http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7332/0/i

 

BMJ 2002;324 ( 2 February )

Editor's choice

The ecstasy of sanctimony

"The ecstasy of sanctimony," says Philip Roth, is "America's oldest communal passion [and] historically perhaps its most treacherous and subversive pleasure." The Brits too can be overwhelmed by sanctimony, which Chambers defines as "affected or simulated holiness." This week's BMJ has accounts of outbreaks of sanctimony on both sides of the North Atlantic.

Britain has been engulfed by a media debate on how the NHS handled a 94 year old woman with a head wound (p 306). What exactly happened is never likely to be clear, but her family says that it found her after three days still in casualty, in the same clothes, and caked in dried blood. They smelt neglect and contacted both the media and the local member of parliament---who happened to be Ian Duncan Smith, the leader of the Tory opposition and a man badly in need of a higher profile and some political victories. Without having checked the case with the hospital, he raised the case on the floor of the House of Commons in prime minister's question time. Rather than say he would "look into the case," which might have been wise, the prime minister surged to the defence of the hospital, stating that Duncan Smith had got his facts wrong.

For the next four days the airwaves and presses were full of accusation and counteraccusation. The patient was a racist. The hospital consultant was a Labour stooge. The Tories were denigrating public servants. Labour was Stalinistically stifling the truth, trying to hide its appalling failures with public services. Anybody who entered the debate was likely to emerge smeared and bruised. Everybody lost, except perhaps doctors at large who now find themselves defended rather than attacked by the government. "The forces of conservatism," as the prime minister famously described us, suddenly seem to be needed to deliver reform in the NHS and win the next election for Labour.

It's hard to extract much wisdom from such a mess, but one message is that "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword." So be careful with trying to manipulate the media and public debate.

The sanctimonious orgy from the United States concerns an attack on the sacred blood test for prostate specific antigen (p 255). The editors of the Western Journal of Medicine (which is part owned by the BMJ) argued in the San Francisco Chronicle that the test should not be used in mass screening---not, most readers will judge, a controversial statement. But the authors were immediately overwhelmed by accusations, abuse, and personal threats. They would be responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths---"geriatricide" on a huge scale. The University of California, which employs the two authors, has been asked to fire and silence them. So much for free speech and the American constitution.

The moral: beware of attacking screening, the modern panacea. The National Cancer Institute might bear this in mind as it disseminates its conclusion that mammography does not save lives (p 255).

Footnotes

To receive Editor's choice by email each week subscribe via our website: www.bmj.com/cgi/customalert

© BMJ 2002

PDF of this article

Email this article to a friend

Send a response to this article

Electronic responses to this article

Other related articles in BMJ

Download to Citation Manager

Alert me when:
New articles cite this article

Rapid Response responses to this article:

Read all Rapid Response responses

PSA screening

Yair Yodfat M.D.

bmj.com, 1 Feb 2002 [Response]

Other related articles in BMJ:

NEWS
US panel finds insufficient evidence to support mammography.

Fred Charatan
BMJ 2002 324: 255. [Full text]  

NEWS
Advocates of PSA testing campaign to silence critics.

Annabel Ferriman
BMJ 2002 324: 255. [Full text] [extra: Prostate debate]  

PRESS
Press: Coming up roses.

Trevor Jackson
BMJ 2002 324: 306. [Full text]  

 

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.