Responses

Download PDFPDF

Infant hearing screening: route to informed choice
Free
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Informed choice: the importance of values and attitudes of individuals
    • Theresa M Marteau, Professor of Health Psychology
    • Other Contributors:
      • Elizabeth Dormandy, Rachel Crockett

    Dear Editor,

    Olusanya and colleagues, in replying to our letter regarding their paper on informed choice in the context of hearing screening [1], raise the fundamental point regarding whose values should inform patients’ choices. Implicit in this, is whether it is possible for parents to make an informed choice to decline a public health intervention. They assert that it is "immoral to ignore a negative attitud...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Is negative parental attitude towards infant hearing screening justifiable?

    Dear Editor,

    Marteau et al took exception to the following phrase in our paper:

    “Our model differs from the three-dimensional typology proposed by Marteau et al, which incorporated uptake as a measure of informed choice [ref]. In our view, uptake represents a consequence rather than the goal of informed choice and was therefore excluded as a measure [ref].”

    and went on to raise the foll...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Informed choice: why measuring behaviour is important
    • Theresa M Marteau, Professor of Health Psychology
    • Other Contributors:
      • Elizabeth Dormandy and Rachel Crockett

    Dear Editor,

    Olusanya et al debate the principles of informed choice within the context of infant hearing screening [1]. In doing so they draw upon our conceptualisation and measure of informed choice. Unfortunately they draw an erroneous conclusion, namely that it is inappropriate to measure uptake as part of assessing informed choice. This is based upon a misinterpretation of both our definition of info...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.