many non-murderous people use their knives in quiet law-abiding ways, nor do they grasp how the banning of such kitchen utensils would further impair the British population from rendering healthful meals from fresh ingredients. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David Abrahamson, Retired consultant psychiatrist N/A
Send response to journal:
|
It is disappointing that several responses have denigrated this editorial. The ready availability of an unnecessarily lethal weapon is a legitimate cause for concern. It is likely that the design of kitchen knives could be modified to make harm from them less likely and less severe, whilst preserving most culinary functions. Kitchen functions are anyhow clearly less important than the injuries and deaths they cause; it is very depressing to read culinary details being presented in a medical journal as if they were of overriding importance. David Abrahamson DAbrah9548@aol.com Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Godfrey S Bartlett, Acupuncturist Brentwood, Essex, CM14 4UJ.
Send response to journal:
|
Sir, According to Hansard, the Home Office Minister Hazel Blears stated that there were 234 homicides in 2003/4 where the weapon was a "sharp instrument".There are no statistics for serious injury caused by knives or sharp instruments. By way of contrast, in 2003 there were 37,215 serious road casualties, including 3,508 fatalities. ("Road Casualties in Great Britain:2003 Annual Report" Department for Transport) This represents a carnage rate of 1500% compared to that caused by nutters with knives. If advocates of the nanny-state wish to propose banning things for the protection of the innocent, surely the motor-car is the first place to start? Competing interests: User of sharp pointy things |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Giusto Giusti, Professor of Legal Medicina Rome 00133, "Tor Vergata" Rome University, via Montpellier 1
Send response to journal:
|
Sir. I am collecting homicides committed in Italy during 2005. Surprisingly enough, voluntary homicides are rare, and mostly committed with firearms. From January 1st to April 30th there were five homicides committed with knives, and two of them were committed with kitchen knives, used as a razor on the cervical region. In both cases, crime was committed at home by a psychiatric patient. According to these data, the idea of reducing the rate of homicides committed with kitchen knives by modifying the form of such knives seems useless. At least in this Country. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ian S Sturrock, Writer North Wales LL11 6DL
Send response to journal:
|
Off-hand, I can think of nothing more likely to drive me to homicide -- using any available method -- than the frustration of having to constantly switch tools when working in the kitchen. At present I can complete most tasks with the single "right tool for the job" -- either a large, pointed, paring knife for removing raw meat from the bone, or a large, pointed, carving knife for carving, or a large, pointed, chef's knife for vegetable preparation. Having to switch between each of these in "new, safer, non-pointy" versions, and a "maximum length 5 cm pointy knife for all your pointy needs", would not significantly add to the burden of my work or my washing up. However, it would annoy me in the extreme, every time I had to make the switch, that this removal of the "right tool for the job" was purely because I could not, as an ordinary law-abiding citizen without criminal convictions, be trusted to own the "right tool for the job." Creating food has a Zen-like purity to it, as anyone who has ever watched a great chef can attest. The cook, the knife, and the chopping board are as one, moving together with perfect clarity of motion. What next? Are my wife's dressmaking shears to be replaced with round -ended versions? We try to ensure our children are only given rounded scissors, because they are not trusted with sharply pointed items; are all British citizens to be treated as children from now on? It's already illegal to kill people. All items designed purely as weapons are already banned from the UK. If we are to ban anything that could be used as a weapon, too, we would all need to live in padded cells. How many people are killed by their heads striking hard surfaces such as pavements and concrete floors? I would think far more lives would be saved by banning all hard objects and furnishings. Pavements could be coated with a layer of springy rubberised foam. It might ease wear-and-tear on our knees and ankles too. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael R Neal, Retired Home, pe304et
Send response to journal:
|
I feel that the authors are too close to the coal face. It will feel to a busy M.O.that every man and his dog is being damaged by kitchen knives. If they were to step back and apply some scientific reasoning,they would discover that SEVERAL MILLION people manage to co-exist with kitchen knives without harming themselves or others. Surely the fault must lie with the sociopathic individuals rather than with inanimate objects. By the way,the picture seems to show a slash injury rather than a punture wound inflicted by a pointy knife. Competing interests: User of sharp pointy things |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Gary B. Carpenter, Physician and retired Colonel, US Army Medical Corps 1025 Maine St. Quincy, IL USA 62301
Send response to journal:
|
