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.
While Dr Khan may well perceive himself accurate, he may well observe
why certain doctors in general, white or non white are reluctant to remain
in a system which he is part of.
The learned gentleman who is a close friend of Professor Catto,
misses the simple point that there are some doctors who find better things
to do in life than sit around wondering whether skin colour is reflected
by statitics. Statistics only represent a minority of doctors and thus
misrepresents the true outlook of the population in general. Discretionary
points have not been well thought out hence the lastest teething problems.
He forgets that part timers as well as other groups are discriminated
against not purposely but because the system has failed to detect these
points of note.
Applications for discretionary points has no reflections on white or
non whites and their perceptions. Everyone is disenchanted with the
system. Discretionary points simply compound the already tired workforce.
As for Dr Khan, I suggest he opens his eyes up to a different
perspective and concentrate on a broader spectrum of people rather than
whites and non whites.
Dr Cave's point is valid. However, even if less non-white doctors
apply for the awards, it begs the question why that should be the case.
Perhaps they do not apply because of earlier failures and disillusionment.
Regards
Dr Izhar Khan MD FRCP
Consultant Nephrologist/Physician
Aberdeen
Re: Discrimination in discretionary awards.
While Dr Khan may well perceive himself accurate, he may well observe
why certain doctors in general, white or non white are reluctant to remain
in a system which he is part of.
The learned gentleman who is a close friend of Professor Catto,
misses the simple point that there are some doctors who find better things
to do in life than sit around wondering whether skin colour is reflected
by statitics. Statistics only represent a minority of doctors and thus
misrepresents the true outlook of the population in general. Discretionary
points have not been well thought out hence the lastest teething problems.
He forgets that part timers as well as other groups are discriminated
against not purposely but because the system has failed to detect these
points of note.
Applications for discretionary points has no reflections on white or
non whites and their perceptions. Everyone is disenchanted with the
system. Discretionary points simply compound the already tired workforce.
As for Dr Khan, I suggest he opens his eyes up to a different
perspective and concentrate on a broader spectrum of people rather than
whites and non whites.
Kind Regards
Dr Rita Pal
editor@nhs-exposed.com
www.nhs-exposed.com
The Truth Behind the White Coat
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests