Skip to main content

BMA concern that cuts will seriously affect social care

Responding to the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review, Dr Mark Porter, Chair of the BMA Council, said:

“Although the NHS budget in England has been protected this does not allow for keeping pace with new treatments, an ageing population and rising demand. All too often short term cuts are being made to meet soaring financial pressures often without the involvement of clinicians. Only by putting resources in the right place and working with doctors can the Government strive to meet the challenges the NHS faces.

“We support the Government’s commitment to the care of older people and we hope that the allocated funding is indeed used to genuinely meet the needs of patients and help alleviate the current pressures on emergency departments. However, we are concerned that the Chancellor’s decision to cut the local government budget by 10 per cent will seriously undermine the Government’s commitment to vulnerable people because of the impact on social care, and wider public health needs.

“We welcome the Government’s decision not to transfer funds for medical training and research from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, taking on board the concerns we raised that such a move would disturb the highly successful integrated arrangements which currently ensure a world class medical profession.”

“We will need to see further detail regarding the Government’s intentions but for many doctors pay progression is already based on satisfactory completion of their duties and other criteria. There are currently exploratory talks taking place on junior doctor and consultants contracts and they will need to consider any potential changes.”

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

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown