Skip to main content

BMA: 'Shameful' Budget does nothing for NHS shortfall


Calling today's budget presented by the Chancellor 'shameful' the BMA has condemned it for doing nothing to address the NHS funding shortfall. 

Responding to the Budget today Dr Mark Porter, Chair of BMA Council says

“Despite claiming the economy is on the up, today's budget does nothing to address the crippling funding shortfall in the NHS.

"While the Government claims the NHS budget is protected, in reality it's suffered £20bn of cuts, billions of which have come from a sustained attack on staff pay.

"If growth forecasts are rising it’s even more shameful that the Government won’t even agree to a 1 per cent uplift, as recommended by an independent pay review body, for all front-line NHS staff.

"Doctors and other staff face increasingly challenging, high pressured and stressful work environments. Cuts to budgets and rising workloads are leading to a recruitment and retention crisis in many parts of the NHS, and we're already seeing the effect of this on emergency medicine. The announcement by the Chancellor to continue with pay restraint and more public sector cuts, if re-elected in the next parliament, will only compound this.

"If, as the Chancellor has said, growth is higher than expected then the Government needs to consider additional funding for the NHS. Without the investment needed to meet rising patient demand and put the NHS on a sustainable financial footing the Government need to face up to the reality that patient care, and indeed the very future of the NHS, will be at risk."

Commenting on tobacco and alcohol duty Professor Sheila Hollins, Chair of the BMA's Board of Science, said:

“The Government is giving with one hand and taking with another, with a step forward on measures to reduce smoking but backward on tackling alcohol related harm.

“The announcement to extend the tobacco escalator is an important and welcome one. It will reduce the affordability of cigarettes, which is key to deterring children from starting to smoke. With half of smokers dying from a smoking related disease anything that makes it less attractive is a step in the right direction.

"Scrapping the alcohol escalator and reducing beer duty, coupled with the Government's U-turn on plans to introduce a minimum unit price, shows the Government has abandoned any serious efforts to tackle alcohol related harm.

"With the costs of alcohol related harm estimated at £20bn in England alone, of which £2bn is on healthcare, there is a clear economic as well as a public health case for why urgent action is needed.

"The BMA will continue to call on the Government to introduce a minimum unit price. We know that minimum pricing reduces alcohol related harm amongst the heaviest drinkers while leaving responsible drinkers largely unaffected. This is because virtually all pub drinks, as well as the majority of shop-bought beers, wines and spirits would not be affected by a proposed 50p threshold.”

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
7 comments
Read more

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...
2 comments
Read more

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...
2 comments
Read more