Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The same issue of BMJ contains a thoughtful commentary on the
responsibilities of physicians in circumstances in which torture is
practiced, and summary of the types of animal experiments conducted in
Britain. If torture is the deliberate infliction of pain or suffering to
obtain knowledge, then animal experiments qualify, and the occasional
usefulness of the knowledge gained is not a justification: we do not
condone the torture of captured enemy soldiers to obtain vital strategic
or tactical information, nor do we condone invasive biomedical research on
unwilling human subjects. So the defense of vivisection comes down to
species differences. Supposedly, we have the right to conduct such
research because humans are morally superior to animals. But exploitation
is hardly the way to demonstrate moral superiority. I sneer at physicians
who are morally outraged by human torture but shrug and talk about the
ends justifying the means when animals are the victims.
Steven Tiger, PA-C
Medical writer and editor,
Santa Rosa, California,
United States
Animal experiments and human torture
The same issue of BMJ contains a thoughtful commentary on the
responsibilities of physicians in circumstances in which torture is
practiced, and summary of the types of animal experiments conducted in
Britain. If torture is the deliberate infliction of pain or suffering to
obtain knowledge, then animal experiments qualify, and the occasional
usefulness of the knowledge gained is not a justification: we do not
condone the torture of captured enemy soldiers to obtain vital strategic
or tactical information, nor do we condone invasive biomedical research on
unwilling human subjects. So the defense of vivisection comes down to
species differences. Supposedly, we have the right to conduct such
research because humans are morally superior to animals. But exploitation
is hardly the way to demonstrate moral superiority. I sneer at physicians
who are morally outraged by human torture but shrug and talk about the
ends justifying the means when animals are the victims.
Steven Tiger, PA-C
Medical writer and editor,
Santa Rosa, California,
United States
Competing interests: No competing interests