Dear Dr Newbower,

This note is simply to acknowledge, with many thanks, receipt of your email dated 16 December, with attachments. I am most grateful to you and to Drs Rosenbaum and Fava for coming back with such a detailed response. I shall post their robust comments on our website tomorrow - together with this note.

I do want to respond in detail to the many points made by Drs Rosenbaum and Fava and I would much appreciate it if you could agree to act as a conduit once more. This is asking something of a favour because, on a quick reading of the points they make, my instincts are that the differences there are between us provide no grounds for complaint under any MGH Code. As I see it (but again this is a preliminary view) there remain major disagreements between us on critical questions of interpretation, and probably there have been some misunderstandings, on both sides. Having said that, they might well feel miffed that I raised all these questions through your office, and I apologise to them and to you if this is so.

On the other hand, I hope they and you do appreciate that there are important issues involved - also that they are worth airing, since others may have similar concerns. In any case, it does seem that the MGH procedure has been very effective in helping to put these concerns in perspective, allowing us to begin to understand how to resolve them - and that is good to know.

Thank you very much again for your help

CLICK HERE TO READ ON

	Contents page
	What's New?