Urinary tract infection in children
BMJ 1999; 319 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7218.1173 (Published 30 October 1999) Cite this as: BMJ 1999;319:1173
All rapid responses
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.
Dear Editor
When am I we? Sharing or holding onto authority?
I have difficulties with 'we', which seems to crop up a lot in
medicine speak, when I think only one person is involved. The dictionary
says 'I and others: used for I by monarchs: also by editors etc.'
My letter is prompted by a useful review on urinary tract infections
in children, written by a fellow general practitioner (GP), Dr James
Larcombe. No one else was credited with the work, but I found 'we found'
thirteen times in the text. I don't think 'we' adds to authority, and it
seems there is a single author. Wouldn't 'I' do?
However, I find the use of 'we' in the consultation even more
difficult. As a GP trainer, I have sometimes queried registrars' meaning
of the word, to be told that it means partnership with the patient.
However, even an excellent male registrar realised there could be
problems, when observed saying 'shall we use a condom?' to a female
patient.
Though we are not of royal lineage, there is a long tradition of
medical paternalism, and doctors pick up the way of speaking, while
learning the technical jargon of our trade. I am pleased that I often
observe 'we' being used for true partnership between patient and doctor,
or to represent a collective opinion in an article, that is owned, not
represented by a spuriously objective passive 'it'. But isn't there more
room for an unselfish I?
Yours sincerely
Anna Eleri Livingstone
The Limehouse Practice,
Gill Street Health Centre,
London E14 8HQ
Competing interests: No competing interests
Response to Dr Livingstone
Thank you for your kind words on the review.
As regards the "we", this refers to the team who contributed: the
foot soldier (myself); and the support team: the Editorial Board (who were
very active in the review) and the BMJ staff who ran the searches.
However, I
agree with your sentiments on the use of the word "we" entirely and I'm
sure it'll give us food for thought!
James Larcombe
Competing interests: No competing interests