Violence in the journal
Several months ago members were asked whether ISCAIP and Injury Prevention should include intentional injuries. Some phrased the question, “Should we have violence in the journal?” My answer was a quick and emphatic “no” because I had visions of the editorial board engaged in sumo wrestling. But it later became clear that what was being asked was whether material dealing with violence had a home in the journal.
The issue arose again when it was decided that the ISCAIP meeting would be enlivened by a debate on this topic. The question was something along the lines of “Resolved: intentional injuries should be viewed differently from unintentional injuries”. With some reluctance I agreed to speak in favour of the motion but made it clear that in doing so I would try to behave like the witty, provocative debaters whose oratorical skills I envy; skills that permit them to defend any position, including those with which they passionately disagree.
Accordingly, at the outset, I announced that I did not fully believe in the position I was assigned to defend, and, more importantly, that whatever I said was not the official view of the journal. I reminded …
