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.
As usual your Christmas issue was the highlight of the year, with one
exception; "The twenty-krone piece". I have a lurking fear that this paper
was tricked into the journal by medical doctors, desperately wanting to
restore the old-fashioned and unbalanced
doctor-patient relationship, where gratitude and generous gifts from the
patients had precedence over complaints and lawsuits. A humble Norwegian
was portrayed as the ideal patient. After he had been subjected to the old
trick, known from the Salerno school of Medicine where it is recommended
to tell the patient that their condition is very serious (when it is not)
in order to increase the reward and praise (1), he was fooled to give his
last money to the greedy surgeon. (I can assure you, this would not have
happened to day. After Norway has become the richest country in the world,
Norwegians have become greedy and mean. They have nothing, but money,
except for a persistent inability to use the English language (2))
However, this is not the main reason why I want to comment on the “not
worth a penny twenty-krone paper”. Apart from being pathetic, the paper is
inaccurate and demonstrates a deplorable lack of the most basic numismatic
knowledge. I am referring to the allegation made in the paper that the 20-
krone piece was worth only 15 shillings. The Norwegian 20-krone piece was
a gold coin (95,6% pure gold) first issued in 1874 (last issued 1910). As
both the value of the Norwegian as well as the English currency at the
actual time was directly related to the gold standard, and because we are
talking about a gold coin, the value of the Norwegian 20-krone was bound
to be stable, and was set to be equivalent of one pound. No less, no more.
I am quite aware of all the problems in medical research related to
confusion about the “gold standard”, but in the case of the 20-krone
piece, it should have been simple to avoid the improper statement about
the value of the Norwegian coin. Finally, I am happy to inform the
relatives of the late Sir Frederick Treves, that if they have kept the
coin, it is now worth between £ 100 and £ 150, depending on the year of
manufacture (1883 was a good year, as the production was limited).
Refernces
1. Archimatheus. De adventu medici ad aegotum (when the medical doctor
arrives). Salerno School of Medicine, early 12th century.
2. Høyer G. A pathetic Christmas tale about greed and gratitude. Letter.
BMJ, In press.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
10 January 2002
Georg Høyer
Professor of social medicine
Institute of community medicine, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, Norway
A pathetic Christmas tale about greed and gratitude.
As usual your Christmas issue was the highlight of the year, with one
exception; "The twenty-krone piece". I have a lurking fear that this paper
was tricked into the journal by medical doctors, desperately wanting to
restore the old-fashioned and unbalanced
doctor-patient relationship, where gratitude and generous gifts from the
patients had precedence over complaints and lawsuits. A humble Norwegian
was portrayed as the ideal patient. After he had been subjected to the old
trick, known from the Salerno school of Medicine where it is recommended
to tell the patient that their condition is very serious (when it is not)
in order to increase the reward and praise (1), he was fooled to give his
last money to the greedy surgeon. (I can assure you, this would not have
happened to day. After Norway has become the richest country in the world,
Norwegians have become greedy and mean. They have nothing, but money,
except for a persistent inability to use the English language (2))
However, this is not the main reason why I want to comment on the “not
worth a penny twenty-krone paper”. Apart from being pathetic, the paper is
inaccurate and demonstrates a deplorable lack of the most basic numismatic
knowledge. I am referring to the allegation made in the paper that the 20-
krone piece was worth only 15 shillings. The Norwegian 20-krone piece was
a gold coin (95,6% pure gold) first issued in 1874 (last issued 1910). As
both the value of the Norwegian as well as the English currency at the
actual time was directly related to the gold standard, and because we are
talking about a gold coin, the value of the Norwegian 20-krone was bound
to be stable, and was set to be equivalent of one pound. No less, no more.
I am quite aware of all the problems in medical research related to
confusion about the “gold standard”, but in the case of the 20-krone
piece, it should have been simple to avoid the improper statement about
the value of the Norwegian coin. Finally, I am happy to inform the
relatives of the late Sir Frederick Treves, that if they have kept the
coin, it is now worth between £ 100 and £ 150, depending on the year of
manufacture (1883 was a good year, as the production was limited).
Refernces
1. Archimatheus. De adventu medici ad aegotum (when the medical doctor
arrives). Salerno School of Medicine, early 12th century.
2. Høyer G. A pathetic Christmas tale about greed and gratitude. Letter.
BMJ, In press.
Competing interests: No competing interests