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.
EDITOR - Taken with his letter1 in your previous issue, James Johnson’s editorial2 on self regulation is another nail in its coffin. His concern in ‘Making self regulation credible’ is to make it credible to doctors, not the public. His letter - ‘Cover picture meant that BMJ had descended to level of tabloid newspapers’ complained that your use of a photograph of a bereaved Bristol parent sensationalised the issue. Maybe he only saw the model coffin in the picture. But doctors need to be reminded of the depth of sorrow and anger in that mother’s eyes - the natural response when your child died unnecessarily.
It is the sorrow and anger caused by doctors to real, live human beings that self regulation must address. Patients with all their emotions have to be at the centre of self regulation, not some mechanically-performed peer review. Mr Johnson’s editorial may read well in the corridors of medical politics, but it gives no comfort to patients trying to deal with the General Medical Council.
Last week I met a couple who had just been told that it would take the GMC at least 12 months to decide whether to institute disciplinary proceedings against a doctor.
A year or more, that is, not from the time of their complaint but from delivery of a dossier they had assembled at its request. It consists of nearly 1,000 pages of evidence supporting their complaint that one of their children had died, and another been left severely brain-damaged, as a result of being used without their consent in a research project.
Nor does the editorial give hope that the GMC will better fulfil its statutory responsibility for medical education so that doctors will be trained not to abuse and misuse their patients. One possible approach is to teach students more of the humanities and, in particular, about ethics. Recognising this, the GMC instructed medical schools to teach medical ethics over a decade ago. Yet it has not withdrawn approval from those schools that still have no regular medical ethics teaching, one of which - the Middlesex / University College London - is right on its own doorstep.
If leaders of the profession like Mr Johnson are incapable of recognising the centrality of patients and their experiences to self regulation, this extraordinary privilege will be taken away from us.
Richard Nicholson
Editor, Bulletin of Medical Ethics, 31 Corsica St, London N5 1LA.
Tel: 0171 354 4252 Fax: 0171 704 2874
Email: Bulletin_of_Medical_Ethics@compuserve.com
1. Johnson J N. Cover picture meant that BMJ had descended to level of tabloid newspapers. BMJ 1998:316:1831
2. Johnson J N. Making self regulation credible. BMJ 1998:316:1847-8
The last sentence of the fourth paragraph from the end
mentions "formal accreditation, as has happened with
clinical pathology accreditation". Would you be so kind as
to supply me with a reference? Thank you.
Self-regulation must be credible to the public
The Editor,
British Medical Journal 24 June, 1998
EDITOR - Taken with his letter1 in your previous issue, James Johnson’s editorial2 on self regulation is another nail in its coffin. His concern in ‘Making self regulation credible’ is to make it credible to doctors, not the public. His letter - ‘Cover picture meant that BMJ had descended to level of tabloid newspapers’ complained that your use of a photograph of a bereaved Bristol parent sensationalised the issue. Maybe he only saw the model coffin in the picture. But doctors need to be reminded of the depth of sorrow and anger in that mother’s eyes - the natural response when your child died unnecessarily.
It is the sorrow and anger caused by doctors to real, live human beings that self regulation must address. Patients with all their emotions have to be at the centre of self regulation, not some mechanically-performed peer review. Mr Johnson’s editorial may read well in the corridors of medical politics, but it gives no comfort to patients trying to deal with the General Medical Council.
Last week I met a couple who had just been told that it would take the GMC at least 12 months to decide whether to institute disciplinary proceedings against a doctor.
A year or more, that is, not from the time of their complaint but from delivery of a dossier they had assembled at its request. It consists of nearly 1,000 pages of evidence supporting their complaint that one of their children had died, and another been left severely brain-damaged, as a result of being used without their consent in a research project.
Nor does the editorial give hope that the GMC will better fulfil its statutory responsibility for medical education so that doctors will be trained not to abuse and misuse their patients. One possible approach is to teach students more of the humanities and, in particular, about ethics. Recognising this, the GMC instructed medical schools to teach medical ethics over a decade ago. Yet it has not withdrawn approval from those schools that still have no regular medical ethics teaching, one of which - the Middlesex / University College London - is right on its own doorstep.
If leaders of the profession like Mr Johnson are incapable of recognising the centrality of patients and their experiences to self regulation, this extraordinary privilege will be taken away from us.
Richard Nicholson
Editor, Bulletin of Medical Ethics, 31 Corsica St, London N5 1LA.
Tel: 0171 354 4252 Fax: 0171 704 2874
Email: Bulletin_of_Medical_Ethics@compuserve.com
1. Johnson J N. Cover picture meant that BMJ had descended to level of tabloid newspapers. BMJ 1998:316:1831
2. Johnson J N. Making self regulation credible. BMJ 1998:316:1847-8
Competing interests: No competing interests