Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-nwzlb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T10:24:13.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Editor's reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2003

I could not disagree more. I am very proud to have published the two papers Dr Odelola refers to. The first, by Hickling & Hutchinson, was interesting, provocative and well written. It was accompanied by a series of informative critical commentaries. The result was, in my view, a comprehensive exploration of a controversial topic. The article by Gordon was, in my view, a well-balanced and self-critical review of a highly-topical subject.

The Bulletin's aim is not to publish a ‘wholesome’ journal. Instead, we want to be a vehicle for education, discussion and vigorous debate. This function cannot be achieved by the type of censorship suggested by Dr Odelola. There has been no ‘hijacking’ (to use Dr Odelola's unfortunate metaphor) by a right-wing agenda. We are simply attempting to reflect the full range and excitement of modern clinical psychiatry.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.