The article containing serious allegation involving the activities of Mr Claus need to be retracted urgently
Dear Editors
I am significantly concerned of the BMJ Editorial's decision to publish this article during this festive season. The authors may apparently have produced a scholarly work on the philanthropic behaviour of a well-respected entity but I have found their conclusions flawed and disturbing.
Although the authors acknowledge the direct reference of Mr Claus' appearance to children (less than 15 years) from an widely accepted source (ref 1) is dependent on (the child) has "been bad or good", they extrapolated the interpretation of this statement to a dichotomous relationship of "naughty or nice" to his appearance or not to the children concerned.
Although it is rational to assume that being "good" is the same as being "nice" which would presumably result in Santa coming to see the child, this belief has no foundation and no contractual obligation has ever been made in the reference document penned by John Frederick Coots and Haven Gillespie. Neither do we have any certainty that the work they supposedly authored is based on any fact and there is very little independent document which co-laterally confirm their assertion.
Furthermore the conceptual definition of being good or bad may not be what contemporary society believe it should be; it may be based on following a highly prescribed set of actions with 100% compliance, for example. An alternate interpretation can very well be that Mr Claus will only visit children whose circumstance being (of) "good" socioeconomic status, hence the flawed discussion by the authors about the inverse relationship of Mr Claus' attendance in hospitals located in geographical areas with "higher socioeconomic deprivation".
Similarly the authors' suggestions that: "potential solutions include a review of Santa’s contract or employment of local Santas in poorly represented regions" is very disturbing. I am perturbed by their audacity to even peculate that Santa's working conditions are negotiable by anyone other than himself (and his minder/ work supervisor: Mrs Santa Claus, of course) and that his good work and reputation can be subcontracted to other beings in local deprived areas. Not only Mr Claus' work is uniquely hazardous, requiring occupational health clearance to exacting standards and regular psychometric assessment for a highly stressful work at night out of 365 days, the acute lack of hospital parking for land vehicles driven by mere mortals will only result in prolonged duration of unaccredited unregulated and unqualified local "Santas" driving around the block looking for empty car spots without trespassing or breaching the traffic code, the penalties often administered by unforgiving BPA Approved Operators even on Christmas Eve. Surely there is a reason why Mr Claus chose to travel by a flying snow sleigh led by reindeers Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Dunder and Blixem (it is debatable if there is ever a reindeer called Rudolph - Ref 2)
I call for the emergency extraordinary meeting of the guarantors/directors of the BMJ to review the serious lapse in the judgement of BMJ editors in their decision to publish this libelous article and consider the necessary action required to defend themselves from the legal representatives of Claus & Elfs Limited (incorporated in Magnetic North)
Rapid Response:
The article containing serious allegation involving the activities of Mr Claus need to be retracted urgently
Dear Editors
I am significantly concerned of the BMJ Editorial's decision to publish this article during this festive season. The authors may apparently have produced a scholarly work on the philanthropic behaviour of a well-respected entity but I have found their conclusions flawed and disturbing.
Although the authors acknowledge the direct reference of Mr Claus' appearance to children (less than 15 years) from an widely accepted source (ref 1) is dependent on (the child) has "been bad or good", they extrapolated the interpretation of this statement to a dichotomous relationship of "naughty or nice" to his appearance or not to the children concerned.
Although it is rational to assume that being "good" is the same as being "nice" which would presumably result in Santa coming to see the child, this belief has no foundation and no contractual obligation has ever been made in the reference document penned by John Frederick Coots and Haven Gillespie. Neither do we have any certainty that the work they supposedly authored is based on any fact and there is very little independent document which co-laterally confirm their assertion.
Furthermore the conceptual definition of being good or bad may not be what contemporary society believe it should be; it may be based on following a highly prescribed set of actions with 100% compliance, for example. An alternate interpretation can very well be that Mr Claus will only visit children whose circumstance being (of) "good" socioeconomic status, hence the flawed discussion by the authors about the inverse relationship of Mr Claus' attendance in hospitals located in geographical areas with "higher socioeconomic deprivation".
Similarly the authors' suggestions that: "potential solutions include a review of Santa’s contract or employment of local Santas in poorly represented regions" is very disturbing. I am perturbed by their audacity to even peculate that Santa's working conditions are negotiable by anyone other than himself (and his minder/ work supervisor: Mrs Santa Claus, of course) and that his good work and reputation can be subcontracted to other beings in local deprived areas. Not only Mr Claus' work is uniquely hazardous, requiring occupational health clearance to exacting standards and regular psychometric assessment for a highly stressful work at night out of 365 days, the acute lack of hospital parking for land vehicles driven by mere mortals will only result in prolonged duration of unaccredited unregulated and unqualified local "Santas" driving around the block looking for empty car spots without trespassing or breaching the traffic code, the penalties often administered by unforgiving BPA Approved Operators even on Christmas Eve. Surely there is a reason why Mr Claus chose to travel by a flying snow sleigh led by reindeers Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Dunder and Blixem (it is debatable if there is ever a reindeer called Rudolph - Ref 2)
I call for the emergency extraordinary meeting of the guarantors/directors of the BMJ to review the serious lapse in the judgement of BMJ editors in their decision to publish this libelous article and consider the necessary action required to defend themselves from the legal representatives of Claus & Elfs Limited (incorporated in Magnetic North)
Reference
1. http://www.allmusic.com/song/santa-claus-is-coming-to-town-mt0000128647
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus%27s_reindeer
Competing interests: I have never seen Santa Claus for many many many years.