Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
- Mark Struthers (11 November 2005)
-
Soul-Searching
- Balaji Ravichandran (11 November 2005)
-
Not fearful enough...
- Stevie M Gamble (14 November 2005)
-
Medicine without Borders!
- BM Hegde (16 November 2005)
|
|
|||
|
Mark Struthers, GP Bedfordshire
Send response to journal:
|
“Fear is a terrific motivator”, says Dr Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ. While poodling nervously in the BMJ shrubbery, what I wonder, are fearless deputy editor Tony Delamothe - and the others – really frightened of? Surely it is complacency that is the motivator and any fear irrelevant. I can’t wait for the terror of a tabloid future and this other purposeful plan of action that the BMJ will gamble on. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Balaji Ravichandran, Medical Student, HIV/AIDS campaigner, AI Member Madras Medical College, Chennai, India
Send response to journal:
|
It seems to me that the BMJ is doing some soul-searching. Paradoxically though comes the eerily depressing words from Dr. Godlee as she articulates the following questions (1). "After all, what can we as individuals do about natural disasters in far off places?... So what's the point of reading about healthcare challenges in developing countries? How does it help us practise better medicine and lead better lives?" Permit me to answer each of these questions. You, as individuals in developed nations, for starters, can take a stand. You can urge your government to increase the aid to nations stuck with disasters instead of wasting time over meetings and conferences, and playing the blame-game. Should I remind people of the Ethiopian famine of 1984? How come the world responded then? If ordinary citizens can respond, why not the doctors? (I wonder, though, what Mr. Geldof and others are up to while people are dying everyday in Pakistan and in Africa. Look at Malawi, Niger and Sudan. Welcome to the world of the unspeakable hypocrisy!) Editor, I thought the doctrine of medicine is to 'end human suffering'. Where does it say, to 'end the human suffering of people from my nation'? This is the second editorial I have read where the BMJ laments about the complaints it receives of catering primarily to international health care interests [See (2)]. I wonder if the BMJ is more worried about its national readership than the international. For, its international readers are grateful for the attention it pays to global health-care. And if I may say so, the BMJ is not alone in providing an international perspective on health care. It is shameful, to say the least, when the editor tries to answer such indifferent and self-centred questions as to how an international perspective on healthcare leads to a betterment of national medical practice. Is she answering doctors or quacks? Whilst the BMJ should be proud of its international appeal it badly needs a refurbishment if it is to avoid the 'tabloid future' it fears. It needs to weigh its position as a serious and respected medical journal, given the rate at which impactful original research in the journal is diminishing. REFERENCES (1) Godlee, F. Nervous Laughter. BMJ 2005;331 (12 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7525.0-f (2) Groves, T. Better Decisions. BMJ 2005;331 (22 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7522.0-f Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Stevie M Gamble, retired HMIT EC2Y 8BL
Send response to journal:
|
The officers and members of the BMA face the greatest challenge of its institutional existence in defending the inalienable right of doctors, and only doctors, to prescribe from the vast majority of the formulary. There has been scandal after scandal after scandal. The courts no longer trust medical expert witnesses as they did prior to the San Lazaro, Southall and Meadow debacles. The general public has lived through the scandals, and sees the Charlotte Wyatt case as reflecting the arrogant self-confidence, bordering on conceit, of the medical profession. The BMA has happily presided over the systematic down-grading of clinical skills in favour of viewing medicine as a branch of epidemiology. Its decision to no longer oppose euthanasia has reinforced the impression that doctors no longer wish to care for the sick. All in all, this is not a good place to start from. And, just at a time when the BMA needs all the goodwill it can get, the BMJ prints an article demanding that the Daily Mail 'eat humble pie' (1) and a letter stating that doctors should lie to other health professional team members. (2). What was that you were saying about fear being a terrific motivator? Stevie Gamble 1. BMJ 2005;331:1148 (12 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7525.1148 2. BMJ 2005;331:1144 (12 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7525.1144-a Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
BM Hegde, Retd. Vice Chancellor Mangalore-575004.
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor, BMJ still enjoys the reputation of being a truly international journal. Keep it that way. Medicine does not (should not) know political borders that are the concern of politicians only. The latter have a vested interest in keeping man away from man, but not we doctors. Harold Kushner, in his celebrated book, WHEN BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE, gives the inflexible laws of Nature as an important cause of human misery. The present global calamities are a part of that. Similar storm did cause more damage even in the US. So we can not have an Ostrich like attitude, anyway. Let us put our heads together to see how best we could do most good to most people most of the time. Third world needs greater effort to bring it to the level of the first and second worlds for the latter two to be happy and peaceful. Crime originates in denial, suppression and oppression, anyway. We have to do everything in our command to help those in distress. BMJ would do well to lead this effort using its influence on its readers! Fear kills every effort. Yours ever, bmhegde Competing interests: None declared |
|||