Using "a woman named" vs just her name in a journal article

[Bernard Lynch]

As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."

In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."

I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.

Thanks very much for your opinions.






---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[musika]

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

How about "a patient named Betty Smith reported".

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by musika

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

How about "a patient named Betty Smith reported".

Perhaps "Betty Smith, a patient, reported" might also be a possibility.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by musika

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

How about "a patient named Betty Smith reported".

Perhaps "Betty Smith, a patient, reported" might also be a possibility.

Could be a volunteer subject rather a "patient"

Post by Richard Heathfield
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by musika

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

How about "a patient named Betty Smith reported".

Perhaps "Betty Smith, a patient, reported" might also be a possibility.

Could be a volunteer subject rather a "patient"

<sigh>

"Betty Smith, <X>, reported"

where X is "a volunteer subject", "a patient", "a district nurse", "a
vampire", or whatever it might be.

If you know what a metasyntactic variable is, Betty Smith is a foo.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Richard Heathfield
<sigh>
"Betty Smith, <X>, reported"
where X is "a volunteer subject", "a patient", "a district nurse", "a
vampire", or whatever it might be.
If you know what a metasyntactic variable is, Betty Smith is a foo.

Betty Smith wrote *A Tree Grows in Brooklyn*, the most pornographic novel in
our high school curriculum (recommended, not required, reading).

[Don Phillipson]

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.

Most medical journals publish style rules for contributors which may
arbitrate points like this.

For example, a model rule for names might be (1) to cite scientific
authors or researchers by name, e.g. Betty Smith, (2) to identify
patients by initials, e.g. B.S. (This might be a prudent rule in the
light of privacy laws which vary between jurisdictions.)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.

Most medical journals publish style rules for contributors which may
arbitrate points like this.
For example, a model rule for names might be (1) to cite scientific
authors or researchers by name, e.g. Betty Smith, (2) to identify
patients by initials, e.g. B.S. (This might be a prudent rule in the
light of privacy laws which vary between jurisdictions.)

That seems to be a common practice. However, even if most readers don't
need to know who B.S. is, the information does need to be retained
somewhere where commissions investigating whether the treatment was
done properly can get at it.

In the only case that I have personal knowledge of I knew both the
biochemist who was listed as an author of the paper and the parents of
the patient. The paper just referred to her as "a young Chilean woman
living in London." She had a metabolic disease that caused her to
become exhausted after mild activity (like walking up a single flight
of stairs). She didn't have much luck with her health: she subsequently
died from a melanoma while still, I think, in her twenties. She
probably could have survived if she been in a country with modern
medical facilities when the melanoma was recgnized, but she was in
Nicaragua, and didn't get to the UK or Chile quickly enough.

[Cheryl]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.

Most medical journals publish style rules for contributors which may
arbitrate points like this.
For example, a model rule for names might be (1) to cite scientific
authors or researchers by name, e.g. Betty Smith, (2) to identify
patients by initials, e.g. B.S. (This might be a prudent rule in the
light of privacy laws which vary between jurisdictions.)

That seems to be a common practice. However, even if most readers don't
need to know who B.S. is, the information does need to be retained
somewhere where commissions investigating whether the treatment was done
properly can get at it.
In the only case that I have personal knowledge of I knew both the
biochemist who was listed as an author of the paper and the parents of
the patient. The paper just referred to her as "a young Chilean woman
living in London." She had a metabolic disease that caused her to become
exhausted after mild activity (like walking up a single flight of
stairs). She didn't have much luck with her health: she subsequently
died from a melanoma while still, I think, in her twenties. She probably
could have survived if she been in a country with modern medical
facilities when the melanoma was recgnized, but she was in Nicaragua,
and didn't get to the UK or Chile quickly enough.

If you're talking about malignant melanoma, the prognosis isn't great
wherever you are. I think it's improved since the disease killed one of
my aunts, but it's still one of those diseases that really needs to be
caught very early for a decent chance of survival. The early signs are
very easy to miss, which is why doctors always say you should have any
slightly odd-looking mole checked out, particularly if it starts changing.

My aunt's melanoma was spotted by her doctor when she went in for
something else - she hadn't been worried about it at all. It was too
late even then for effective treatment.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.

Most medical journals publish style rules for contributors which may
arbitrate points like this.
For example, a model rule for names might be (1) to cite scientific
authors or researchers by name, e.g. Betty Smith, (2) to identify
patients by initials, e.g. B.S. (This might be a prudent rule in the
light of privacy laws which vary between jurisdictions.)

