Skip to main content

No absence of compassion in the NHS

A week ago I was taken seriously ill. I was in excruciating pain. I had been ill all day. I had been in pain all day but fighting it because I had work to do. I was performing in the afternoon with the Oxford Trobadors. By the time I got home that evening I realised this pain was not going to go away. I could not sleep. I could not sit. I could not find comfort. I paced up and down feeling nauseous and dizzy. I knew I was in trouble. This was serious. I knew also that I had for so long ignored the early signs. At 5 am I couldn't stand the pain any longer. We called an ambulance.

The ambulance arrived it seemed within seconds and soon I was being driven at speed to hospital. The paramedics were wonderful, skilful and with compassion they reassured me. My blood pressure was very high, but my ECG looked normal. My daughter followed behind in her car. The ambulance crew told me she was with us, calming and reassuring.

There is something surreal about a ride in an ambulance it is as if it is the world that moves while you remain stationary. Soon we arrived at the hospital and it was not too long before I was given something to ease the pain.

The young doctor examined me with skill, respect and...yes...compassion. The nursing staff treated me with respect and...yes...compassion. I was allowed home but to return the following morning for a scan and more tests whilst they examined my blood and urine. With the pain relief I had a comfortable night. But the scan showed it was more serious than had been thought. I was admitted.

It is not necessary for me to give every detail. As a medical ethicist for the first time in a long while I experienced being a patient.

There are many things we could change in the NHS, but my experience taught me one lesson. It is wrong to generalise about an absence of compassion in nursing. The majority of those who cared for me in hospital did just that, they cared.  But there was also skill and dedication. There was no shortage of compassion.

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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

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