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.
Why does the Journal give such a prominent platform to the demands for evermore regulation and control of doctors, as shown in 27th September issue? The Editor's Choice (BMJ 2014:349:g5847) bases its demand for this on the inevitable litany of the Bristol inquiry of 2001, Shipman and Mid-Staffordshire. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence that Shipman would have failed the revalidation process, most of the recent scandals in the NHS have been the result of catastrophic management and political failures, and/or the absence of basic human kindness. At the same time chief executives and managers have shown a failure to accept responsibility, or be subject to discipline.
The same issue of the Journal ( p7 BMJ 2014:349:g5744), not only pleads for more regulation, but also misrepresents the authors' own case in doing so. The Francis inquiry was not primarily about the medical profession. The authors' lack of comprehension is shown by their approval of the fact that the Department of Health and the GMC are commissioning researchers to evaluate revalidation, preparatory to further changes. They do not appear to pause to think that these bodies themselves might profit from such an exercise, in the light of their performances over the last decade or two.
The 'Hospital of the Patient' (p16 BMJ 2014:349:g5457) includes a nonattributed source from a 'Chief Listening Officer', that the average doctor interrupts the patient after 18-23 seconds. This is in the spirit of Jan Kremer's advice (who apparently is professor of patient centred innovation), that the term patient should be abandoned in favour of TIFKAP (The Individual Formerly Known As A Patient). In such an Orwellian world it is no wonder that their medical students are 'coached by patients and patients sit on committees designing our new curriculum to inform concepts, context and complexity.'
In the light of all this and more, it may be relevant that on page 1, the chair of The Royal College of General Practitioners warns that an exodus from the profession is taking place.
I am etc,
Dr D E B Powell
Competing interests:
I am unaware of any competing interest, as a retired NHS consultant, apart from the fear of the possibility that I might need hospital admission.
Life is full of unfinished business. We are all burdened with a backlog of unsolved mystery and unresolved history. How do we balance this backlog with the pressures of the present? We should peruse the past, in order to prepare ourselves for projecting the present into the future. But sadly, we are never finished with the past, and must live with it forever.
Re: The regulation revolution: the future is here
Why does the Journal give such a prominent platform to the demands for evermore regulation and control of doctors, as shown in 27th September issue? The Editor's Choice (BMJ 2014:349:g5847) bases its demand for this on the inevitable litany of the Bristol inquiry of 2001, Shipman and Mid-Staffordshire. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence that Shipman would have failed the revalidation process, most of the recent scandals in the NHS have been the result of catastrophic management and political failures, and/or the absence of basic human kindness. At the same time chief executives and managers have shown a failure to accept responsibility, or be subject to discipline.
The same issue of the Journal ( p7 BMJ 2014:349:g5744), not only pleads for more regulation, but also misrepresents the authors' own case in doing so. The Francis inquiry was not primarily about the medical profession. The authors' lack of comprehension is shown by their approval of the fact that the Department of Health and the GMC are commissioning researchers to evaluate revalidation, preparatory to further changes. They do not appear to pause to think that these bodies themselves might profit from such an exercise, in the light of their performances over the last decade or two.
The 'Hospital of the Patient' (p16 BMJ 2014:349:g5457) includes a nonattributed source from a 'Chief Listening Officer', that the average doctor interrupts the patient after 18-23 seconds. This is in the spirit of Jan Kremer's advice (who apparently is professor of patient centred innovation), that the term patient should be abandoned in favour of TIFKAP (The Individual Formerly Known As A Patient). In such an Orwellian world it is no wonder that their medical students are 'coached by patients and patients sit on committees designing our new curriculum to inform concepts, context and complexity.'
In the light of all this and more, it may be relevant that on page 1, the chair of The Royal College of General Practitioners warns that an exodus from the profession is taking place.
I am etc,
Dr D E B Powell
Competing interests: I am unaware of any competing interest, as a retired NHS consultant, apart from the fear of the possibility that I might need hospital admission.