That seems to be a common practice. However, even if most readers don't
need to know who B.S. is, the information does need to be retained
somewhere where commissions investigating whether the treatment was
done properly can get at it.
In the only case that I have personal knowledge of I knew both the
biochemist who was listed as an author of the paper and the parents of
the patient. The paper just referred to her as "a young Chilean woman
living in London." She had a metabolic disease that caused her to
become exhausted after mild activity (like walking up a single flight
of stairs). She didn't have much luck with her health: she subsequently
died from a melanoma while still, I think, in her twenties. She
probably could have survived if she been in a country with modern
medical facilities when the melanoma was recgnized, but she was in
Nicaragua, and didn't get to the UK or Chile quickly enough.

If you're talking about malignant melanoma, the prognosis isn't great
wherever you are.

True, but there are better places to be than rural Nicaragua.

Post by Cheryl
I think it's improved since the disease killed one of my aunts, but
it's still one of those diseases that really needs to be caught very
early for a decent chance of survival. The early signs are very easy to
miss, which is why doctors always say you should have any slightly
odd-looking mole checked out, particularly if it starts changing.
My aunt's melanoma was spotted by her doctor when she went in for
something else - she hadn't been worried about it at all. It was too
late even then for effective treatment.

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."

When a name is used as in

"Betty Smith reported ..."

it suggests (according to me) that this woman already has
been introduced into the text earlier.

(However, in scientific texts, this is not suggested by:

"Smith[74] reported ..."

, i.e., a reference to the list of references.)

"A woman named Betty Smith ..."

is fine to introduce her, though "a woman" actually does not
give additional information, because her gender can already
be told from her name. It might be slightly more polite and
also possible to explicitly introduce her:

"Bette Smith is a registered nurse working in the General
Hospital of Colorado Springs (CO, USA). She reported ...".

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Stefan Ram
"Bette Smith is a registered nurse working in the General
Hospital of Colorado Springs (CO, USA). She reported ...".

I agree with others: I she is a mere patient, her name
should not be mentioned, unless there are special reasons
to do so. If it is necessary to refer to her, we can
give her a number:

»A patient, we will refer to as "patient 0", reported ...«.

[charles]

Post by Stefan Ram

Post by Stefan Ram
"Bette Smith is a registered nurse working in the General
Hospital of Colorado Springs (CO, USA). She reported ...".

I agree with others: I she is a mere patient, her name
should not be mentioned, unless there are special reasons
to do so. If it is necessary to refer to her, we can
»A patient, we will refer to as "patient 0", reported ...«.

or, as happens in newspeper articles "the names have been changed"

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."

I think it is obvious that Betty Smith is a woman (unless it is
a matter of age, rather than "girl").

Post by Bernard Lynch
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."

I think it is obvious that Betty Smith is a woman (unless it is
a matter of age, rather than "girl").

That was my first thought, too.

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Bernard Lynch
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

Is it appropriate to give the name of a patient in a medical article?

Or: "A patient whom we will call Jane Doe"

[Janet]

In article <***@4ax.com>, lynch201
@hotmail.com says...

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

Since when did medical journal reports ever name the patients whose
case they discuss? That would be a breach of patient privacy and
doctor-patient confidentiality.

Janet

[Bernard Lynch]

As this discussion contains a number of interesting reponses, let me
clarify my original question by adding that his woman, Betty Smith,
reported the effects that this new drug had on her in an article that
had appeared in a newspaper. So, many people already know who she is
-- if, in fact, that is her real name.

The article I'm writing is simply designed to bring her report to the
attention of practitioners, who may not know about it or her.

Interestingly, I may also be dealing with a professionally rampant
gender issue here; i.e., if I replace her name with "Bob Smith," I
feel less inclined to say "a man named Bob Smith reported" than just
"Bob Smith reported."

Just wondering if I'm alone in that?









---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Cheryl]

Post by Bernard Lynch
As this discussion contains a number of interesting reponses, let me
clarify my original question by adding that his woman, Betty Smith,
reported the effects that this new drug had on her in an article that
had appeared in a newspaper. So, many people already know who she is
-- if, in fact, that is her real name.
The article I'm writing is simply designed to bring her report to the
attention of practitioners, who may not know about it or her.
Interestingly, I may also be dealing with a professionally rampant
gender issue here; i.e., if I replace her name with "Bob Smith," I
feel less inclined to say "a man named Bob Smith reported" than just
"Bob Smith reported."
Just wondering if I'm alone in that?

