Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on thebmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included online and in print as readers' letters, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window. Letters are indexed in PubMed.
I have a reference to a letter to the BMJ written in 1999 (1). The
author believed that the GMC's then current proposals for revalidation
were flawed. That was 12 years ago, since when nothing has happened of any
consequence other than repeated episodes of navel-gazing and rumination,
and during which many "eminent, educated people" have spent a lot of time
in committee rooms away from their clinical practice. This is because it
is impossible to devise a sensible revalidation system for doctors that
can satisfactorily deal with all types of doctor in all types of
circumstance. It was obvious from the start ("We must stop another
Shipman!") and it remains obvious now. So it is not surprising that all
that has emerged from the GMC is a constant stream of unintelligible non-prose.
1. Grant IWB. GMC's current proposals for revalidation are flawed
[letter]. BMJ 1999;319:53-54.