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.
I read this article with interest. As a doctor working in the Public
Health System in Tamil Nadu, India (the place that was most affected by
Tsunami in India) I was involved in the Tsunami disaster in providing
medical relief. Our experience was also like that in Srilanka, the
mortality was concentrated in the initial days.
I was very disappointed that the author had speculated that the fund
raised for the tsunami was disproportionate to need. The funds collected
were for both initial recovery operations and for long-term rehabilitation
like permanent shelter, clean water and livelihood support. How can
reduction in mortality be the only use for the collected funds? Mortality
should not be a way of comparing funds collected for different crisis. It
probably could be speculated that large funds were collected for tsunami
because people felt that they could do something and that money would make
a difference for the people affected and with Darfur, probably people
thought it is a more complex problem and money at it is not necessarily