Re: David Oliver: Challenging the victim narrative about NHS doctors; author's misconceived view
Oliver’s view that I am “at cross purposes with” him is a misconceived one.However, I thank him for attempting to explain the nuances of English language but he need not have troubled himself to refer to “George W Bush” or “Iraq”.
The meaning of word ‘influential’ needs to be interpreted in the context of his article and/or relevant passage; Oliver might agree. The general tenor of his article is based on his perceived belief that “doctors’ sense of being less influential” [1] than in the past. He specifically questions and answers doctors’ position in relation to “pay”, “public respect” and “power”. Following his question in relation to “power”, he seems to have dedicated four paragraphs which clearly suggest the positive/good outcomes as a result of the power or influence of doctors.
It is only when I challenged Oliver (17 October 2017) that his fourth example in relation to BMA (“Doctors at the BMA were influential at every stage...) was not consistent with the theme of good outcomes of power/influence--which seemed to be his core message as depicted in the three preceding paragraphs--he expressed his secondary remarks (17 October 2017) that “the BMA made a whole series of errors “ and “had a whole deck of cards and played a bad hand”; it is arguable, the said belated acknowledgement of BMA’s negative influence (with bad outcomes) was upon Oliver’s realisation that citing BMA was not in keeping with the theme of good outcomes of power or being influential. Hope, the above clarifies that I am not at cross purposes with him.
Perhaps, Oliver should reflect on his own words without resisting evidence-based criticism. Things can and do go wrong at times.
Rapid Response:
Re: David Oliver: Challenging the victim narrative about NHS doctors; author's misconceived view
Oliver’s view that I am “at cross purposes with” him is a misconceived one.However, I thank him for attempting to explain the nuances of English language but he need not have troubled himself to refer to “George W Bush” or “Iraq”.
The meaning of word ‘influential’ needs to be interpreted in the context of his article and/or relevant passage; Oliver might agree. The general tenor of his article is based on his perceived belief that “doctors’ sense of being less influential” [1] than in the past. He specifically questions and answers doctors’ position in relation to “pay”, “public respect” and “power”. Following his question in relation to “power”, he seems to have dedicated four paragraphs which clearly suggest the positive/good outcomes as a result of the power or influence of doctors.
It is only when I challenged Oliver (17 October 2017) that his fourth example in relation to BMA (“Doctors at the BMA were influential at every stage...) was not consistent with the theme of good outcomes of power/influence--which seemed to be his core message as depicted in the three preceding paragraphs--he expressed his secondary remarks (17 October 2017) that “the BMA made a whole series of errors “ and “had a whole deck of cards and played a bad hand”; it is arguable, the said belated acknowledgement of BMA’s negative influence (with bad outcomes) was upon Oliver’s realisation that citing BMA was not in keeping with the theme of good outcomes of power or being influential. Hope, the above clarifies that I am not at cross purposes with him.
Perhaps, Oliver should reflect on his own words without resisting evidence-based criticism. Things can and do go wrong at times.
References
[1] BMJ 2017;359:j4304
Competing interests: Do not trust the BMA