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.
The unqualified support for XR expressed in this article by the editors of both BMJ and Lancet fails to acknowledge adverse effects of protests on healthcare. Staff and patients are inevitably caught up with others in long delays caused by road or rail blockades. A nurse arrives late for her shift on an already understaffed ward. A doctor, travelling from one hospital to another, is delayed by 3 hours and his OP clinic is cancelled. Patients, some of whom have waited months for this appointment, are deferred to an unspecified date. An ambulance carrying a critically ill patient is delayed getting to ICU.
A widely reported incident in Bristol involved a man summoned to his dying father's bedside as he had only hours to live and wished to see his son before he died. The son, caught up in XR protests, arrived too late. This tragic case is unlikely to be unique.
The usual argument in response, that some short term sacrifice is a price worth paying for long term gain (eggs and omelettes), seems deeply cynical when applied to healthcare.
Perhaps a responsible journal should encourage protest in this important and entirely laudable cause, to be arranged so that care of our patients is not affected? It is quite possible to protest without affecting the general public and their work; such protests may gain more support in the long term.