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.
There is another important issue implicit in the article by Treasure,
Hasan and Yacoub. The article implies that a high initial mortality or
morbidity used to be acceptable during development of an innovative
procedure. In the past surgeons made (paternalistic) decisions on what
procedure would be carried out, and offered the patient in front of them
what they believed to be their best option in the form of their innovative
(some would say experimental or untested) version of the procedure. This
was also at a time when the alternative options carried higher risks than
today and there was often an absence of evidence of absolute risks of
either option. Today we could not justify any increased risk for one
individual for the sake of the greater good of future surgical candidates,
risks of most standard procedures have reduced substantially, and data is
available on absolute risks in many scenarios.
How do the authors see a practical way of continuing important innovation
in surgical practice, without taking risks with patients?
How to innovate (without risks) in the 21st Surgery?
There is another important issue implicit in the article by Treasure,
Hasan and Yacoub. The article implies that a high initial mortality or
morbidity used to be acceptable during development of an innovative
procedure. In the past surgeons made (paternalistic) decisions on what
procedure would be carried out, and offered the patient in front of them
what they believed to be their best option in the form of their innovative
(some would say experimental or untested) version of the procedure. This
was also at a time when the alternative options carried higher risks than
today and there was often an absence of evidence of absolute risks of
either option. Today we could not justify any increased risk for one
individual for the sake of the greater good of future surgical candidates,
risks of most standard procedures have reduced substantially, and data is
available on absolute risks in many scenarios.
How do the authors see a practical way of continuing important innovation
in surgical practice, without taking risks with patients?
Competing interests: No competing interests