Palestine: the assault on health and other war crimes
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
EDITOR—As Britain's daily papers reported Israel's historic vote on withdrawing from the occupied territories, the debate about Summerfield's personal view raged on.1-3 By 27 October well in excess of 400 responses had been posted on bmj.com, including two from Summerfield providing the detailed sources for his personal view.
The debate started mainly with opposing views, moving on to mainly views in favour and then more of a mixture. Those who were opposed to the article were vehemently so: dangerous diatribe, venomous, and slanderous were just some of the descriptions used. Many of those who may not necessarily have refuted the sentiments expressed in the article objected to what they perceived as the politicisation of a medical and scientific journal, or as the BMJ simply being out of its depth. They raised the issues of editorial control and possibly flawed editorial judgment. Some even called for the editor to resign—while others congratulated the editorship on a particularly brave and necessary decision in publishing the article.
Correspondents heatedly and in great detail listed the perceived inaccuracies, omissions, imbalances, and even lies; this constituted most of the correspondence. Others refuted the comparisons that were drawn with other historical and current political conflicts. Another common theme was the relating of personal experience of many Israelis and people who have worked in Israel.
Several correspondents suspected the BMJ of having published the piece to gain hits on the website, insisting it was a poorer journal for having done so. Others also commented that doctors do not have a unique insight into the problem. Still more correspondents pointed out that Summerfield had published his point of view in the BMJ on several previous occasions, so there was really nothing new or terribly unexpected about this piece.
Those in favour of the piece were equally strong in their opinions and their language as those against. The debate in many ways mirrored exactly the political situation and conflict under discussion—a seemingly irreconcilable conflict, at great cost to both parties.
Birte Twisselmann, technical editor
BMJ
See Editor's choice and Reviews p 1110
Competing interests: None declared.
References
MacIntyre D. Sharon wins historic vote to withdraw from Gaza. Independent 2004 Oct 27: 1, cols 1-3.
McGreal C. Sharon wins historic Gaza vote. Guardian 2004 Oct 27: 1, cols 1-3.
Electronic responses. Palestine: the assault on health and other war crimes. bmj.com 2004. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7471/924 (accessed 27 Oct 2004.)
The debate started mainly with opposing views, moving on to mainly views in favour and then more of a mixture. Those who were opposed to the article were vehemently so: dangerous diatribe, venomous, and slanderous were just some of the descriptions used. Many of those who may not necessarily have refuted the sentiments expressed in the article objected to what they perceived as the politicisation of a medical and scientific journal, or as the BMJ simply being out of its depth. They raised the issues of editorial control and possibly flawed editorial judgment. Some even called for the editor to resign—while others congratulated the editorship on a particularly brave and necessary decision in publishing the article.
Correspondents heatedly and in great detail listed the perceived inaccuracies, omissions, imbalances, and even lies; this constituted most of the correspondence. Others refuted the comparisons that were drawn with other historical and current political conflicts. Another common theme was the relating of personal experience of many Israelis and people who have worked in Israel.
Several correspondents suspected the BMJ of having published the piece to gain hits on the website, insisting it was a poorer journal for having done so. Others also commented that doctors do not have a unique insight into the problem. Still more correspondents pointed out that Summerfield had published his point of view in the BMJ on several previous occasions, so there was really nothing new or terribly unexpected about this piece.
Those in favour of the piece were equally strong in their opinions and their language as those against. The debate in many ways mirrored exactly the political situation and conflict under discussion—a seemingly irreconcilable conflict, at great cost to both parties.
Birte Twisselmann, technical editor
BMJ
See Editor's choice and Reviews p 1110
Competing interests: None declared.
References
MacIntyre D. Sharon wins historic vote to withdraw from Gaza. Independent 2004 Oct 27: 1, cols 1-3.
McGreal C. Sharon wins historic Gaza vote. Guardian 2004 Oct 27: 1, cols 1-3.
Electronic responses. Palestine: the assault on health and other war crimes. bmj.com 2004. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7471/924 (accessed 27 Oct 2004.)