The editorial "Reducing knife crime" points to the futility of banning weapons. People are more intelligent than you give them credit for and they will use whatever is readily available as a weapon. In prisons forks and butter knives can be easily transformed into a shiv. A dull knife with a rounded point can be easily transformed back into a sharp pointed weapon with just a bit of elbow grease and a stone or sidewalk. The Japanese banned weapons in Okinawa years ago so the populace transformed common farm implements into lethal weapons such as the scythe. The solution to crime is to focus on the criminal and not on the weapon. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter KK Au-Yeung, Specialist Anaesthetist Hong Kong
Send response to journal:
|
Perhaps Dr David Abrahamson missed the whole point (excuse the unintended pun) about the "culinary details being presented" in the responses he considered inappropriate to be published in this debate. As an anaesthetist who has been informed that he would be summonsed to give evidence in a coming murder trial in which he was responsible (as the supervising specialist on-site) for both the anaesthetic and the post- op intensive care of the victim who died from lung injuries from a stab to the base of the neck, I think I can safely say that I have seen at first hand what a knife injury can do. As an amateur cook, I know why I have to use all sorts of knives of differing lengths, "pointiness" and sharpness when I cook. Far from parading these culinary details as if they are of the same importance as the prevention of accidents or crimes, they serve as a counter-balance to the notion that those different designs are unnecessary to their function in a domestic setting. The reason why they can make a lethal weapon is the raison d'etre of their design - to cut flesh and tissues. Sure I can borrow from the operating theatre various knifes and instruments to help me cook at home, but are they necessarily any less lethal? There is a necessity for a long, pointy knife with a long sharp edge such as a carving knife. Try carving a roast joint destined for twelve with the recommended 5-inch knife. Forget about it; it does not work! The rapid responses so far seem to try and add some balance to the whole debate by presenting the other side, which was not properly addressed by the original editorial. Competing interests: I use knives to cook. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Harvey J. Marrable, Semi retired Child Psychiatrist Gosford NSW 2250 Australia
Send response to journal:
|
Unhappy children grow up to be angry adults. Angry adults are liable to outbursts of rage and impulsive violence. Children raised by contented parents tend to be happy. To reduce the outbursts of domestic and road rage (unheard of a generation ago) look to ways of supporting families and helping them to care for their children. Forget weapons. Competing interests: I am a Child Psychiatrist |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mike Daube, Professor of Health Policy Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Send response to journal:
|
Campaigning for prevention is not easy. Prevention has little active support among health and medical professionals. There is opposition, particularly from commercial interests and from those with a misplaced philosophical aversion to any measures that may introduce some apparent coercion – such as seat belts, fluoridation of drinking water or tobacco advertising bans – in order to protect the public interest. One of the favourite tactics of those who oppose public health measures is to ridicule them by claiming that they are the thin end of the wedge. The argument runs that campaigners on tobacco, for example, will not be satisfied until they have banned chocolates, potato chips and television sets. Hern et al should be commended for their interest in prevention.They will no doubt look at other courses of action to prevent knife crime, including discussions with manufacturers and sales outlets, but their proposal for a ban on the sale of long pointed kitchen knives is a mistake. It is based (as they concede) on assumptions rather than data; it proposes legislation that will affect many to deal with the possible (primarily alcohol and drug-fuelled) actions of a few; and it is unrealistic. It just won’t happen. Meantime, this proposal, which thanks to its quirkiness has attracted international media interest, will be grist to the mill for those with commercial and other interests who oppose realistic and well-argued preventive action in areas such as immunization, fluoridation, tobacco, alcohol abuse and obesity. (“Is there ANYTHING BMA doesn’t want to ban?” asked the author of a pro-tobacco website a couple of years ago.) No campaign exists in a vacuum: we must all be conscious of not only our single-issue agendas, but also our responsibilities to the broader public health community. The well-intentioned but naïve proposal to ban the sale of some kitchen knives will help the opponents of prevention. “First do no harm” applies as much to authors as it does to clinicians. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Martin Pool, Engineer Canberra, Australia
Send response to journal:
|
The article and responses contain various arguments and assertions about whether or not a point on a long knife is actually useful in cooking, or merely traditional. This is something which might easily be tested: make or buy long knives with rounded or blunt ends, place them with amateur and professional chefs, and see how they are used in practice. Perhaps the chefs interviewed would be surprised to find the point is needed; or perhaps the posters here would find they do not need it after all. If rounded knives are usable, perhaps there is space in the market and people will choose the safer alternative of their own accord. There are other kitchen products differentiated by safety. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Brian J Anthony, Lecturer in Nursing Middlesex University, Archway Campus, 10 Highgate Hill, London N19 5LW
Send response to journal:
|
Call me out of touch, but wouldn't most adolescents, at least those with an interest in knives, find it just a tiny bit uncool to take mum's best kitchen knife out on the streets? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael R Neal, Retired pe304et
Send response to journal:
|
The point is that these knives are culinary tools.They are designed and used in a culinary environment. The violent use of these tools is not a normal function.It is aberrant behaviour.The removal of the tool will only lead to the missuse of another tool. Correcting the aberrant behaviour will remove the problem and not inconveniance the vast majority of the populace. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Robert I. Rudolph, M.D., FACP, Clinical Professor of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA 1134 Penn Avenue, Wyomissing, PA 19610 USA
Send response to journal:
|
My, by extension, I assume the authors also would like to see sharp instruments banned in the medical arena as well! Many health care workers and others, of course, get lethal problems after sharp tips from all kinds of knives and needles pierce them in diverse ways and places, so why not suppress these pointy things also? What's next? Banning water? After all, if I were to hold the authors heads under water for a minute or two, they wouldn't be very happy - and probably not even here any longer to write such silly stuff (which could be, in my opinion, the basis for a terrific Monty Python or Medical School graduation skit!). Why not try to ban something really bad: like rotten stage plays, or bad wines. Now that would be useful. PS. While I admire the writers their courage and activism (and even sympathize with their reasoning in the abstract), I feel this kind of meddling is unwarranted, and verges on the farcical. I'm now going to begin to cut a bagel for breakfast. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ravi A Ramaswami, Consultant Occupational Physician Gosport, Hampshire PO12 2DL, Paul S. Turnbull
Send response to journal:
|
As Consultant Occupational Physicians we are required to make risk assesments for various occupational tasks, making a judgement of what may be deemed as an acceptable risk for a particular activity compared with the benefits. The authors of this particular article appear to have made no such assessment and also appear to have been somewhat innaccurate - for example, the dining fork was introduced to the UK from the continent just after 1600 and became popular ,not because of a potential to reduce injuries in public eating houses, but because the 17th century fashion for lace cuffs made eating meat & gravy with one's fingers a bit messy. Kitchen knives are tools, and their design is a reflection of the job that they are intended to do. Boning knives have an upswept sharp point and a long sharp flexible blade precisely because this is the most efficient design to bone out large joints (for example to butterfly a leg of lamb) and carving knives are long, sharp and pointed because this is the best design for carving meat on the bone (we can think of no other way to efficiently carve a large forerib of beef). To attempt to do these tasks without the proper tools would be more likely to cause injuries. We can only assume that the authors either eat only conveniece foods or never roast their meat on the bone. We must also assume that in the opinion of the chefs they contacted, the rest of the population of the UK never do so either. Tools do not cause violent crime; criminal intent to misuse them must also be present. The authors appear to believe that removing long pointed knives from the kitchen would remove the ability to inflict harm. This is clearly nonsense as a person with homicidal intent would just look for another weapon. A blunt nosed knife can easily be used in a slashing attack (a salmon knife is effectively a 12" bladed straight razor), a cleaver in a chopping attack (the most frequent murder weapon in Hong Kong where pointed kitchen knives are not popular) or a heavy frying pan as a bludgeon - do the authors wish to ban all these as well? This is well before considering the vast range of potentially lethal gardening, motor maintenance and woodworking tools available in many homes - the Yorkshire Ripper's murder weapons were a hammer and a screwdriver. We feel that we must also provide a riposte to the response of Dr. Abrahamson which included the statement that 'culinary functions are clearly less important than the injuries and deaths they cause'. To use this argument would justify the banning of football clubs due to the potential for hooliganism and the banning of sports cars because of the risk of misusing them for road racing. Many millions of law abiding citizens use their potentially lethal kitchen, woodworking, garden and car maintenance tools without harming themselves or anyone else. To interfere with their right to do so because of a small number of criminals who misuse such tools would be a frank infringement of their civil liberties. Adequate laws already exist regarding carrying of knives in public, assault and murder; whether the penalties associated with these laws are adequately implemented by the judiciary is a different matter. Public safety would not be enhanced by banning the sale of long pointed kitchen knives; we would assess the risk from these tools to be acceptable. The true danger is that articles such as this, published in a reputable journal such as the BMJ, enhance the public image of some doctors being out of touch with reality and seeking to impose a 'nanny state' and may pander to the desire of polititians to attempt to solve the problems of society by banning something (one only has to remember that handgun crime in the UK has risen substantially since handguns were banned from legal private ownership). There must be limits to the extent of state intrusion - citizens must take responsibilty for their own actions. Competing interests: Both Dr. Ramaswami and Dr. Turnbull are owners and users of long sharp kitchen knives (Dr. Ramaswami's are sharper) and frequently eat roast rib of beef |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Collin W. Rink, Realtor Comey & Shepherd Realtors , Cincinnati, Ohio, 45227
Send response to journal:
|
It seems that the authors of the "study" just don't get it. They seem to be looking at the weapon as the cause, instead, they should be looking at the reasons for the crime, and the reasons that crime is on the rise. Banning pointy knives would do nothing to halt any criminal attacks, because criminals, by definition don't obey the law. Does any person honestly think that banning knives, guns, swords or whatever will have any positive effect on crime? I guess the old American saying, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" may need to be modified for our British cousins, "If you outlaw pointy knives, only outlaws will have pointy knives". Competing interests: Owner and user of long, pointy knives, self-defense and victim's rights advocate. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Matthew B Craver, Technical Analyst 06002
Send response to journal:
|
The author's investigation of the functionality of the knife pattern they declaim rests on only the most superficial of inquiries. It is hardly the most rigorous investigation of culinary science I've ever seen. There are several objections that could be raised to this cursory examination, but they are all secondary to the most basic: the conclusion was foredrawn, and they interpreted the responses to fit what they wanted to demonstrate. "None gave a reason why the long pointed knife was essential," could be more-honestly written: "None gave a reason that we thought demonstrated a use where only a long pointed knife was functional." As for the Harrison-Fisher knife company's "admission", what else are they going to say? Of course chef's knives follow a traditional pattern - they are traditional because they work. The mystery chefs interviewed by the authors seemingly never had to carve a turkey, debone or filet a large fish, joint meat, or field-strip large game. I have likely omitted an ever-lengthening list of culinary uses for a large, pointed knife. Either uses where such a knife is essential, or just very useful. Even chopping veggies is easier with what is commonly called a chef's knife -- you can't get that quick, repetitive motion with a paring knife. Sure, you could substitute the chef's knife with four or five other tools to duplicate its functionality, but why? This is "science" only in the sense that the creationists who testified for the Kansas School Board are scientists. Science uses theory to guide investigations, not to pre-ordain the results of one. The hypothesis seems to be that if knives were eliminated, then stabbings would go down. Perhaps, but given the infinite inventiveness of humans in the arena of causing bodily harm, I seriously doubt that interpersonal trauma would decline. The end result is that one profession (cooks and chefs) is greatly inconvenienced at the behest of another (ER surgeons), yet the second doesn't truly derive any benefit (as they frantically treat blunt-force trauma instead). Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Robert C. Solomon, Emergency Medicine Faculty Ohio Valley Medical Center, Wheeling WV, USA 26003
Send response to journal:
|
Many of the responses to the editorial proposal to ban certain kitchen knives were, well, quite pointed. But the proposal should hardly come as a surprise to the BMJ's readers. First, go through some of the responses that protest the banning of tools, insisting instead that the focus should be on the people who misuse them and ways to address that misuse. Then, re-read some of those same rapid responses and substitute guns for chef's knives, and you will rediscover the arguments that have long been made (on both sides of the Atlantic) against the banning of firearms. But Britain has very clearly accepted the purported wisdom of gun bans - and is now facing the consequences of the very simple principle of substitution. The question is when the public health advocates will redirect their attention from the implement to the miscreant who wields it to harm his fellow man. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kevin C. Fleming, Internist Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN 55905
