After the Editorial Board had decided to publish Laforet's paper on the hopeless case and after I (W.B.B.) added some editorial equipoise with a review of Gavey's book, Dr. Bulger's paper arrived. Though it is more a synoptical anthology than a critique, it gives another and different view of the problem.
From time to time, the editors get reactions to their efforts—letters, phone calls, personal comments, new subscriptions come in, and in a fit of pique cancellations do too, although the list of subscribers is going up about two or three thousand a year. Some bleak souls are appalled that a medical journal aims to follow the lines of a scholarly pursuit rather than a technical cookbook. We sympathize, for we realize how dislocating it is to have ideas, problems, and concepts to deal with rather than predigested packets that can be thrown into the diagnostic or therapeutic Mixmaster, or
Bean WB. The "Hopeless Case". Arch Intern Med. 1963;112(3):312-313. doi:10.1001/archinte.1963.03860030066003