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.
Editor - As a recently retired hospital consultant I was deeply
dismayed by Professor Pringle's "three dreams" as expressed on page 878 of
this weeks BMJ.
In the early 90's I attempted a little effort entitled "The Demise of A
Noble Profession." Publishers at that time agreed that it was
"interesting but not commercially viable." The irony of their comments,
at least as a
reflection of the position of our modern profession, becomes clearer with
time.
One of the fundamentals of politics as illustrated so well by K. Clarke's
White Paper around that time is based on the principle of "Divide and/to
Rule." True to form our sad profession demonstrates its naive gullibility
by continuing to fall straight into this ever present trap.
That General Practitioners represent 70-80% of our practising
professionals is obvious to any Government. Sadly, it has been far too
easy for Governments of the day to exploit this imbalance.
It would have been impossible then and even more impossible
now, if not far too late, to ask Doctors to stick together and fight the
Profession's corner as a whole and united body. Instead we find ourselves
behaving like less noble individuals struggling primarily for a larger
slice of an ever diminishing cake.
Spare a thought for the noble dinosaur. Was he unable to change or did he
just refuse to change? Today's "successful" doctor is, if nothing else, a
survivalist and hardly recognisable!
However, one thing we do know is that Prof. Pringle will win the
affections of the majority of Medical Practitioners and, after all, how
can a politician practise if he can't gain the majority?
Divide and Rule
Editor - As a recently retired hospital consultant I was deeply
dismayed by Professor Pringle's "three dreams" as expressed on page 878 of
this weeks BMJ.
In the early 90's I attempted a little effort entitled "The Demise of A
Noble Profession." Publishers at that time agreed that it was
"interesting but not commercially viable." The irony of their comments,
at least as a
reflection of the position of our modern profession, becomes clearer with
time.
One of the fundamentals of politics as illustrated so well by K. Clarke's
White Paper around that time is based on the principle of "Divide and/to
Rule." True to form our sad profession demonstrates its naive gullibility
by continuing to fall straight into this ever present trap.
That General Practitioners represent 70-80% of our practising
professionals is obvious to any Government. Sadly, it has been far too
easy for Governments of the day to exploit this imbalance.
It would have been impossible then and even more impossible
now, if not far too late, to ask Doctors to stick together and fight the
Profession's corner as a whole and united body. Instead we find ourselves
behaving like less noble individuals struggling primarily for a larger
slice of an ever diminishing cake.
Spare a thought for the noble dinosaur. Was he unable to change or did he
just refuse to change? Today's "successful" doctor is, if nothing else, a
survivalist and hardly recognisable!
However, one thing we do know is that Prof. Pringle will win the
affections of the majority of Medical Practitioners and, after all, how
can a politician practise if he can't gain the majority?
RBHutcheson, BA, FRCOG
Gloucester, Glos., GL4 6YS
Competing interests: No competing interests