Editor—Summerfield has come in for much criticism from some respondents on bmj.com following his open letter to the BMA and subsequent open response to Nathanson.1-3 Much of the comment is ill judged and illogical; nowhere does Summerfield attack the dedicated work of individual Israeli medical staff or dismiss the suffering endured by anyone in Israel or the occupied territories.
The issue is simple, and readers should set aside any strong feeling held about the political issues which they might consciously or subconsciously bring to bear in answering the following question. Should the BMA take a tough stand in the World Medical Association, as it did over the Biko outrage, against a national medical association whose officers, one of whom has now been elected to head the WMA, act as apologists for torture (this much Summerfield has documented without valid refutation)?
One might have hoped that there could be only one conclusion from members of the medical profession.
Competing interests: None declared.
References
- 1.Summerfield D. Medical ethics, the Israeli Medical Association, and the state of the World Medical Association. BMJ 2003;327: 561. (6 September.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Electronic responses. Medical ethics, the Israeli Medical Association, and the state of the World Medical Association: Open letter to the BMA. bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/327/7414/561 (accessed 30 Oct 2003).
- 3.Summerfield DA. Open response to Dr Vivienne Nathanson: the role of the BMA on medical ethics. bmj.com/cgi/eletters/327/7414/561#36617 (accessed 30 Oct 2003).