In committee
BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7436.413-a (Published 12 February 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:413All 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.
It is a shame that George Dunea did not mention about the recently
unravelled committees of the BMA. By the sound of it,the BMA committees
seem not far off from the ones that Dunea describes in his piece.
In fact, with the Compensation Committee in the back of my mind,my
thoughts jumped into something that the Editor wrote very recently.In his
initial blogger-style Davos Diaries, Dr Smith wrote:
"The session includes prominent politicians and businessmen, and much
of the discussion revolves around whether regulators have over-reacted to
Enron and Parmelat. The businessmen present feel, wholly unsurprisingly,
that they have."
I think the BMA's reaction to the press reports about the
Compensation Committee is very much similar what the Editor had described.
Though I am not sure, whether the scale of the problem is as bad as Enron
or Parmalat,the BMA's responses show some resemblance to the US corporate-
reactions when faced with financial impropriety.
Not that the current BMA bosses are saying anything via their in-
house journal BMJ,but 'Hospital Doctor' appears to be their favourite
forum to rebut allegations of corruption,racism, and mismanagement. From
the initial angry denials,the tone of the BMA had changed to confessions.
Some beneficiaries are now openly acknowledging the large sums of money
that were doled out to them by their good Committee. The Chairman, also
seems to be a beneficiary, but so far, he has not come out very clearly.
And the funny thing is, they all are unanimous in justifying the need (and
the greed) to be compensated for loss of arbitrary 'private practice'
losses.
Whilst the overwhelming majority knew nothing about the existence of
the Compensation Committee or how much it distributed amongst a lucky few,
without any sign of humility,the BMA is now saying that a "reference" was
made to it in the last Financial Statement. "Reference",where, may I ask
the BMA spokesperson. Further, if it was formed in 1995(that's what they
say,now), why was the first ever "reference" to it made only last year,in
2003--some eight (silent) long years after its inception!.
"All above board" they say, and it was not a secret.Oh,well,perhaps,
we had some smoke without any fire for the first time.Indeed,unusual
things do happen at the BMA House. Another question--why is this
Compensation Committee not identified in the BMA's Rule Book--isn't that
funny.Need I say, about the Cases Committee;another Committee that ran its
affairs rather sceretly, and mentioned in a employment tribunal claim that
I brought against the BMA in 1997.Even M15/6 bosses are identified,at
least by name theses days, but for the BMA, anonymity and secrecy seems
paramount for its existence.
I recently asked whether it's true that BMA council members are
issued with corporate-style credit cards for the purposes of
hospitality,expenses,etc..No answer, as yet,and I wonder whether I will
ever receive an open answer.Why are the BMA leaders shying away from open
debate? Why can't they provide simple answers to questions put to them in
their own journal?If we have to wait for the next edition of 'Hospital
Doctor', then please say so, but please, don't think that serious matters
will just disappear with time.
Talking about time, it is actually 'Election Time' at the BMA. There
is one quick way of getting answers to the worrying matters I have raised.
How?--just vote out those culprits who have been serving themselves for
years--enough is enough.That would make your voting-choice narrower and
easier.Please show the way out promptly with the power of your ballot in
true democratic style.
Competing interests:
Candidate for Election(United Kingdom).I will not claim compensation for loss of private practice but will claim travel & sandwich expenses.Will demand an Independent Inquiry into allegations of financial impropriety at BMA.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Correction:Committees That Plunder Members' Wealth and What Can We Do About It Now?
The last sentence in the fourth paragraph of my rapid response should
have been:
And the funny thing is, they all are unanimous in justifying the need
(and the greed) to be compensated for arbitrary 'private practice' losses.
Competing interests:
Same
Competing interests: No competing interests