To the Editor:
I read with interest the letter to the editor (Spring, 1999) from Dr. Tinker on "Sulfite-Allergic Anesthesia Chair Questions New Propofol Brand." I found it to be very relevant, as you obviously did by the prominence of the title, length of the published text, and location on the first page of the APSF Newsletter.
I am, however, concerned with the lack of initiative on the part of the Editor. This letter clearly presented one viewpoint on this meaningful topic. It would seem to have been appropriate to have a presentation from another perspective for the reader to more completely evaluate the claims in Dr. Tinker’s unreferenced correspondence.
Also, Dr. Tinker professes no relationship to any of the concerned parties, as do I. This is not the case for the APSF. As is indicated in the very same issue of the Newsletter, Zeneca Pharmaceuticals is a "Grand Patron" of the APSF, whereas the "different company" is not. I trust that this was not an issue when evaluating in what format Dr. Tinker’s relevant letter was to be published.
Roland R. Rizzi, M.D. Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY
[Editor’s Note: Dr. Rizzi is correct that the news value and potential reader interest (which seems to be significant, based on the response) were the only factors that determined the manner of presentation of Dr. Tinker’s letter. Regarding an alternative viewpoint, there certainly was initiative to publish it, as indicated in the editor’s note preceding the letter of response from the "different company" on first page of this issue.]