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

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