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-It is futile to pretend that a general medical journal could
ever not be political:(1)history shows otherwise.
Of the five major medical journals described by Roberts,(2) four have
their origins in overtly campaigning (and often in the past, if not the
present, overtly self-interested) groups of doctors - namely the BMJ (the
British Medical Association and its predecessors), the New England Journal
of Medicine (the Massachussetts Medical Society), JAMA (the American
Medical Association) and the Annals of Internal Medicine (the American
College of Physicians).
The fifth, The Lancet, was set up as an overtly campaigning journal,
its founder and first editor standing for 17 years as a Radical Member of
Parliament (noted on his first, unsuccessful, candidature for Finsbury in
1832 for a refusal to campaign on his own behalf, and favouring extension
of suffrage, removal of property qualifications for candidates, repeal of
the Corn Laws, abolition of slavery and suspension of the Newspaper Tax
Act).
Politics interacts in so many ways with health, and with delivery of
health care, that it cannot be ignored in medical journals. It is
political bias that should be avoided. Quite how is another matter.
Mark Powlson
1. Delamothe T. How political should a general medical journal be?
BMJ 2992; 325: 1431-2.
2. Roberts IG. Medical journals may have had a role in justifying war. BMJ
2003; 326: 820.
Competing interests:
None, but I think I would support Wakley's platform if only I knew what the Newspaper Tax Act actually was.
History of politics in general medical journals
EDITOR-It is futile to pretend that a general medical journal could
ever not be political:(1)history shows otherwise.
Of the five major medical journals described by Roberts,(2) four have
their origins in overtly campaigning (and often in the past, if not the
present, overtly self-interested) groups of doctors - namely the BMJ (the
British Medical Association and its predecessors), the New England Journal
of Medicine (the Massachussetts Medical Society), JAMA (the American
Medical Association) and the Annals of Internal Medicine (the American
College of Physicians).
The fifth, The Lancet, was set up as an overtly campaigning journal,
its founder and first editor standing for 17 years as a Radical Member of
Parliament (noted on his first, unsuccessful, candidature for Finsbury in
1832 for a refusal to campaign on his own behalf, and favouring extension
of suffrage, removal of property qualifications for candidates, repeal of
the Corn Laws, abolition of slavery and suspension of the Newspaper Tax
Act).
Politics interacts in so many ways with health, and with delivery of
health care, that it cannot be ignored in medical journals. It is
political bias that should be avoided. Quite how is another matter.
Mark Powlson
1. Delamothe T. How political should a general medical journal be?
BMJ 2992; 325: 1431-2.
2. Roberts IG. Medical journals may have had a role in justifying war. BMJ
2003; 326: 820.
Competing interests:
None, but I think I would support Wakley's platform if only I knew what the Newspaper Tax Act actually was.
Competing interests: No competing interests