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 was highly disappointed by the reporter bias in this article. From the stereotyped picture chosen to illustrate it through to the unnecessarily emotive language used it was an unbalanced article on a contentious subject. The author appears to assume we all share the same view as her, but in a journal such as the BMJ this is a fallacy as the readership will include pro-choice, agnostic and anti-abortion view holders.
This is by no means a black and white subject for all doctors and to use such words as "draconian", and "liberalised" (the tone being patronising towards NI and an arrogant presumption that our - England, Scotland, Wales- legislation is necessarily enlightened) was an abuse of the position of legal correspondent. This was not news, this was opinion and should have been presented as such.
Re: Abortion in Northern Ireland: is change on the cards?
I was highly disappointed by the reporter bias in this article. From the stereotyped picture chosen to illustrate it through to the unnecessarily emotive language used it was an unbalanced article on a contentious subject. The author appears to assume we all share the same view as her, but in a journal such as the BMJ this is a fallacy as the readership will include pro-choice, agnostic and anti-abortion view holders.
This is by no means a black and white subject for all doctors and to use such words as "draconian", and "liberalised" (the tone being patronising towards NI and an arrogant presumption that our - England, Scotland, Wales- legislation is necessarily enlightened) was an abuse of the position of legal correspondent. This was not news, this was opinion and should have been presented as such.
Competing interests: No competing interests