The facts are clear

Abstract

A letter to the editor in the November 2001 issue of Ophthalmology entitled “Cut and Paste”1Jordan D.R. Cut and paste.Ophthalmology. 2001; 108 ([letter]): 1934-1935Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar is misleading in that it identifies an inaccuracy in a previous Ophthalmology article which, in fact, does not exist. The letter was so characteristic, and the reply so familiar, that it prompted me to go back to Volume 108, Number 1, and read the original article.2Zamir E. Read R.W. Rao N.A. Self-inflicted anterior scleritis.Ophthalmology. 2001; 108: 192-195Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar The article “Self-inflicted Anterior Scleritis” contains an accurate discussion that is neither confusing nor unclear.The letter initially asserts, “There are two terms introduced in this article, ‘malingering and factitious disorder,’ that require clarification.” In fact, these terms do not require clarification. They require only a perusal of the paper’s discussion (paragraph one), in which the authors define the terms according to the DSM 4: “ … [factitious] disorders are motivated by the patient’s need to assume the sick role rather than by an external incentive such as economic gain.” “Malingering” is defined twice: “ … self-inflicted conditions produced by a deceptive patient to gain financial or other secondary gains (malingering),” and “ … patients … … were found to be malingering (motivated by a secondary gain).”The letter goes on to claim, “This is confusing to the readership.” I was not confused at all. What did confuse me, however, was the need to repeat, almost verbatim, what the authors included in their discussion: that in a factitious disorder, “the motivation is a psychological need to assume the sick role, as evidenced by an absence of external incentives …”, and that “in malingering, the individual … has an external incentive for the behavior (economic gain …).”I am critical of authors of letters to the editor that contain unsubstantiated assertions whose presence a priori suggest a failure or oversight of our colleagues. I am more critical, albeit respectfully, of the editor for printing such letters. In the future, please corroborate the assertions made in letters to the editor before publishing them. A letter to the editor in the November 2001 issue of Ophthalmology entitled “Cut and Paste”1Jordan D.R. Cut and paste.Ophthalmology. 2001; 108 ([letter]): 1934-1935Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar is misleading in that it identifies an inaccuracy in a previous Ophthalmology article which, in fact, does not exist. The letter was so characteristic, and the reply so familiar, that it prompted me to go back to Volume 108, Number 1, and read the original article.2Zamir E. Read R.W. Rao N.A. Self-inflicted anterior scleritis.Ophthalmology. 2001; 108: 192-195Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar The article “Self-inflicted Anterior Scleritis” contains an accurate discussion that is neither confusing nor unclear. The letter initially asserts, “There are two terms introduced in this article, ‘malingering and factitious disorder,’ that require clarification.” In fact, these terms do not require clarification. They require only a perusal of the paper’s discussion (paragraph one), in which the authors define the terms according to the DSM 4: “ … [factitious] disorders are motivated by the patient’s need to assume the sick role rather than by an external incentive such as economic gain.” “Malingering” is defined twice: “ … self-inflicted conditions produced by a deceptive patient to gain financial or other secondary gains (malingering),” and “ … patients … … were found to be malingering (motivated by a secondary gain).” The letter goes on to claim, “This is confusing to the readership.” I was not confused at all. What did confuse me, however, was the need to repeat, almost verbatim, what the authors included in their discussion: that in a factitious disorder, “the motivation is a psychological need to assume the sick role, as evidenced by an absence of external incentives …”, and that “in malingering, the individual … has an external incentive for the behavior (economic gain …).” I am critical of authors of letters to the editor that contain unsubstantiated assertions whose presence a priori suggest a failure or oversight of our colleagues. I am more critical, albeit respectfully, of the editor for printing such letters. In the future, please corroborate the assertions made in letters to the editor before publishing them. The facts are clear: author replyOphthalmologyVol. 109Issue 8Preview Full-Text PDF