I don't think I'd use either "A man named..." or "A woman named..."
unless I thought it necessary to specify the gender. I'd be equally
likely (or unlikely) to use it for either sex.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Bernard Lynch
As this discussion contains a number of interesting reponses, let me
clarify my original question by adding that his woman, Betty Smith,
reported the effects that this new drug had on her in an article that
had appeared in a newspaper. So, many people already know who she is
-- if, in fact, that is her real name.
The article I'm writing is simply designed to bring her report to the
attention of practitioners, who may not know about it or her.
Interestingly, I may also be dealing with a professionally rampant
gender issue here; i.e., if I replace her name with "Bob Smith," I
feel less inclined to say "a man named Bob Smith reported" than just
"Bob Smith reported."
Just wondering if I'm alone in that?

If she's well known in the literature, how about: "Betty Smith" reported ...

Cf. the Jukes and the Kallikaks, the parade example for eugenics in the early
20th c. Eventually it turned out that those weren't real names, and the actual
families were identified.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Bernard Lynch
As this discussion contains a number of interesting reponses, let me
clarify my original question by adding that his woman, Betty Smith,
reported the effects that this new drug had on her in an article that
had appeared in a newspaper. So, many people already know who she is
-- if, in fact, that is her real name.
The article I'm writing is simply designed to bring her report to the
attention of practitioners, who may not know about it or her.

Maybe "a patient (or "customer" or whatever) who gave her name as
Betty Smith".

But even though common sense says you can give the names of people
who have published them in a newspaper, you might still want to check
the law and professional standards and the requirements of the journal.
There are probably ways to get around giving her name at all--if she's
mentioned again, she could be "the woman quoted in the Thorpvilleton
Gazette article" or some such.

Post by Bernard Lynch
Interestingly, I may also be dealing with a professionally rampant
gender issue here; i.e., if I replace her name with "Bob Smith," I
feel less inclined to say "a man named Bob Smith reported" than just
"Bob Smith reported."
Just wondering if I'm alone in that?

I don't think I've ever noticed such a tendency. If it's commmon in
your field, I'd suggest not going along with it.

[Janet]

In article <***@4ax.com>, lynch201
@hotmail.com says...

Post by Bernard Lynch
As this discussion contains a number of interesting reponses, let me
clarify my original question by adding that his woman, Betty Smith,
reported the effects that this new drug had on her in an article that
had appeared in a newspaper. So, many people already know who she is
-- if, in fact, that is her real name.
The article I'm writing is simply designed to bring her report to the
attention of practitioners, who may not know about it or her.

"I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug"

Medical journals do not normally publish laymens articles consisting
of one third-hand hearsay unverified claim of one person's symptoms.

Janet.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Janet
@hotmail.com says...

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

Since when did medical journal reports ever name the patients whose
case they discuss? That would be a breach of patient privacy and
doctor-patient confidentiality.
Janet

If the effects of the drug on Betty Smith had already been reported
publicly in news media it would be reasonable to use her name. But if
she is not known to the public for taking the medication and the effects
on her then as you say, she should be anonymous.

[Whiskers]

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

Ask Betty Smith if she is willing to be named in your article, and
whether she wants to be described as 'a woman' or indeed as anything.

Is she one of the experimenters, or a lab assistant, or a teacher, or a
student of one of those? Or a 'subject'?

What is the journal's position on the naming of people?

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Whiskers

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

Ask Betty Smith if she is willing to be named in your article, and
whether she wants to be described as 'a woman' or indeed as anything.

If she has been already named in public, I believe it is legal
to report her name.

If this is about a specific incident that has already publicized
her name is relevant as others can obtain further inofrmation
on it.

Post by Whiskers
Is she one of the experimenters, or a lab assistant, or a teacher, or a
student of one of those? Or a 'subject'?
What is the journal's position on the naming of people?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Peter Young]

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

No opinion, but do you have written permission from the patient to
publish her name?

Peter.

[s***@gowanhill.com]

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."

Has she reported this directly to you, or in a way that you can verify?

If not, you cite the source of the information, eg "The _Hicksville Tit-Bits_ reported the case of Betty Smith, a 44-year-old woman from Hicksville Parva, Hickshire, who claimed she grew a third ear after taking the drug Metadioxin for the relief of green warts."

