Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on thebmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included online and in print as readers' letters, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window. Letters are indexed in PubMed.
This most recent exchange citing the Alder Hey "incident" has finally
forced me to ask a simple question: how many people who have commented on
the affair have actually read the report? From all that I have seen
written I suspect that most read only the summary and conclusions.
I have read the report in full. At the time I was a Clinical
Director with responsibility for pathology. The summary and conclusions
said many things but allowed, in my view, the whole sequence of events to
be obscured and blame to be placed in the wrong place.
At Alder Hey a university appointment was planned. The job
description for the post was greeted with considerable reservation by
clinicians, who thought it was unworkable, but the appointment
nevertheless went ahead. The appointee was greeted with similar
reservations by the clinicians, who thought he was not suitable, but they
were overruled. When, in the event, the clinicians' concerns were all too
amply vindicated, it was they and their hospital, and not the university,
who carried the can for the failure of an individual.
I would be interested to learn whether this view is shared by others.
Those who did not approach the main body of the report should perhaps do
so; it reads like a detective thriller and in a strange way I found it