I AM GLAD to see that the absurd anonymity rule
which prevents doctors from broadcasting under their own names is being attacked within the Profession. The latest onslaught comes from Dr. L. Witts, Nuffield Professor of Clinical Medicine in the Radcliffe Infirmary, who com- Plains—with some justice—that any other man of science, a Bertrand Russell or a Mortimer Wheeler, can become a TV personality without being accused of damaging his reputation or that Of his profession. The same rule—or convention; it is not always rigidly applied—applies to medical contributions to the lay press, and is just as foolish. An instance of its illogicality was men- tioned recently in the Spectator: when Dr. William Sargant wrote his articles on 'Physical Treatments of the Mind and Spiritual Healing' he had to be described simply as 'a psychiatrist', but as the author of a popular book Battle for the Mind, on the same subject, he is permitted to use his own name. The sensible attitude would be toaal ii
ow doctors (and lawyers, for that matter) to write as and when they want, the big stick of the GMC being reserved only for use against those members who break the rules—say, by deliberate self-advertising. The mere appearance of a doctor's name in print or in a broadcast is
Previous page
