Economics first; health third, fourth, or nowhere
BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7434.0-g (Published 29 January 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:0-g
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.
Indeed, we do have lofty and noble goals, of which I am very proud.
And you British persons spell, and then pronounce, stuff most
peculiarly: like gaol. With a wonderfully pliant language like that, is
it any wonder that Lewis Carroll was English?
Competing interests:
I am an American citizen, but like British English
Competing interests: No competing interests
The world has changed. Health is now subservient to freedom,
democracy and economic power. Of course, the whole world is subservient to
this lofty American ideology.
Nevertheless I look with admiration and envy at medical men who
subscribe to such erudite publications as 'The Economist'. It is
disappointing and just a little tedious to find that those with such
'influence in the world' – even those in the world outside America - have
such difficulty with the grammar and spelling of the English language.
In this economically driven world, perhaps it is basic literacy that
is subservient, even to health and to those other lofty American goals.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
One great virtue of The Economist is the abscence of ill informed
tedious moralising.
Competing interests:
Subscriber to The Economist Magazine
Competing interests: No competing interests
Richard Smith asks whether the editor of the BMJ was right to dream
of making the journal as influential a force in world affairs as the
Economist.
The opposite extremes in political opinions sometimes expressed on
healthcare and environmental issues by the Economist and the authors of
papers written in the BMJ is evidence of large differences in education
and life experiences. To bridge these differences, and expand the
influence [and circulations]of the BMJ and indeed the Economist I have the
following proposal.
Have the Economist solicit from editors of prestigious medical
journals of its choice papers that have been accepted for publication and
are considered by the editors to be of special significance and publish
them in the Economist in abbreviated and modified form together with an
editorial comment, but in the medical journals' recognisable logo and
format. It might be best to publish them simultaneneously. Have the BMJ do
exactly the same not just with the Economist but also with other
influential publications such as the Financial Times and Wall Street
Journal. This should help forge an informed and intelligent consensus on
contraversial subjects.
The articles might be profitably confined to one subject, the
proximity of the next mass extinction, the form that can be expected to
take and practical solutions for averting that apocalypse in a politically
viable, affordable, effective, efficient and timely manner.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
In Italy, from the media , health is seen as aesthetic surgery, as how
to get all as soon as possible, as how to speak badly about doctors, as
how to investigate about all deaths, all going wrong in everyday
mediicine, except for rare interventions and everything could get the
imagination.
From politics, health is seen as an economic problem and every
effort and analysis is done, not just to invest money for the largest
prevention and the largest cure and care, but just totally on cutting
everything and everywhere, in primary and in secondary care, the real
everyday work.
From the people ( patients' point of view ), health is seen as
something costing more and more every next day.
This kind of budget shortfalls is artificial: too much is spent from
rich countries for useless or dangerous sectors...
So, we could understand why so few ( surely not enough ) is spoken
about medicine internationally, and how important it is for a
Journal like BMJ to be the advocate for health, scientifically and
politically.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
How refreshing to see such an intellegent [and witty, and brave]
report on the conference of the nuveaux kings & queens of this free
and democratic world. It was especially refreshing to hear the views of
the vice-guardian of the Greatest Democracy money can buy.
I was, however, somewhat distressed at not finding out whether the
man in the balaclava succeeded in getting his Big Mac... nothing a dose of
Aropax won't fix [yes, I am over 18 years of age and wasn't suicidal.]
The bit relating to CEO criticism was right on the button. [..."Well
who wants to criticise. We all think that there but for the grace of
god….." Exactly, I thought, the reaction of doctors—with Bristol and
Shipman as results.]
Then I read the e-response of Jay Ilangaratne. My immediate thoughts
were; 'Oh dear, another promising career in need of the services of a risk
analyst and some immediate re-engineering.'
One can hear the axe of one of the remnants of 1950's/60's unionism
falling as one spe...
Competing interests:
Not a member of the BMA
Competing interests: No competing interests
The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
The Health of Nations by Richard Smith.
Hmmm.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I think we are being held Hostage by the US government and its allies
by denying health. Look at how they are obstructing the efforts of WHO to
tackle obesity. When will they have a moral and a social conscience ?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Come on Richard Smith! "The Economist" may be influential, but so is
the BMJ. Has anyone ever compared the number of internet hits on economic
sites with those on health sites? The BMJ has long been a leader of
opinion; its influence spreads far beyond medicine, and could spread even
further if it so desired I am sure. If public health is not well
represented at meeting like the World Economic Forum that merely shows
this so called Forum is out of touch with some of the most important
concerns of the vast majority of real people in the world.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
British splendour
In 1956, H.L. Mencken, an American journalist and essayist wrote:
“Most people want security in this world, not liberty.”
It is hard to say whether he was referring to the greatest democracy
money can buy, or to the land that is Iraq, the cradle of civilisation.
He also wrote:
“What men value in this world is not rights, but privileges.”
He was quite obviously referring to the current American vice
president, whose interests are in promoting an American style of democracy
and privilege to an American elite. World health and the reduction of
poverty can go hang, as can ‘The Economist’.
Competing interests:
A penchant for H.L. Mencken and the simplicity and lofty splendor of American words while serving Her Majesty pleasure at one of Britain’s finest and oldest gaols. Resentment of the trans-Atlantic march of the ‘zee’ or the ‘zed’.
Competing interests: No competing interests