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.
I have followed with great interest the debate occurring within your
journal about whether the public should be involved in priority setting.
Many of the arguments for and against appear very logical and worth
considering. Indeed, rationing is a painful process and hard decision
have to be made that require medical expertise. However, I also agree
that decisions- any decision - are informed by sets of values. In
priority setting it would be important that decision take on board
'societal values' , particularly if they are to be widely accepted without
comment.
What surprises me, however, is the lack of 'the tax payer's' voice in
this debate. These arguements rest upon the assumption that the 'tax
payer' actually wants to be involved in priority setting. As well, what
is meant by the term 'involvement' is problematic and not made
particularly clear.
Can this be a case of putting the cart in front of the horse?
Despite a push for greater public involvement in priority setting, we
don't really know whether tax payers want to be involved in priority
setting, why they want to be involved and how they want their input used?
If, for instance, the public didn't want to be involved in setting
priorites, or if they only wanted to know how priorities are determined,
wouldn't many of these arguments be pointless?
I think this debate might take a different perspective if it included
lay views of public involvement in priority setting.
Dr. Andrea Litva
Lecturer in Medical Sociology,
University of Liverpool
Where is the voice of the 'tax payer: priority setting in health care
Dear Editor
I have followed with great interest the debate occurring within your
journal about whether the public should be involved in priority setting.
Many of the arguments for and against appear very logical and worth
considering. Indeed, rationing is a painful process and hard decision
have to be made that require medical expertise. However, I also agree
that decisions- any decision - are informed by sets of values. In
priority setting it would be important that decision take on board
'societal values' , particularly if they are to be widely accepted without
comment.
What surprises me, however, is the lack of 'the tax payer's' voice in
this debate. These arguements rest upon the assumption that the 'tax
payer' actually wants to be involved in priority setting. As well, what
is meant by the term 'involvement' is problematic and not made
particularly clear.
Can this be a case of putting the cart in front of the horse?
Despite a push for greater public involvement in priority setting, we
don't really know whether tax payers want to be involved in priority
setting, why they want to be involved and how they want their input used?
If, for instance, the public didn't want to be involved in setting
priorites, or if they only wanted to know how priorities are determined,
wouldn't many of these arguments be pointless?
I think this debate might take a different perspective if it included
lay views of public involvement in priority setting.
Dr. Andrea Litva
Lecturer in Medical Sociology,
University of Liverpool
Competing interests: No competing interests