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.
The surgeon argue that he read the X-Ray "back to front", this is
totally unacceptable.With a good X-Ray and a pair of good eyes, it is
impossible to make that grave mistake.
I am glad to read that the two surgeons have been aquitted of the
manslaughter charges.
But the fact remains that the wrong kidney was removed. Let us hear
from all those involved in this case as to what actually went wrong, so
that others can learn from it. I am particularly interested in the views
of the theatre nurses who received the patient and checked the consent,
the anaesthetists who supervised the positioning of the patient and the
other theatre staff who helped in the operation.
If the checks and controls were in place, someone should have blown
the whistle before the operation reached an irreversible stage.
mistake is a mistake
The surgeon argue that he read the X-Ray "back to front", this is
totally unacceptable.With a good X-Ray and a pair of good eyes, it is
impossible to make that grave mistake.
Competing interests: No competing interests