Michael Sharpe: Mind, Medicine and Morals: A Tale of Two Illnesses (2019) BMJ blog - and published responses

Looking at Sharpe's piece, it seems those standards are fairly low.

 

re Cancer and CBT

published may 2019
"Manualised cognitive–behavioural therapy in treating depression in advanced cancer

Headline
Cognitive–behavioural therapy delivered through the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Programme did not achieve any clinical benefit in advanced cancer patients with depression"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541199/

 

I think Sharpe was talking about cancer related-fatigue... results look somewhat questionable there too, but I just thought I'd clarfiy that it was a different thing.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1133820134081085442
[/QUOTE]

I did submit a comment when it appeared, but no comments have been shown yet.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1134470341005381632


The editor of MedHums_BMJ responded in another tweet (above) to say that, for some reason, comments on the blog posts are disabled, but they are accepting up-to-1000-word commentaries (not the same as blog comments) via their website (manuscript submission link is on their front page: https://mh.bmj.com/).

Sharpe article is due to be published on Thursday 6th June. The blog is simply an advert.

 

Invariably seems to be a spooky glitch in the system where the BPS crowd are concerned that somehow delays their responses, or people being able to respond to them.

 

Spooky glitch? Default position more like.

"The biopsychosocial model of health and disease (BPSM) is the nearest thing academic medicine has to an ideology."
Another MedHums Blog ref

There. Fixed that for you.

 

Interesting to see the book review.

The book is clearly true crap. Bad philosophy and bad science. They don't even understand causation. Even Aristotle did better with his formal cause idea.

Why is everything such rubbish these days?

 

Then how can there be responses published along when the article isn't even published? How can people react to something they haven't read yet?

Are they expecting people to give responses to the blog post without having read the article? This reeks. Very dishonorable.

 

So then Michael Sharpe can use his usual retort 'Have you read the paper?' knowing full well that they couldn't have............a thing of beauty someone might say.

 

I expect that from Sharpe but this is extremely disappointing from a platform that aims to speak about ethics and humanities in medicine. I can't imagine Sharpe et al have that much influence as to make BMJ do their bidding, this is BMJ humanities failing all on their own. With some suggestions, likely, but the failure is just so systemic and harmful.

This is the ethical equivalent of making a discussion on accessibility for physical disability... at the top of a mountain with no alternate routes. You can be part of the discussion... if you can make it (which you won't, so suck it).

 

T'was what I meant really .

 

I was under the impression that the blog post was the article, just not in print yet.

 

Further down the initial tweet it says the full article should be published around June 6th along with responses.

Makes no sense. Like asking for movie reviews based on a trailer. WTH BMJ?

 

They are rejecting the posts.

 

I think I'm loosing the plot. Isn't there supposed to be a full article out now not just a summary?

 

https://mh.bmj.com/content/early/2019/06/07/medhum-2018-011588

Perhaps there is more to come (something from Sharpe?)

 

Thanks, @Snow Leopard I hadn't seen that. I think that was what I was expecting. Annoyingly, it doesn't provide a date.

 

Click on "article info" for a date

https://mh.bmj.com/content/early/2019/06/07/medhum-2018-011588.info