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 diversion of unused medications to patients that cannot afford them is commendable. One wonders whether the same systematic redistribution could be done with disposable medical devices that now come in large aggregated packages, with some components frequently not required and thrown away unopened. It is frequently cheaper and more convenient to waste these all-in-one kits rather than disinfecting and reusing the components we need. Hospital medical sterilizing departments do not want additional work; on occasion I have been told not to use and then send them items that are designed to be disinfected and reused when clinical staff have access to the disposable equivalents.
We live in a throwaway and one-use society that would rather tolerate waste if convenience and cost dictated it. Why do perfectly sealed non-biodegradable medical devices such as syringes and hypodermic needles have expiry dates when they cannot break down for thousands of years when discarded? We adhere to these dates and consider such expired products good enough to be shipped to and (gratefully) used in poorer health services without impunity. So not reusing is compounded by the waste imposed by arbitrary employment of expiry dates which harms the environment, generates more purchases and benefits no patient.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
03 June 2015
Joseph Ting
Adjunct associate professor, School of Public Health and Social Work
As one of the initiators of the free-refurbished pacemaker project, I wish to state that the refurbished pacemaker scheme was launched with three basic premises, i) Extending Life and enhancing the quality of life with a refurbished pacemaker is better than the risk of sudden death without it, ii) assured safety of the refurbishment process and iii) the entire programme being run transparently and on fiduciary basis with no commercial interests.
If these can be duplicated by other centres, it may meet with acceptance in a sustainable manner.
Competing interests:
I was involved in selecting the initial cases who were given refurbished pacemakers during 1983-4 in JIPMER, Pondicherry, India
In addition to pacemakers, recycling unused Medicines could save money and lives in less developed health systems
To the Editor:
The diversion of unused medications to patients that cannot afford them is commendable. One wonders whether the same systematic redistribution could be done with disposable medical devices that now come in large aggregated packages, with some components frequently not required and thrown away unopened. It is frequently cheaper and more convenient to waste these all-in-one kits rather than disinfecting and reusing the components we need. Hospital medical sterilizing departments do not want additional work; on occasion I have been told not to use and then send them items that are designed to be disinfected and reused when clinical staff have access to the disposable equivalents.
We live in a throwaway and one-use society that would rather tolerate waste if convenience and cost dictated it. Why do perfectly sealed non-biodegradable medical devices such as syringes and hypodermic needles have expiry dates when they cannot break down for thousands of years when discarded? We adhere to these dates and consider such expired products good enough to be shipped to and (gratefully) used in poorer health services without impunity. So not reusing is compounded by the waste imposed by arbitrary employment of expiry dates which harms the environment, generates more purchases and benefits no patient.
Competing interests: No competing interests