Michael Crichton
BMJ 2008; 337 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a2517 (Published 12 November 2008) Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a2517
All rapid responses
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 fully endorse the comments of Simon Carley. I am a great fan of Michael Crichton's novels and admire his life's works and achievements. However, as stated, he never actually practised medicine. By all means his life and work should be celibrated; but in the fields in which he worked such as journalism, films and television. The BMJ obituary pages should be reserved for doctors who have actually practised medicine, not just for someone who obtained a medical degree.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir,
The decision to publish a full page obituary for Michael Crichton
sparked
many
discussions locally.1 As emergency physicians we have immersed ourselves
in
many hours of “ER” and on occasion have even been inspired by the series.
His
obituary revealed that although graduating from Harvard medical school, he
never practiced medicine and thus arguably was never a physician. In
contrast
the six life-long practicing physicians who also had their obituaries
published
in
the same week were condensed, as a group, to a single page. What are we to
make of this? In recent years the UK national print and broadcast media
are
often accused of promoting fame and celebrity over less 'exciting' and
'mundane'
achievements in subjects such as medicine, science or the arts. Michael
Crichton
undoubtedly deserves recognition for his achievements, but the Obituary
section
of the BMJ should be used to celebrate and honour the passing of
physicians
who have dedicated their lives to medicine, which he didn’t.
References
1) BMJ 2008; 337:a2517
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
To Honour Those Who Sleep In Dull Cold Marble
I completely disagree with the two previous comments on the following
grounds.
The grounds put forward by the other correspondents are feeble.
It matters not one iota to the world whether Crichton ever actually
wore a stethoscope around his neck.
I heard rumours that he was physician to himself and to some family
members and friends.He may have had, as they say, a fool for a patient but
then again, many a practicing doctor through history could be accused of
the same (or worse).
What if Crichton did see one patient a week (for pay or for free)or
two, or one every six months, possibly being paid in smoked salmon? Did he
advise his publishers, editors, contributors, readers, neighbours? Beggars
that came to his door?
Crichton deserves to be recognised for a life lived well.
To begrudge him a place in the BMJ obituary section (an entire page at
that!) is very small minded.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests