Just posted this to the Times. Please feel free to plagiarise for whatever
paper you read.
--
Dear Sir,
The article "Where is the political will to save us from bad doctors"
(26/4/05) rightly raised questions about how a single rogue doctor should be
prevented from harming their patients. Perhaps its author, Ann Alexander,
should look at what happens when a group of doctors are determined, on the
flimsiest of grounds, to harm public health.
In 1999 the BMA reached an open and democratic decision not to support
mandatory cycle helmets, as it recognised that the benefits of cycling far
outweighed the risks, and that helmet laws reduced cycling. In December
2004, the BMA's Board of Science and Education, with no consultation with
the membership, reversed that decision and called for a helmet law for all
cyclists. The Board claimed that new evidence showed that the 1999 decision
was no longer valid, but almost all the evidence they used was available in
1999, and such new evidence as was examined is questionable and open to
interpretation.
After an outcry from BMA members incensed at the undemocratic overturning of
a consensual decision, the matter was to be debated by the BMA's annual
meeting last month. In the event, only five minutes were allowed for
discussion, but, in a manoeuvre worthy of the most cynical politician, six
motions calling for a helmet law were scheduled in that time before the
motion querying the latest decision could be reached, which it was not. Even
the most ardent helmet proponent must wonder, if the arguments for helmets
are so self-evident and persuasive, why it would be necessary to stifle
debate in such a manner. In fact, the arguments are not persuasive at all,
and the case for cycle helmets is vanishingly weak. No country which has
introduced a helmet law has seen a reduction in risk to cyclists, only a
fall in the number of cyclists.
At a time when the modern disease of obesity has reached epidemic
proportions, and a recent government report said that the best way to tackle
it was to reach the government's own cycling targets, the BMA appear to be
intent on increasing it. Tens of thousands of people die every year from
lack of exercise and being overweight: the government knows of not a single
case where a cycle helmet has saved a life.
One rogue doctor can only have a limited effect, but a misguided group of
doctors can do untold damage to public health.
Is there a medical term for those obsessed with trivia at the expense of the
greater good, and if so, how many doctors suffer from it?
cheers
Richard Burton