Re: BMJ is not always impartial about the advertisements it includes
I think it is safe to assume that the Care Not Killing insert in the April edition of the BMJ has answered the concerns about the BMJ’s impartiality, expressed by Timothy Harlow et al (“BMJ is not always impartial about the advertisements it includes”, 4 December 2013). Both sides of the argument are now represented in inserts.
A point for further consideration may be whether there is any editorial control of inserts that manage to be both misleading and irrelevant to the issue at hand. The “FACTS” put forward by Care Not Killing in their leaflet have evidently been chosen to divert the debate away from assisted dying to assisted suicide/euthanasia and away from sensible and evidence based arguments and into the realm of distorting and scaremongering.
I want to pay particular attention to the “FACT” put forward by Rob George - that the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) opposes “assisted suicide”. Results of the consultation conducted by the College, which ran between May and October 2013, in fact show that between 42% and 50% of the College’s membership does not support the College’s current stance of opposition to assisted dying. So while the Council of the RCGP made a decision to maintain the College’s stance of opposition, the membership as a whole is evidently divided on the issue.
This was not represented in the RCGP’s decision or indeed in their reporting of the results, in which they chose to highlight that 77% of direct responses to the consultation opposed any change in the College’s stance. The fact here is that these individual responses represented a small minority of those that took part in the consultation as a whole and represented only 0.48% (yes, 0.48%) of the College’s membership. It was misleading and discourteous to the RCGP membership to use this as a representative figure. That this figure went on to be quoted in the media (in articles in Pulse, Onmedica, Practice Business and Living and Dying Well) and in Parliament (by Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Baroness O'Cathain during a Question for Short Debate in the House of Lords on March 5th) undermines the reputation of the College, which is supposed to be committed to the scientific evaluation of evidence.
What is more, the variety of methodologies used meant that the consultation more closely resembled a poorly organised focus group than a rigorous quantitative survey of doctors’ views. As can be seen in the RCGP’s own presentation of the results, it was also claimed that 25% of participants in the consultation came from “West Midlands” faculty. There is no evidence that this faculty exists, it is not listed on the RCGP’s website, and despite numerous attempts to seek clarification from the RCGP there has so far not been an explanation as to what this faculty is and who it represents.
On the 7th April I and twelve other members of the RCGP wrote to Dr Maureen Baker requesting clarification as to why the consultation was conducted in such a flawed manner and why the results were presented in such a misleading way. So far, a formal response has not been forthcoming.
Care Not Killing’s leaflet further highlights the need for transparency and honesty on the issue of assisted dying.
Dr. Philip Hartropp BM FRCGP
Competing interests:
Board Member of Dignity in Dying and member of Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying
Rapid Response:
Re: BMJ is not always impartial about the advertisements it includes
I think it is safe to assume that the Care Not Killing insert in the April edition of the BMJ has answered the concerns about the BMJ’s impartiality, expressed by Timothy Harlow et al (“BMJ is not always impartial about the advertisements it includes”, 4 December 2013). Both sides of the argument are now represented in inserts.
A point for further consideration may be whether there is any editorial control of inserts that manage to be both misleading and irrelevant to the issue at hand. The “FACTS” put forward by Care Not Killing in their leaflet have evidently been chosen to divert the debate away from assisted dying to assisted suicide/euthanasia and away from sensible and evidence based arguments and into the realm of distorting and scaremongering.
I want to pay particular attention to the “FACT” put forward by Rob George - that the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) opposes “assisted suicide”. Results of the consultation conducted by the College, which ran between May and October 2013, in fact show that between 42% and 50% of the College’s membership does not support the College’s current stance of opposition to assisted dying. So while the Council of the RCGP made a decision to maintain the College’s stance of opposition, the membership as a whole is evidently divided on the issue.
This was not represented in the RCGP’s decision or indeed in their reporting of the results, in which they chose to highlight that 77% of direct responses to the consultation opposed any change in the College’s stance. The fact here is that these individual responses represented a small minority of those that took part in the consultation as a whole and represented only 0.48% (yes, 0.48%) of the College’s membership. It was misleading and discourteous to the RCGP membership to use this as a representative figure. That this figure went on to be quoted in the media (in articles in Pulse, Onmedica, Practice Business and Living and Dying Well) and in Parliament (by Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Baroness O'Cathain during a Question for Short Debate in the House of Lords on March 5th) undermines the reputation of the College, which is supposed to be committed to the scientific evaluation of evidence.
What is more, the variety of methodologies used meant that the consultation more closely resembled a poorly organised focus group than a rigorous quantitative survey of doctors’ views. As can be seen in the RCGP’s own presentation of the results, it was also claimed that 25% of participants in the consultation came from “West Midlands” faculty. There is no evidence that this faculty exists, it is not listed on the RCGP’s website, and despite numerous attempts to seek clarification from the RCGP there has so far not been an explanation as to what this faculty is and who it represents.
On the 7th April I and twelve other members of the RCGP wrote to Dr Maureen Baker requesting clarification as to why the consultation was conducted in such a flawed manner and why the results were presented in such a misleading way. So far, a formal response has not been forthcoming.
Care Not Killing’s leaflet further highlights the need for transparency and honesty on the issue of assisted dying.
Dr. Philip Hartropp BM FRCGP
Competing interests: Board Member of Dignity in Dying and member of Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying