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.
One thing that is always ignored is the emotional cost to medical
practitioners of litigation. It may well be an income generating game to
the legal profession but to medical practitioners it is a blow to self
esteem that hacks away at their confidence and may impair future
judgement. This study must be applauded and replicated to demonstrate the
real ongoing cost of the medical litigation industry. Hopefully then
treasury and others will see the cost benefit in no fault insurance -
though one can expect intense lobbying from the lawyers to protect a vital
income stream.
I have not as yet been subject to litigation, but have been on the
receiving end of a legal campaign to block the introduction of personal
health records. I have seen several excellent medical practitioners and
colleagues damaged permanently by prolonged litigation, and over the past
40 years have witnessed the change induced in medical practice induced by
single legal precedents.
We now have senior medical academic recommending that medical
practitioners no longer examine women's breasts, or perform bimanual
examinations lest they be subject to litigation 10 years hence for
'missing' a malignancy. Surely a tragedy.
Not Suprising
One thing that is always ignored is the emotional cost to medical
practitioners of litigation. It may well be an income generating game to
the legal profession but to medical practitioners it is a blow to self
esteem that hacks away at their confidence and may impair future
judgement. This study must be applauded and replicated to demonstrate the
real ongoing cost of the medical litigation industry. Hopefully then
treasury and others will see the cost benefit in no fault insurance -
though one can expect intense lobbying from the lawyers to protect a vital
income stream.
I have not as yet been subject to litigation, but have been on the
receiving end of a legal campaign to block the introduction of personal
health records. I have seen several excellent medical practitioners and
colleagues damaged permanently by prolonged litigation, and over the past
40 years have witnessed the change induced in medical practice induced by
single legal precedents.
We now have senior medical academic recommending that medical
practitioners no longer examine women's breasts, or perform bimanual
examinations lest they be subject to litigation 10 years hence for
'missing' a malignancy. Surely a tragedy.
Competing interests: No competing interests