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sirs, Like many others, my initial thought on reading this editorial was that it must be some kind of parody. But it is long past April first, and I believe the authors are quite serious. With each advancing year, the nanny state of Britain seems to spread like a cancer. It endeavors to control churches (ministers opposing gay marriages face prosecution under incitement-to-hatred legislation), self defense (guns are banned), sports (fox hunting is banned), and now kitchens. Let us also ignore the many valid uses for large pointy knives, and address the core argument: England simply does not recognize a most basic right, the right to self-defense. As a result, since 1954 violence in Britain has increased dramatically. In 2001 Britain had the highest level of homicides in Western Europe, and violent crimes were three times higher than the next worst country. And while the American murder rate has been in decline for more than a decade, the English murder rate has been rising. Not surprisingly, more than half of English burglaries occur while someone is at home, while in America, where burglars still fear armed homeowners, this figure is only 13 percent. British homeowners who have tried to defend themselves from criminals have been prosecuted, even when using toy guns just to scare away a burglar. (1) The BMJ appears to concur with increasing state control over the average Briton, "for their own good" of course, as nannies always find. That someone would deign to propose such silliness is funny. That the esteemed BMJ would print it is farce. That your citizens (I should say instead “subjects”) would consider implementing such a ban is a tragedy. One is compelled to wonder if our dear Albion hasn't gone quite mad. 1. Malcolm JL, Self-Defense: An Endangered Right; CATO Policy Report, March/April 2004, pp. 1-16 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Víctor Lipovetzky, Physician Hospital de General Roca, Río Negro, Argentina
Send response to journal:
|
When I was a child in Argentina (about 40 years ago),I noted that restaurant knives used to be without a sharp edge - instead, with a kind or "saw" edge - and with a rounded tip. Asking why that was, people said that it was done in order to prevent "drunken people hurting each another". Since then, very cheap knives of the "Dagger" kind have spread all over the country, including in restaurants. In my professional life, I knew directly of several murders having been commited with such knives. Maybe we could convince the knife industry of making the change, instead of a legal ban. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Thomas J Helling, registrar in internal medicine Staufenburg Klinik, Burgunderstrasse 24, D-77770 Durbach, Germany
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sirs, when I read the editorial I found the proposition to ban sharp pointed kitchen knives simply ludicrous. I will not repeat all arguments for the use of the chef's knife in kitchen use, but cooking a lot in my spare time, I think this type of knife is indispensible. I do accept the notion that the whole discussion seems to imitate the arguments pro and contra the ban of firearms. But there is a grave distinction. Kitchen Knives though by design appropriate to cause harm to people are utensils made for kitchen use and usually in most cases absolutely harmless. By contrast firearm are meant to be weapons, able to cause bodily harm or death even at a distance. Any other use like sports or hunting is only a sort of civilized rationalisation for the possession of a deadly weapon. Keeping this in mind it is wise to restrict the possesion of firearms. Crime rate in the USA prove that the concept of potential self-defence does not work. Gunshot wounds are the most common cause of death in young underprivileged male Americans. Canada on the other hand might prove, that even without gun laws as restrictive as those in Europe criminal use of firearms can be much lower than in the US. Nevertheless a stringent ban on firearms proved to prevent a high number of homicides. The case is different with everyday contrivances that can be used to cause injury like sharp pointed kives. If you start to ban these, you would end up in banning sharp knives with blunted tips (slashing or cutting wounds), hammers or any other heavy object (bludgeoning), screwdrives (stabbing, remember Empress Elisabeth of Austria "Sisi"?), etc. Yours Thomas J. Helling Competing interests: I use sharp pointed knives for cooking in my kitchen |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Christopher M Milroy, Professor of Forensic Pathology University of Sheffield, The Medico-Legal Centre, Watery Street, Sheffield, S3 7ES
Send response to journal:
|
As a Forensic Pathologist, I have seen people killed with knives, long and short, chisels, scissors, garden spades, hammers, spanners, chair legs, crockery, shotguns, pistols, revolvers, blows with fists, kicks with shod feet, cars, vans and so on. To ban all of these weapons would make life complicated without doing much to alter the homicide rate. Indeed the frustration of not being able to achieve tasks properly might increase violence. The UK has a historically low homicide rate. It is still one of the lowest in the world and much lower than the USA. Whilst handguns have one basic function, which is to kill and injure, the other objects used as weapons have other more appropriate uses. More relevant factors in violence include alcohol and drug addiction, abused children and adults and other societal problems. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Charles H Knowles, Senior Lecturer in Surgery and Hon Consultant The Trauma Service, The Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel, London E1 1BB, Tom Konig, Alison West, Alastair Wilson, Frank Cross
