Jump to comment:
- Page navigation anchor for RE: Retracted letterRE: Retracted letter
I have read Dr. Emil's letter and see no reason for it's retraction from CMAJ . Women who adhere to the Muslim faith in Canada are legally free to choose symbolic dress such as the hijab , or not , but we know (or should know) there are many nations and cultures in the world where that is not the case . Dr. Emil is simply pointing out the obvious , and has personal reasons to feel strongly about it . At the risk of igniting a contentious debate , the editors should publish respectful responses pro and con , and perhaps remind correspondents that CMAJ is primarily a medical journal , and that issues of a socio-religious nature be addressed in a different setting . To restate , the retraction should be retracted .
Competing Interests: None declared.References
- Kirsten Patrick. Apology from CMAJ’s interim editor-in-chief on behalf of the CMAJ. CMAJ 2021;193:E1935-E1935.
- Page navigation anchor for RE:CMAJ apology - let's promote civil discourseRE:CMAJ apology - let's promote civil discourse
Dr. Emil’s letter has deeply offended some people - of that, there is no question. But some questions remain.
What is the CMAJ’s policy and practice around controversial issues? Are some topics taboo? Should the volume and passion of response dictate editorial reconsideration? Will authors self-censor for fear of being ostracized?
Perhaps the CMAJ, as a scientific journal, could invite a scholarly rebuttal of Dr. Emil’s letter? Some may protest that the opinion was so disgraceful as to be unworthy of debate. I read the letter (now deleted) and didn’t judge it scurrilous enough to be scrubbed from sight. As someone who is uninformed about many of the issues raised, I welcome the chance to learn from the counterpoints to Dr. Emil’s opinion.
Show us how civil discourse sheds light on contentious matters. Is that not the function of an academic publication?
Competing Interests: None declared.References
- Kirsten Patrick CMAJ December 23, 2021 193 (51) E1935; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.81033
- Page navigation anchor for RE: censorship in real timeRE: censorship in real time
Another example of woke cancel culture in medicine in 2021. There are many topics which are verboten in the current age, sex, gender, Islam, race, equality, what will be the next to reach the chopping block? Meritocracy is becoming unpopular. What will medicine look like in 20 years. I am disgusted but not surprised to see CMAJ fold to the perpetually offended. Now is the time to stand for free speech and individual rights hopefully it is not too late to save free thought in medicine in 2021.
Competing Interests: None declared.References
- Kirsten Patrick. Apology from CMAJ’s interim editor-in-chief on behalf of the CMAJ. CMAJ 2021;193:E1935-E1935.
- Page navigation anchor for RE: A more detailed explanation for retraction is neededRE: A more detailed explanation for retraction is needed
I believe that a more thorough account of the reasons for the decision to retract Dr. Emil’s letter (1) is warranted. Without having had a personal opportunity to appraise Dr. Emil’s letter, given its recent full removal from the CMAJ, I would like to be clear that I am not rendering a personal opinion on the merits of the retraction decision. Rather, I am concerned by the content of the apology (2), which I found to be lacking. I would urge the CMAJ to more thoroughly communicate the reasons for not only retracting the letter, but removing the text altogether.
Reactions of “disgust” and “hurt” on the part of readers are insufficient grounds to remove a piece of literature. The sincerity and importance of these reactions must not be doubted, and at the same time, it behooves the CMAJ to explain, on scientific grounds, the factors that led to the retraction decision. It is noted in the apology that the published letter “did not contain appropriate subject matter for publication by the CMAJ,” which leads one to believe that Dr. Emil’s letter was deeply flawed. It behooves the CMAJ to lead by example in more thoroughly detailing the scientific rigour used in reaching this decision.
Not all opinions are deserving of a public platform. However, once that platform is given, simply taking it away without providing sufficient reasoning compounds the problem. Dr. Emil’s letter was deemed inappropriate for this scientific journal and surely the journal’s read...
Show MoreCompeting Interests: None declared.References
- 1. Emil S. Don’t use an instrument of oppression as a symbol of diversity and inclusion. CMAJ. 2021;193:E1923.
- 2. Patrick K. Apology from CMAJ’s interim editor-in-chief on behalf of the CMAJ. CMAJ. 2021;193:E1935-E1935.
- Page navigation anchor for RE: Apology from CMAJ’s interim editor-in-chief on behalf of the CMAJRE: Apology from CMAJ’s interim editor-in-chief on behalf of the CMAJ
Thank you for the apology and for retracting the article. The gestures are gratefully appreciated.
I hope that future articles about cultural practices are better studied and researched, with all due respect given to the culture and the people who practice it.
Thank you
Competing Interests: None declared.References
- Kirsten Patrick. Apology from CMAJ’s interim editor-in-chief on behalf of the CMAJ. CMAJ 2021;193:E1935-E1935.
- Page navigation anchor for Apology from CMAJ’s interim editor-in-chief on behalf of the CMAJApology from CMAJ’s interim editor-in-chief on behalf of the CMAJ
Dear Kirsten Patrick,
I do thank you for your apology and retraction of the opinion letter. I am however still quite puzzled about parts of your apology.
You stated that “Furthermore, I should point out that the title of the letter was authored by the CMAJ and was not the responsibility of Dr. Emil.” My concern then is who in the CMAJ did come up with the title and what was its purpose? What kind of cultural and diversity training did this individual have to come up with such an inflammatory title?
