Wit and the lost lessons of history
BMJ 2009; 338 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b1923 (Published 12 May 2009) Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b1923All 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.
I am not sure the older definition of wit has disappeared.
Expressions such as 'keep your wits about you' and 'to live by one wits'
are still in common use. Rather than a vehicle for humour they exhort
intelligent interpretation of one's situation and being aware of any
imminent threat.
Unfettered fiscal health targets are innumerably self-justifying in
the hands of their enforcers, many of whom lack wit in the humorous
definition of the word. Let us not also forget that greed can also include
the glory that comes with saving money, not just making it. We must not
lack intelligent wit in being blind to this.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I always love reading the writings of Iona Heath, and when she offers
a link to what appears to be an important article immediately went in
search of it. Alas this led not to the article, but to a demand for
$28.58.
Perhaps links such as this should be avoided, and just a conventional
reference offered. I think links should be published only when they allow
free access.
Competing interests:
I do not like to spend money unnecessarily.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Addendum (having our wits about us)
From the London Times today:
“A record £1.7 billion surplus for the National Health Service must
not stay sitting unspent in bank accounts and should be used to improve
patient care, the Commons Public Accounts Committee say in a report today.
The NHS has pledged to find £15 billion in efficiency savings over the
next three years. But efforts to keep the health service in surplus while
cutting costs must not come at the expense of patient care, it says”.
Although the tax payer ultimately pays for the NHS, cutting costs
simply to save money at the expense of patient care is nonsensical. Who
benefits from implementing these savings, the patients or the managers?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests