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.
Many of Prof. Aynsley-Green's achievements as Children's Tsar won't
be apparent until a whole generation of children have had the chance to
grow up in the more child-centred environment he promotes. One can
understand why some commentators on the new Tsarist posts (1) might
reserve judgement on this national system for clinical leadership.
However, one positive area of impact is already becoming apparent:
his battlecry for all the professionals involved in specialist services
for children to become "advocates" for children throughout the wider
healthcare system is beginning to happen. Having observed it in a few
recent policy-related meetings, for example with voluntary sector
contributors advocating forcefully for better engagement with child
protection issues in "adult" services, I decided to test it in an n = 1
trial at a recent conference in Westminster on changes to legislation for
health (2). At first, potential policies were being framed without any
consideration for their impact on young people, let alone involving that
population of citizens in the national debate. Ponderously, crudely but
inescapably this participant questioned the impact on children's wellbeing
every time relevant initiatives were proposed. For a while there were long
silences and grudging comments about the "Nanny State" among the other
delegates, but by the end no one was arguing against Mary Poppins! Other
individuals must be doing parallel advocacy: the next three national
conferences I am attending all have some child health issue on their
agenda. Today I have just observed my next invitation to a health policy
meeting at the same Westminster conference centre where legislation was
debated... something called Parent Child 2004, "Changing World".
Al Aynsley-Green: inspiring a (non-violent) Children's Crusade
Many of Prof. Aynsley-Green's achievements as Children's Tsar won't
be apparent until a whole generation of children have had the chance to
grow up in the more child-centred environment he promotes. One can
understand why some commentators on the new Tsarist posts (1) might
reserve judgement on this national system for clinical leadership.
However, one positive area of impact is already becoming apparent:
his battlecry for all the professionals involved in specialist services
for children to become "advocates" for children throughout the wider
healthcare system is beginning to happen. Having observed it in a few
recent policy-related meetings, for example with voluntary sector
contributors advocating forcefully for better engagement with child
protection issues in "adult" services, I decided to test it in an n = 1
trial at a recent conference in Westminster on changes to legislation for
health (2). At first, potential policies were being framed without any
consideration for their impact on young people, let alone involving that
population of citizens in the national debate. Ponderously, crudely but
inescapably this participant questioned the impact on children's wellbeing
every time relevant initiatives were proposed. For a while there were long
silences and grudging comments about the "Nanny State" among the other
delegates, but by the end no one was arguing against Mary Poppins! Other
individuals must be doing parallel advocacy: the next three national
conferences I am attending all have some child health issue on their
agenda. Today I have just observed my next invitation to a health policy
meeting at the same Westminster conference centre where legislation was
debated... something called Parent Child 2004, "Changing World".
(1) Al Aynsley-Green.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7432/127-a/DC1
(2) Health of the People: the Highest Law? Nuffield Foundation
conference, 8 January 2004, London.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests