An editorial on editorials.

opinions and sentiments of Canadian physicians? Judging from the feedback we receive, sometimes well, sometimes poorly — assuming that medicine can be fairly represented by any one, cohesive view. Is it our job to represent the filtered view of the majority? We don’t believe that it behooves journalists in any guise to say things merely for the sake of being provoking. At the same time, if our commentaries caused no discomfort to anyone (including ourselves) we would worry even more than we usually do about how well we are doing our job. And discomfort does arise, from time to time. Some have taken offence that their journal, published by their association, prints commentary that appears unsupportive, harsh, or simply out of touch. Some readers feel that any criticism of the actions of physicians, especially in these beleaguered times, is misplaced in a journal published by their national association. We constantly remind journalists, and take this opportunity to remind our readers, of the arm’slength relationship that CMAJ has enjoyed with the CMA, a policy of editorial independence formally endorsed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, of which CMAJ is a founding member, that assures the autonomy of the journal and safeguards its credibility. Some readers have expressed the view that any comment on international politics is inappropriate in our journal: the medical profession, or medical journal editors at the very least, they argue, should stay out of political debate. For our part, we fail to see how health can be viewed as apolitical, or how medicine can be practised in an ideologic vacAn editorial on editorials