A week of overexcitement

The last week has seen lots of excitement for British medicine and the BMJ. The open season in British medicopolitics coincides with several high profile sporting events and the arrival of sticky weather in London and leads to a feverish atmosphere.

We reported last week that the annual meeting of consultants had passed a motion of no confidence in the General Medical Council, the body that regulates British doctors (10 June, p 1557). Now the public health doctors and the juniors have done the same (p 1626). The “establishment” has fought back, with the Academy of Royal Colleges withdrawing from the Joint Consultants Committee, the body that tries to give the BMA and the royal colleges a chance to speak together (p 1621). The junior doctors have joined in the furore by also calling for the resignation of the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists after he proposed a “subconsultant specialist grade” (p 1675). All this has been played out against a backcloth of aggressive media comment on the arrogance of doctors following on from the public inquiry into Rodney Ledward, the surgeon who damaged many women with his incompetent operating (p 1678). The frenzy is set to continue with another consultant gynaecologist appearing before the GMC this week.

It's hard not to think of the crazy behaviour that occurs in a cage full of rats when the stress levels are steadily increased.

The BMJ has also had its excitement. “BMJ admits ‘lapses’ after article wiped £30m off Scotia shares” wrote the Independent in a headline (10 June, p 18). We'll say more about this when we can get all the lawyers in a row, but there's some comfort in the thought journals may have some measurable impact on something.

More exciting was our careers fair, where well over a thousand doctors turned up to tour the exhibits and listen to a series of seminars. We were left with the impression that the fair met a real need, and we will hope to hold it again. Another sadder but unsurprising impression was that Britain has a lot of unhappy doctors.

We are also excited that this week sees the start of our ABC of oral health (p 1652). Those with oral problems are often poorly served because doctors think the mouth belongs to dentists, yet dentists concentrate on teeth. One consequence is that oral cancers are often diagnosed late. The ABC should help.

Our final cause for excitement is that we have posted on our website for only the second time a full set of comments by peer reviewers on an original article—on what women know about mammography (p 1635). These comments are posted as part of a randomised controlled trial we are conducting of opening up our whole peer review process.