October

Background 

Case data

There are two issues arising from the BCMJ of July/August 2001 which require further comment.

Dr Sehmer refers to “Dubious Mercury Poisoning Results” (BCMJ 2001; 43(6):320). If a chelating agent had been given prior to a urine sample being obtained, and the resulting heavy metals were found to be “20 to 30 times above baseline” (and Dr Sehmer does not define this entity), from where does Dr Sehmer imagine such heavy metals, including mercury to have come—out of thin air?

I have recently received a letter from the Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, now entering the political arena with words of wisdom and strong advice regarding possible job action by physicians this summer.

The College’s letter reminds us that its mandate is to regulate the practice of medicine “in the public interest.”

We need a tea party.

My fees are being drawn from my pocket firstly for the “public interest,” and now, secondly, for political ends with which I may not agree—and about which I have no say.

Thank you.

Honored? You bet. Although I admit to having suffered considerable vasomotor instability when Dr Tim Rowe first invited me to be the guest editor for a BCMJ issue dedicated to the menopause. At the issue’s inception—or perhaps conception in view of the lengthy gestation—I had not thought it would be a twin issue. I was offered the opportunity to invite whomever I felt could best clarify some of the issues surrounding the topic of menopause. My colleagues’ lives are extremely busy, and I am most grateful to them for contributing such excellent articles.

References