I rarely disagree with you Soapy, but this time I do.
OK. I send da boys round.
Seems not, if that's typical. I do feel a sneaking sympathy with David Misselbrook's reply though. I have the feeling he's between a rock and a hard place. Still, excrement tends to adhere. If you want to smell clean, it's surely wisest to avoid it altogether- and I agree it's hard to see what this symposium could have been intended to achieve, unless it was to provide doctors with the sort of info they might get more cheaply right here.
Secondly, by its very nature this wall is intended to enhance the reputations of those `honoured'. OK, people can argue till the cows come home about who deserves it, but I do consider it inappropriate to lend credibility to a practice for which evidence has been thoroughly discredited, and especially recently. If the RSM wants to honour controversial figures, then fine, but they should then be prepared to put up with the controversy and not sanitise the discussion.
Realising I know very little about what it actually is and does, I just looked at the RSM's homepage.
http://www.rsm.ac.uk/welcom/index.php
A quote from the above linked page:-
"The Royal Society of Medicine is an independent, apolitical organisation, founded over 200 years ago. We are one of the largest providers of continuing medical education in the UK."
And from the "RSM Events" page.
"The RSM events team organises more than 400 medical CPD conferences, courses and meetings each year. All appropriate events have CPD accreditation and can form part of your medical education.
Contributions are received for unrestricted medical educational purposes for a number of RSM meetings. The RSM maintains full editorial control of the meeting content."
So by "medical education" it seems to mean informing already qualified doctors, rather than (as I had supposed) teaching the basics to students. That being so, I'd expect some at least of their symposia to cover controversial, but relevant topics. It seems reasonable for doctors to get the same sort of information about SCAM from the RSM that the rest of us get from sceptical blogs and websites. Of course "reasonable" depends on what exactly is being said at such symposia.
Re the "Wall"- It would seem to undercut any value (except the pecuniary!) such a memorial might have, if known eejits featured there . That seems to be the best argument aimed at keeping it sane- and seems to be pretty much the one (albeit more elegantly phrased) that you used.
My own feeling is that such vanity memorials would be something of a joke anyway, if anyone could get his own name up there merely by handing over the cash (directly or via surrogates). I'm pleased to learn that objections actually are considered. I wonder though, whether an increased donation might yet carry the day?
As I'm far less familiar than yourself with the RSM, you will appreciate that to me, what someone pays to put on a wall in a building I'm unlikely to ever enter, must be of limited concern. (Indeed, had you not told us about this, I doubt I should ever have been aware of it). And if this is in effect a private body, I must hold to my view that what they write on their wall, whether in the "magnificient atrium", or the gents' toilet, is up to them. If it was a publicly owned organisation, my response would be different.
It will either become a serious memorial to serious people, or it will become a sad joke. I
hope they will have the integrity to take the first route. If not, perhaps we should indeed propose Crippen, Shipman or - for a different reason- Goldacre. I'm uncertain which would annoy them more.
