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 or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I completely agree that debate on this issue should not be stifled in any way, but your sentence which says that 'some doctors' vociferous opposition to assisted dying might now be stifling the majority, who I think are more supportive...to law change' is, to say the least, highly speculative. Do we really know whether the majority of doctors are supportive to law change? I don't think we do, and such assumptions in themselves tend to stifle debate.
The views of doctors on all sides of this debate are relevant and need to be heard.
Furthermore, I don't think there is any ground to suppose that doctors are trying to dictate to society; but the views of medical groups will play a part in the societal debate as a whole, and each individual doctor has a right to contribute to that debate without feeling constrained.
I find that views on both sides are being stated vociferously; naturally, it is a subject that rouses high emotions. To state that one side is more vociferous than the other is, effectively, to stifle the debate.
Re: Assisted dying: are strong views of opposition silencing the majority?
I completely agree that debate on this issue should not be stifled in any way, but your sentence which says that 'some doctors' vociferous opposition to assisted dying might now be stifling the majority, who I think are more supportive...to law change' is, to say the least, highly speculative. Do we really know whether the majority of doctors are supportive to law change? I don't think we do, and such assumptions in themselves tend to stifle debate.
The views of doctors on all sides of this debate are relevant and need to be heard.
Furthermore, I don't think there is any ground to suppose that doctors are trying to dictate to society; but the views of medical groups will play a part in the societal debate as a whole, and each individual doctor has a right to contribute to that debate without feeling constrained.
I find that views on both sides are being stated vociferously; naturally, it is a subject that rouses high emotions. To state that one side is more vociferous than the other is, effectively, to stifle the debate.
Competing interests: No competing interests