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.
Your editorial in this week`s Journal caught my eye on two counts-
Prof Illingworth`s stone in shoe but more significantly your comments on
not wearing hearing aids.It does seem however that the Richards &
Gleeson article illustrates a mojor part of the problem -
Otolaryngologists are (naturally) primarily interested in surgical
remedies and fairly ignorant of hearing aid technology.
Since the vast majority of deaf people can be helped by
non-invasive aids and since the technology in N.H.S. aids is relatively
primitive our own profession needs more information on advances in digital
technology & its potential value to patients. Could you not invite an
articleon "Advances in non-invasive hearing aid technology" by an expert
in the field ?
My own interest in this area stems from experience of elderly deaf
friends who have great difficulty in finding objective and practical help
- for most, the N.H.S. aids are a singularly unpleasant experience and end
up consigned to the back of a drawer!
Response
Your editorial in this week`s Journal caught my eye on two counts-
Prof Illingworth`s stone in shoe but more significantly your comments on
not wearing hearing aids.It does seem however that the Richards &
Gleeson article illustrates a mojor part of the problem -
Otolaryngologists are (naturally) primarily interested in surgical
remedies and fairly ignorant of hearing aid technology.
Since the vast majority of deaf people can be helped by
non-invasive aids and since the technology in N.H.S. aids is relatively
primitive our own profession needs more information on advances in digital
technology & its potential value to patients. Could you not invite an
articleon "Advances in non-invasive hearing aid technology" by an expert
in the field ?
My own interest in this area stems from experience of elderly deaf
friends who have great difficulty in finding objective and practical help
- for most, the N.H.S. aids are a singularly unpleasant experience and end
up consigned to the back of a drawer!
P Victoria Spencer MB ChB DPM FRCPsych
Competing interests: No competing interests