Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Response to: Correspondence on ‘Organisational failure: rethinking whistleblowing for tomorrow’s doctors’ by Taylor and Goodwin
  1. Dawn Goodwin1,
  2. Daniel James Taylor2
  1. 1 Lancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
  2. 2 Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Dawn Goodwin, Lancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4AT, UK; d.s.goodwin{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We thank the commentators for their thoughtful engagement with our paper.1 In different ways, they make the same substantial point: our suggested interventions are not enough to solve the problems of organisational failure. On this we wholeheartedly agree. Organisational failure in healthcare is complex and multifaceted, it cannot be solved by one intervention in medical education. We did not intend to imply that our proposals alone would solve organisational failure, and this positioning misconstrues the aims of our paper. We had more modest ambitions, we wanted to shift the analytical emphasis away from the individual and explore the implications raised by our analysis for our piece of the jigsaw—medical education.

Having stepped away from such grand claims, the commentators make some valid points to which we would like to respond more specifically. Jesudason makes the distinction that normalisation of deviance (NoD) is well suited to understand institutional misfeasance but not malfeasance.2 We are inclined to agree; NoD can do some things but not all. Likewise, …

View Full Text


  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Other content recommended for you