I HAVE A FEELING that the British Medical Journal was
right to criticise the BBC for its TV broad- casts from hospitals, but for the wrong reasons. The BBC is incredibly timid and naive on medical subjects; criticism of the profession is virtually banned. In the recent Hurt Mind series, for example, psychiatrists were allowed to advertise their own wares, but not to criticise others'; the hotchpotch of contradictory theories hopelessly confused viewers. As a result, the BM! com- plains, a very large number of persons 'got into touch with their own doctors, asking whether they could have electric-shock treatment. It may be doubted whether those organising the pro- gramme thought this a desirable result.' Pre- occupation with disease is an illness, and it can easily be induced; the BBC would be wise, as the BMJ suggests, to try to interest the public in health rather than in disease. All the same, I have a suspicion that the profession's real con- cern is less to save us from hypochondria than to strengthen the barriers between profession and public—to encourage the popular view that medicine is a mystery which only the doctor should try to understand.
* * *
Previous page