Owain

[bill van]

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."

Has she reported this directly to you, or in a way that you can verify?
If not, you cite the source of the information, eg "The _Hicksville Tit-Bits_
reported the case of Betty Smith, a 44-year-old woman from Hicksville Parva,
Hickshire, who claimed she grew a third ear after taking the drug Metadioxin
for the relief of green warts."

Why use her name at all? It adds nothing to a discussion of medical
issues, and it may well amount to an invasion of her privacy. I think
it's inappropriate to use patients' names in such a context.

[GordonD]

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that
a woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug,
I was debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith
reported . . ." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."

Has she reported this directly to you, or in a way that you can verify?
If not, you cite the source of the information, eg "The _Hicksville
Tit-Bits_ reported the case of Betty Smith, a 44-year-old woman from
Hicksville Parva, Hickshire, who claimed she grew a third ear after
taking the drug Metadioxin for the relief of green warts."

Isn't that what happened to Davey Crockett? He had a wild front ear.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by GordonD

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that
a woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug,
I was debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith
reported . . ." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."

Has she reported this directly to you, or in a way that you can verify?
If not, you cite the source of the information, eg "The _Hicksville
Tit-Bits_ reported the case of Betty Smith, a 44-year-old woman from
Hicksville Parva, Hickshire, who claimed she grew a third ear after
taking the drug Metadioxin for the relief of green warts."

Isn't that what happened to Davey Crockett? He had a wild front ear.

Not only -- he was King of it!

[Quinn C]

Post by s***@gowanhill.com
"The _Hicksville Tit-Bits_ reported the case of Betty Smith, a
44-year-old woman from Hicksville Parva, Hickshire, who claimed

Not Plave? Ah, wrong thread.

Post by s***@gowanhill.com
she grew a third ear after taking the drug Metadioxin for the
relief of green warts."

But what made her grow the first two?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Quinn C

Post by s***@gowanhill.com
"The _Hicksville Tit-Bits_ reported the case of Betty Smith, a
44-year-old woman from Hicksville Parva, Hickshire, who claimed

Not Plave? Ah, wrong thread.

Post by s***@gowanhill.com
she grew a third ear after taking the drug Metadioxin for the
relief of green warts."

But what made her grow the first two?

The wart enhancement treatment?

[RH Draney]

Post by Quinn C

Post by s***@gowanhill.com
she grew a third ear after taking the drug Metadioxin for the
relief of green warts."

But what made her grow the first two?

Just plain cussedness....r

[John Varela]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:24:37 UTC, Bernard Lynch

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

Why is it necessary to give her name at all?

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:24:37 UTC, Bernard Lynch

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

Why is it necessary to give her name at all?

I think it was explained. It is about the allegations
of a specific person who went public.

Post by John Varela
--
John Varela

[Peter Young]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:24:37 UTC, Bernard Lynch

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

Why is it necessary to give her name at all?

I think it was explained. It is about the allegations
of a specific person who went public.

But to name her in a medical publication it would be normal to have
her specific consent.

Peter

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Peter Young

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:24:37 UTC, Bernard Lynch

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

Why is it necessary to give her name at all?

I think it was explained. It is about the allegations
of a specific person who went public.

But to name her in a medical publication it would be normal to have
her specific consent.

US law usually gives much latitude against privacy if a person
is "a public figure"

Post by Peter Young
Peter
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Pt)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[Richard Chambers]

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:24:37 UTC, Bernard Lynch

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

Why is it necessary to give her name at all?

At the first appearance of Betty Smith in the article, the use of a simple
"Betty Smith" would imply that the reader ought to already know who that
person is. The use of the slightly longer "woman named Betty Smith" tells
the reader the name, but reassures him that he was not expected to already
know anything about Betty Smith. The article is dealing with a person who,
up to this point, has not been well-known to the expected readership. To
convey this idea, the longer phrase "woman named Betty Smith" is the better
wording.

Why is it necessary to give her name at all? Having informed the reader of
the name, you can subsequently use "Ms Smith" every time you need to
describe her further adventures. This simplification of the subsequent
writing explains why we often need to name our "Betty Smith". We can omit
her name altogether, describing her (for example) as "a woman from local
area", only if we don't want to refer to her again in the rest of the
article.

In an article in a medical journal, to protect her medical confidentiality,
we might explain/admit that we are using an alias, describing her in the
first place as "a woman named Mary Jones", and in subsequent parts of the
article refer to her simply as "Ms Jones".

Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
=========================================

Havi



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Richard Chambers

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:24:37 UTC, Bernard Lynch

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

Why is it necessary to give her name at all?

At the first appearance of Betty Smith in the article, the use of a simple
"Betty Smith" would imply that the reader ought to already know who that
person is. The use of the slightly longer "woman named Betty Smith" tells
the reader the name, but reassures him that he was not expected to already
know anything about Betty Smith. The article is dealing with a person who,
up to this point, has not been well-known to the expected readership. To
convey this idea, the longer phrase "woman named Betty Smith" is the better
wording.
Why is it necessary to give her name at all? Having informed the reader of
the name, you can subsequently use "Ms Smith" every time you need to
describe her further adventures. This simplification of the subsequent
writing explains why we often need to name our "Betty Smith". We can omit
her name altogether, describing her (for example) as "a woman from local
area", only if we don't want to refer to her again in the rest of the
article.
In an article in a medical journal, to protect her medical confidentiality,
we might explain/admit that we are using an alias, describing her in the
first place as "a woman named Mary Jones", and in subsequent parts of the
article refer to her simply as "Ms Jones".

"one of our test subjects"

[bill van]

Post by Richard Chambers

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:24:37 UTC, Bernard Lynch

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

Why is it necessary to give her name at all?

At the first appearance of Betty Smith in the article, the use of a simple
"Betty Smith" would imply that the reader ought to already know who that
person is. The use of the slightly longer "woman named Betty Smith" tells
the reader the name, but reassures him that he was not expected to already
know anything about Betty Smith. The article is dealing with a person who,
up to this point, has not been well-known to the expected readership. To
convey this idea, the longer phrase "woman named Betty Smith" is the better
wording.
Why is it necessary to give her name at all? Having informed the reader of
the name, you can subsequently use "Ms Smith" every time you need to
describe her further adventures. This simplification of the subsequent
writing explains why we often need to name our "Betty Smith". We can omit
her name altogether, describing her (for example) as "a woman from local
area", only if we don't want to refer to her again in the rest of the
article.
In an article in a medical journal, to protect her medical confidentiality,
we might explain/admit that we are using an alias, describing her in the
first place as "a woman named Mary Jones", and in subsequent parts of the
article refer to her simply as "Ms Jones".

I raised the same point when this thread appeared a few weeks ago, and
got no response from the original poster. I can't image the
circumstances in which a medical journal would use a patient's real
name. Something's fishy.

[bill van]

Post by bill van

Post by Richard Chambers

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:24:37 UTC, Bernard Lynch

Post by Bernard Lynch
As I'm writing an article for a medical journal on the effects that a
woman named Betty Smith reported after she had taken a new drug, I was
debating whether to say that "a woman named Betty Smith reported . .
." or to simply say that "Betty Smith reported . . ."
In fact, that question even arose when I was writing the first clause
in the foregoing paragraph, because using a "woman named Betty Smith
reported" seemed much better than just using "Betty Smith reported."
I was therefore wondering whether the writers and editors here agreed
or disagreed with me on this.
Thanks very much for your opinions.

Why is it necessary to give her name at all?

At the first appearance of Betty Smith in the article, the use of a simple
"Betty Smith" would imply that the reader ought to already know who that
person is. The use of the slightly longer "woman named Betty Smith" tells
the reader the name, but reassures him that he was not expected to already
know anything about Betty Smith. The article is dealing with a person who,
up to this point, has not been well-known to the expected readership. To
convey this idea, the longer phrase "woman named Betty Smith" is the better
wording.
Why is it necessary to give her name at all? Having informed the reader of
the name, you can subsequently use "Ms Smith" every time you need to
describe her further adventures. This simplification of the subsequent
writing explains why we often need to name our "Betty Smith". We can omit
her name altogether, describing her (for example) as "a woman from local
area", only if we don't want to refer to her again in the rest of the
article.
In an article in a medical journal, to protect her medical confidentiality,
we might explain/admit that we are using an alias, describing her in the
first place as "a woman named Mary Jones", and in subsequent parts of the
article refer to her simply as "Ms Jones".

I raised the same point when this thread appeared a few weeks ago, and
got no response from the original poster. I can't IMAGE the
circumstances in which a medical journal would use a patient's real
name. Something's fishy.

imagine, that is.