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.
In an earlier letter about events at the Liverpool Women's NHS
Foundation I raised concerns about reports that the Liverpool Women's NHS
Foundation was seeking to prevent staff from raising concerns with MPs as
this would be contempt of parliament. In the letter accompanying this one
Andrew Bousfield repeats this allegation yet I am struck by how Mr Morris,
the chair of the Trust, has failed to respond to it, saying only that
staff could speak to NHS regulatory bodies. This is emphatically not the
same. There is now a strong argument that the parliamentary authorities
should launch an investigation into this affair, which has profound
constitutional implications. It seems unfortunate that Mr Morris has
wasted the opportunity to address this issue in his response which, in its
use of pejorative language and unsubstantiated assertions, clearly does
not contribute to the "mature debate" he claims to seek.