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.
Are we now so ethically disabled in the 'developed' world that not only can we not see that conscience is the very foundation of good medical practice but also apparently we should now accept that there is a hierarchy of those who are deemed worthy of having their conscience protected?
Bob Roehr says "A spokesman for the bishops went so far as to say that, as a matter of conscience and religious principles, the owner of a fast food outlet should be excluded from having to provide contraception services as part of health insurance." BMJ 2012;344:e1267.
"Went so far as to say". He seems to think that some groups of people, such as those who sell fast food, are less deserving of having their conscience protected than others. Given that the legislation is the brainchild of the pseudo-socialists, his article provides an interesting variation on the theme of Animal Farm: "some consciences are more equal than others".