Skip to main content

A deep malaise at the heart of the NHS

Readers of this blog will know that I have been very unwell. I have already recounted some of my experiences as an NHS patient. I am slowly recovering and I have had several days now free from pain. In my journey through hospital and after care I found plenty of examples of compassionate and caring medical practice, but caring can break down if stretched to limits through insufficient resources.

This much I found in the care of the district nurses. One night when I was in severe pain I called to get attention. They were very busy covering a whole county but would try to get to me later. They kept me informed as the night progressed and in the early hours of the morning called to say they would be with me soon. Two nurses arrived. They had worked solidly through the night. Nevertheless they came with smiles and comfort. Sadly they couldn't do much to help me. It struck me how little information they had about my history. I was barely on their radar, and they had not the authority to do much to help me. That did not stop me getting a call from them later to find out how I was.

In desperation I contacted my GP. How could weeks have gone by since being discharged from hospital without any contact? All I had been told by the hospital was that I would receive a visit from the district nurse to remove a catheter. That happened two weeks later. By that time I was in considerable pain and infection had taken hold. My GP told me he knew nothing of my history. He had received nothing from the hospital. He had been unaware of my condition. He acted with efficiency and with care. He telephoned a couple of day later to ask how I was and to put me on another course of antibiotics. I had now lived with weeks of pain and painkillers that were slowly losing their effect. I felt isolated, the more so since I discovered I was not on anyone's radar. I only got attention if I called for it, and on each occasion I had to repeat my history because they had not received notes from the hospital.

These problems are not the result of a lack of compassion. They don't stem from inefficiency of staff. It is systemic. There is a deep malaise at the heart of the NHS. It results from underfunding and a reorganisation that has produce chaos and a lack of joined up care. It results in large part from savage cuts that have impacted dramatically on front line care. It will take this government no time at all to destroy the NHS; it will take decades or more to rebuild it.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As