In message <[log in to unmask]> Andrew Herd wrote:
> Dear Iain,
>
> If you are going to be provocative, you have to expect people to be
> provoked! The aim of running a column like yours is to stir up interest,
> and the letter you quote is exactly the type that I would have printed if
> I was the editor. Accuracy is not generally a valued feature of tabloid
> journalism. The more you write, the more letters like that will get
> printed, often with misquotes, often on other journals. The trick is to
> ignore them.
I take your point. My reply should have read:
Dear Dr Owen,
I'm sorry that my apparent attitude to TATT patients has caused
offence, which may have resulted from a misinterpretation of the
'tongue-in-cheek' nature of the 'Rear View' column.
Please be assured that I afford all my TATT patients the respect
they deserve.
Such patients form a heterogenous group and, in my experience, the
treatable pathology signal-to-noise ratio is high.
My intermittent weariness reagarding TATT patients is something
about which I beg the forgiveness and understanding of my partners
and, through the 'Rear View' column, my colleagues.
Yours etc.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|