From Mr I. Thomson,MRPharmS
SIR-I had read the recent letters to the editor from C. Morris (PJ, June 10, p883) and P. J. Taylor (PJ, May 27, p810 and ad nauseam) thinking that others would put the world to rights for me. I now feel compelled to reply as this has not happened.
To date, those replying to the above correspondents have set out mainly to correct factual inaccuracies - no mean feat on its own given the hysterical tone of Miss Taylor's latest contribution (PJ, July 1, p14).
I would like to pose a question for the (soon to be outgoing) editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal. I had always supposed, in my naivety, that if one was to submit a letter, addressed as convention demands, to the editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal, it would then be subject to some sort of editorial decision-making process to assess whether, even if it was controversial, it was at least factually correct in content? Judging from these recently published letters it would appear that one can use The Pharmaceutical Journal as a substitute for the Daily Mail as an outlet for any personal prejudices and poisonous twaddle one wishes to embarrass one's colleagues with. I fail to see the wider benefit this holds for our profession.
Surely, at the very least, the editor would wish to point out that the views of a particular correspondent were widely at variance with those of the main body of the profession?
Mind you, I have not seen any rush of Council members registering their views on this issue.
Iain Thomson
Cannock, Staffordshire
Mr DOUGLAS SIMPSON (editor, The Pharmaceutical Journal) comments: It has always been my policy to let correspondents express their points of view without any editorialising from me. The exception is where, as in this case, a question is put which requires me to supply an answer. I should also add that, where a letter seeks a response from the Society or other body on a particular point, I try to get it.