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.
One would be forgiven for getting the impression that the BMA is obsessed with boxing[1]. The potential risks to health from boxing are clear, but they pale into insignificance compared the the seriouos harms related to other public health threats e.g. the obesity epidemic.
The BMA campaigns on a range of public health issues, including obesity[2]. As a BMA member, I do not object to these activities.
However, I would not support these public health campaigning activities if they were to the detriment of the BMA's core function as a trade union for doctors.
The BMA should get its priorities right, both in its raison d'etre, and on which public health threats it chooses to campaign on.
As I look forward to a diminished NHS pension and either no or below-inflation pay rises for the foreseeable future, I wish the BMA was as vociferous and "passionate" about the professional interests of NHS doctors', who are after all it members, as it is about the health of boxers, who are not.
Re: BMA criticises increased funding for boxing
One would be forgiven for getting the impression that the BMA is obsessed with boxing[1]. The potential risks to health from boxing are clear, but they pale into insignificance compared the the seriouos harms related to other public health threats e.g. the obesity epidemic.
The BMA campaigns on a range of public health issues, including obesity[2]. As a BMA member, I do not object to these activities.
However, I would not support these public health campaigning activities if they were to the detriment of the BMA's core function as a trade union for doctors.
The BMA should get its priorities right, both in its raison d'etre, and on which public health threats it chooses to campaign on.
As I look forward to a diminished NHS pension and either no or below-inflation pay rises for the foreseeable future, I wish the BMA was as vociferous and "passionate" about the professional interests of NHS doctors', who are after all it members, as it is about the health of boxers, who are not.
References:
[1]BMA criticises increased funding for boxing. BMJ 2012;345:e8678
[2] http://bma.org.uk/working-for-change/improving-and-protecting-health
Competing interests: I am responding as a private individual and a BMA member.