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.
Whilst the vignette of the case on involuntary manslaughter brings up issues of training in team working, checking prescriptions etc. I am more intrigued by the fact that the child died of "anaphylactic shock". Unfortunately as I cannot understand German, and I cannot find any further information via online searches, I will have to rely on information via the BMJ. Surely if the child died of anaphylactic shock due to co-trimoxazole this would have occurred whatever the route of administration? Or is there other information in this case which we do not have? The results of this case, and the nuances of its ruling on anaphylaxis, may have important effects on practice in Germany and throughout Europe. I am eagerly await updates on the case from the BMJ.
With Thanks
Deepankar Datta
Competing interests:
No competing interests
27 July 2013
Deepankar Datta
Emergency Medicine Trainee
Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh
c/o Emergency Department, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh
Re: Junior doctor’s conviction for involuntary manslaughter raises concern over medical training
Dear Sir/Madam
Whilst the vignette of the case on involuntary manslaughter brings up issues of training in team working, checking prescriptions etc. I am more intrigued by the fact that the child died of "anaphylactic shock". Unfortunately as I cannot understand German, and I cannot find any further information via online searches, I will have to rely on information via the BMJ. Surely if the child died of anaphylactic shock due to co-trimoxazole this would have occurred whatever the route of administration? Or is there other information in this case which we do not have? The results of this case, and the nuances of its ruling on anaphylaxis, may have important effects on practice in Germany and throughout Europe. I am eagerly await updates on the case from the BMJ.
With Thanks
Deepankar Datta
Competing interests: No competing interests