Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
News

Was BMJ dead wrong to print critical obituary?

Naomi Marks
CMAJ July 08, 2003 169 (1) 54-54-a;
Naomi Marks
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Mere hours after an obituary for Dr. David Horrobin appeared in the British Medical Journal Apr. 19, eBMJ's rapid-response function was humming. In death as in life, Horrobin — the founder of Scotia Pharmaceuticals and the journal Medical Hypotheses — was at the centre of controversy. This time, though, it was the proper role of obituaries in medical journals, and not the relative merits of evening primrose oil, that was at issue.

Figure

Figure. Photo by: Alan King

For even though health journalist Caroline Richmond vouched for Horrobin's “charm, intelligence and straightforwardness,” she also wrote that he “may prove to be the greatest snake oil salesman of his age.” The obituary described him as “a passionate promoter of evening primrose oil.”

BMJ readers were shocked. “The obituary … was so disappointing and twisted that it has left me with a disturbing feeling of disgust,” wrote one of the scores of angry readers. By May 26, a printout of the responses totalled 86 pages.

“I do not know if her snide remarks have any foundation,” wrote another. “I do know that it was very ill judged to ask anyone who feels as she did to write an obituary and even more foolish of you to publish it.”

More than a month after publication the furor continued, even though Horrobin — who once taught at the University of Montreal — was acknowledged to be a controversial figure. One Scottish paper said that even though many admired his “unwavering commitment to developing new drugs, others were equally moved in the opposite direction by his combative management style.”

Richard Smith, the BMJ editor, remains unfazed by the outrage. He regrets that some minor inaccuracies slipped into the piece, and wishes he had known before publication that Richmond knew Horrobin. But he welcomes the debate and stands by Richmond's right to assess Horrobin's life in the way she did.

“Medicine has a culture of not speaking ill of the dead,” he says. “What quite a lot of our readers want is what I call glorified death notices, but we want serious journalistic pieces that tell stories and do make a judgement on a character. We want more light and shade.

“It's difficult to go against a culture, to move from a world where everybody was wonderful and never put a foot wrong,” he adds. “But I'm damned if that means I'm not going to give it a go.”

And Richmond remains unapologetic. “The Lancet's obituary, and other obits in the national press, wimpishly parroted the version sent out by Horrobin's former PA [press assistant].”

Asked if she was surprised by the venomous response, Richmond says she realizes now that Horrobin had a cult following, especially among people with chronic fatigue syndrome. “If I'd been as conscious of this as I am now, I would have pre-empted their response as far as I could.” — Naomi Marks, Brighton, UK

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 169 (1)
CMAJ
Vol. 169, Issue 1
8 Jul 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Was BMJ dead wrong to print critical obituary?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Was BMJ dead wrong to print critical obituary?
Naomi Marks
CMAJ Jul 2003, 169 (1) 54-54-a;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Was BMJ dead wrong to print critical obituary?
Naomi Marks
CMAJ Jul 2003, 169 (1) 54-54-a;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • What to know about Omicron XBB.1.5
  • Could a flu shot push help curb pediatric hospitalizations?
  • Stalemate: What’s holding up a new health accord?
Show more News

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Complementary medicine & alternative therapies
    • Journalology & publication ethics

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire