Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on thebmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included online and in print as readers' letters, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window. Letters are indexed in PubMed.
Like Adrian O’Dowd in his Medicine and the Media article "Do new drugs mean patient hope or harm ?" I also was intrigued to see two Times articles side by side reflecting opposing views of what the NHS should provide. My blog conclusions http://trendsinmenshealth.com/people-need-asked-nhs-provide/ align with John Appleby’s observation that there are mixed messages emerging from national health policy. A key challenge for politicians is that it is easier to be presented with case studies of patients who would benefit from drugs than those who may be harmed by health pounds being diverted to new cost-ineffective interventions – indeed in the same BMJ edition Jacqui Wise (whose sister has Cystic Fibrosis) describes the call by MPs for NICE to change its decision that funding Orkambi is not a cost-effective way of spending NHS resources. As part of my current research on increasing fairness in health prioritisation decisions I have been exploring how we can highlight the plight of the “hidden patients” who do not make the headlines. During my recent Rockefeller Academic Residency at Bellagio I explored the potential of stories and films. In creating a prototype website I hope to encourage the public to share examples of how they have been affected or have participated in difficult healthcare prioritisation decisions https://people4health.com