You stated that “ The CMAJ’s Editorial Advisory Board, on whom some critics have called to account for the letter’s publication, are never involved in the selection of articles, including letters, for publication.” My question is why are they not involved? How many people in the CMAJ approved this opinion piece?
You stated that “ In March 2021, I committed the CMAJ to antiracism.” I read your article and than became even more confused on why you would allow this letter to be published ?
Finally you are described in the CMAJ as a “Medical editor with 15 years' experience at two highly respected general medical journals. Varied experience in medical practice as well as research. Postgraduate degree in Global Health Policy.” We all make mistakes, but with your experience I just don’t get it?
I really hope you do more than just put a couple of muslims on your editorial board and call it a day. I hope there is real change at the CMAJ...
Show MoreCompeting Interests: None declared.References
- Kirsten Patrick. Apology from CMAJ’s interim editor-in-chief on behalf of the CMAJ. CMAJ 2021;193:E1935-E1935.
- Page navigation anchor for RE: Apology from CMAJ’s interim editor-in-chief on behalf of the CMAJRE: Apology from CMAJ’s interim editor-in-chief on behalf of the CMAJ
I am glad that the CMAJ retracted this horrible letter, however, I am disappointed they did so without a statement from Dr. Emil as well. I can only pray Dr. Emil has the humility to see how his words could cause harm and that he carries immense influence as a senior practitioner in one of the top medical facilities in Canada. I hope Dr. Emil would, next time, use his words to bring Canadians together, rather than incite fear and divide Canadians.
Given that it is the Christmas season, I am reminded of these words from the New Testament: "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." Ephesians 4:29
Wishing all who read this a Merry Christmas and joyous holiday season!
Competing Interests: None declared.References
- Kirsten Patrick. Apology from CMAJ’s interim editor-in-chief on behalf of the CMAJ. CMAJ 2021;193:E1935-E1935.
- https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204%3A29&version=NIV
- Page navigation anchor for RE: retractionRE: retraction
What! So now Dr. Emil's views are to be censored. I thought his letter was very respectful and certainly his experience sheds a different light on the subject. As he said, what an adult woman chooses to do, is quite different from a toddler is forced to do. This obviously is not racism at all, as women of any race can choose (or be forced) to wear a hijab. This is about cultural and religious clashes. What one sees as protective and beautiful, the other sees as demeaning and oppressive. Censorship of respectful letters, such as Dr. Emil's, will encourage the exact opposite of what Western society is built on: the free exchange of ideas. We need to learn to listen to each other, not shut each other down by claiming to be hurt when we hear something we don't agree with. Encouraging thin skin like this is good for no one's mental health. It builds the opposite of resiliency. Frankly, this retraction is part of a larger, very worrisome trend that has infected Canadian medicine from the larger society. Any dissenting voice from nebulous neoliberalism is called hurtful or disrespectful and censored. Now I am very glad that oppressed voices that were previously censored are now being heard, however, let us not start new forms of oppression and censorship.
Show More
I highly respect the intelligence, skill and compassion of a great many of the women that I know who wear the hijab. They have earned it. I happily work with them in departments and on p...Competing Interests: None declared.References
- Kirsten Patrick. Apology from CMAJ’s interim editor-in-chief on behalf of the CMAJ. CMAJ 2021;193:E1935-E1935.
- Page navigation anchor for RE: The hijabRE: The hijab
Some see the hijab as a symbol of oppression, some see it as a symbol of liberation. As an editor you have exceeded your responsibility in taking sides in this debate. Your role is to encourage debate and discussion not suppress it.
Competing Interests: None declared.References
- Kirsten Patrick. Apology from CMAJ’s interim editor-in-chief on behalf of the CMAJ. CMAJ 2021;193:E1935-E1935.
- Page navigation anchor for RE: Retracted articleRE: Retracted article
NOTE: THESE VIEWS ARE PERSONAL, AND DO NOT REFLECT ANYONE'S BUT MY OWN.
I object strongly to the retraction of an article that represents a point of view of some individuals. While I may have my own strong opinions about its contents and its stridency, the author raises a concern about values that warrants intelligent, civil discussion, not woke cancelling, which your retraction exemplifies. Removing it from view is an academic sin, posturing to promote a single point of view. You, as the editor, have decided what an acceptable point of view may be in our society, leaving no room for civil disagreement.
Frankly, I would have preferred you publishing a strong, alternate view, and encouraging discussion, rather than stating, effectively, that, since the article caused harm to some, it should be removed from sight. That is NOT an academic standard I accept.
I identify as a proud, Orthodox Jewish male, identifiable by my attire. At certain times, 40+ years ago, I was the subject of comment due to that attire. That notice continues, much more subtly, to this day. My parents survived the Nazi concentration camps, taken there in their teens for the "sin" of their religion. For those reasons, I remain concerned about our appearing to have adopted all the negative tenets of "1984".
In future, in matters that stir the spirit, as this one does, please, instead, address the author(s) civilly. If you must reject or retract a letter,...
Show MoreCompeting Interests: None declared.References
- Kirsten Patrick. Apology from CMAJ’s interim editor-in-chief on behalf of the CMAJ. CMAJ 2021;193:E1935-E1935.