Richard Dyer Mudd
BMJ 2002; 324 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1458 (Published 15 June 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;324:1458
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.
Dr Carvel asks me not to write his obituary, and I happily make that
commitment.
I entirely agree that the writing of children, spouses, and close
friends of the dead can be spontaneous, moving, and impossible for a
profesional writer to copy. We will never rewrite such pieces, even if
grammatically incorrect.
They are, however, the exception. More often obituaries are full of
cliches. "We will never look on his like again." "Loved by all his
patients he was a man of unequalled compassion." It is understandable that
people resort to cliches when grieving, but it is possible to do better.
Compare the average BMJ obituary with the "classic" obituary that
appeared in the Daily Telegraph: "The Third Lord Moynihan, who has died in
Manila, aged 55, provided, through his character and career, ample
ammunition for critics of the hereditary principle. His chief occupations
were bongo-drummer, confidence trickster, brothel-keeper, drug-smuggler
and police informer..."
I look forward to such an obituary appearing in the BMJ.
Richard Smith, Editor, BMJ
Competing interests: No competing interests
It is not often that I disagree with both sides of an argument but I
respectfully do so on this occasion. Firstly I disagree with Dr Bennett. I
personally was fascinated with the obituary of Dr Richard Dyer Mudd, who
despite a fine medical career of his own had, during his considerable
lifetime, tried to clear his great-grandfather's name. His ancestor, also
a doctor, had treated, probably innocently, Booth the assassin of
President Abraham Lincoln as he fled the scene of the killing. Occasionlly
in our own careers we are priviledged to meet people inderectly, or even
directly, involved in history and we know that with their passing a piece
of history dies with them. It is a little unkind to criticise the fact
that Dr Mudd's obituary was published in the British Medical Journal.
Perhaps he wasn't a jobbing GP or an Otolaryngologist from Gravesend but
it was the only thing that caught my eye that week in the journal.
Dr Smith feels that the quality of writing of the obituaries is
important. I disagree. Often they are written by children or spouses,
medical or otherwise. Perhaps the grammar is not perfect, nor the humour
as sharp as it could be, but the sincerity and insight are there. These
people may never have written an obituary before but probably have never
lost their nearest and dearest before either. I personally would strongly
resist professional or "experienced" obituary writers as the above
qualities could never be reproduced, however skilled they may be. Edit
perhaps but reject, no. Occasionally an obituary is written by the dying
subject themself. It would be iniquitous to rewrite it based on its
quality, or lack therof.
No, let the dead and their epitaphs rest in peace.
(Dr Smith, please don't write my obituary)
Competing interests: No competing interests
Obituaries have long presented a series of problems to the BMJ, but
we hope that the arrival of the internet and a new strategy will solve our
problems.
The first problem is that we want to continue to publish all
obituaries that we receive. For all other parts of the journal we are
publishing on paper less than 10% of everything we receive. Publishing
everything we receive is becoming steadily more difficult as the number of
doctors - and hence the number of dead doctors - continues to increase.
Our strategy is to publish brief pieces in the paper edition of the
journal and provide unlimited space on the web. We hope eventually to be
posting multimedia memorials to doctors. These will, we hope, be
attractive, moving, insightful, and even amusing in a way that is hardly
ever achieved with the brief, somewhat sterile obituaries that we've been
forced to publish on paper.
Dr Bennett worries that many older doctors do not have access to the
internet, but our data show that the vast majority of doctors in Britain,
both active and retired, have access to the internet. Indeed, internet
usage amongst older people is growing extremely rapidly. Already the
internet is becoming available through the television, and universal
access is close.
A second problem with obituaries is that they are often written by
people who have written little or nothing before. They thus tend to be
stiff, stereotyped, and poorly written. Our new strategy is to ask
journalists or other experienced writers to write the obituaries of people
whose lives have been especially interesting. These will often, we hope,
be the doctors that Dr Bennett describes as "ordinary."
A well written obituary provides an opportunity to tell an
interesting story that may be human, medical, scientific, or even
political.
The third problem with obituaries is that they have been mostly of
British doctors. The BMJ now has many more readers outside Britain than
inside it, and we aspire to be a global journal. It is thus anachronistic
to publish obituaries only of British doctors, and we want to publish more
well written obituaries of doctors from outside Britain.
I hope that with the arrival of the internet it will be possible to
please everybody, including eventually Dr Bennett.
Richard Smith
Editor, BMJ
Competing interests: No competing interests
EDITOR - It may seem somewhat ungracious to complain about the length
of
the obituary of Dr Mudd but surely to the great majority of your regular
readers he was a somewhat obscure figure, while his concern to
rehabilitate his ancestor (who tended Lincoln's assassin) is no more
than a moderately interesting footnote.
I suppose it is still fruitless to protest about the BMJ's current
austere obituary policy as applied to "ordinary" doctors. It can
literally be a crying shame that our leading medical publication pays so
little heed ( 'only about 100 words') to the life achievements of
departed colleagues. Many older doctors, who perforce have a greater
interest in these columns, do not have access to ' a fuller version on
our website'.
Patrick Bennett, retired GP
Woking GU22 8QR
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: A promise not to write Dr Carvel's obituary
Dr Smith would be happy not to write my obituary. I think this is
preferable to him being happy to write it!
Competing interests: No competing interests