Send response to journal:
|
To the Editor It is now just over one year since Hern et al.,1 published an editorial on knife crime and clearly the problem has not gone away. A quick search of the Times website finds 90 hits on the single search-term ‘stabbing’ in the last 3 months alone. A number of very recent fatalities have fueled both media and public perception that forensic knife injuries (FKIs) have become an epidemic, with the result that new punitive measures are now a discussion point in government and a knife amnesty recently undertaken. An increase in such injuries is supported by data from regional police forces and the Home Office with 1200 reported attacks in London last year and 30% of homicides caused by knife injury 2. As a whole, crimes defined as ‘more serious wounding or other act endangering life’ have almost doubled in incidence nationally from 1995 to 2005 3. We performed an audit of FKIs at one of Europe’s busiest Emergency Departments (The Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel) to establish the magnitude of this problem in a representative urban area (East London). Specifically, we extracted data on FKIs (excluding deliberate self harm) from a detailed prospectively-recorded database of all trauma calls in the period: July 2004 - June 2006 (these reflecting more severe injuries) (Table 1). To give a measure of changing incidence over a longer time period of a greater spectrum of severity of injury, we also performed an audit of all cases coded as ‘stabbing’ on the patient administration system (PAS) during a ten year period: July 1997- June 2006 (Figure 1). Over both periods, the data demonstrate an increase in overall incidence of stabbings. Furthermore, increased necessity for surgical intervention in the prospective study may reflect increasing severity of injury. These data thus appear to support the general perception that knife injuries are increasing.
Table 1: Prospective audit:
trauma calls (July 2004-June 2006) FIGURE 1: Number of attendances per annum to the Royal London Hospital coded as ‘stabbing’ over last 10 years 
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joan McTigue, Town Councillor Middlesbrough
Send response to journal:
|
I am one of the two co-founders of a campaign "Mothers Against Knives"- the result of this campaign is that it is now illegal to possess/purchase/sell or import a Samurai sword. The next step that some of us cllrs here in Mbro want is to lobby government to give all police officers carte blanche to stop & search on the streets etc. If they are supplied with a mini metal detector this will make it easier. Anyone found with a weapon of any kind should be given an automatic 5 year jail sentence. We would welcome any support or comments on this proposal. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Richard Hemingway, Student SO17 1BJ
Send response to journal:
|
In 2006, 3,613 people were convicted of carrying a knife. Nine - yes nine - were given the maximum sentence. It is a novel idea, but could we for once try to enforce the laws we already have. Build new prisons if necessary, and provide a real deterrant to using knives as weapons. We already have laws against murder, laws against carrying weapons in public, etc, etc. People will carry knives, because they know they will only get cautioned, or at most a couple of months in prison. Carrying a firearm (air gun or cartridge) carries a 5 year minimum sentence - but when was the last time you heard of someone getting 5 years for recklessly discharging an airgun or carrying one in a public place - and now people are also calling the the banning of these items as well, despite the fact that firearm offences are pretty much ignored in courts. The only time they are ever given severe/maximum sentences are when the offence is tied into a GBH/Murder charge. In addition, I'm sure no criminal would ever think of possibly getting a little dremel, or a sharpening stone and sharpening the end of the blade to a point... This article is typical of the culture that has pervaded modern policy making. There is a problem, we shall ban something. Didn't work for handguns, won't work for knives. Please put your efforts into getting to the root cause. Why are people carrying weapons? Because they feel at risk. Why? Gangs (amongst others). Why? Drugs, alcohol, the police preferring to focus on "easy-to-deal-with" crimes like speeding, rather than doing hard, long-term investigations, that do little for targets, but have an overall positive effect on society. Competing interests: User of common sense |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr Theetam Thinnunna Panni, General Practioner,Kunduvella 576104
Send response to journal:
|
The present day education system is a system based on material world and benefits. To change this we need to follow the science of mind from east as taught by Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed and Krishna. We need to make students understand value based education and work for a better tomorrow. Competing interests: None declared |
|||