Skip to main content

NHS crisis is government created

It is increasingly difficult to see a coherent government strategy for the economy.  Dealing with the deficit has now given way to 'doing whatever is politically expedient to win the next general election'. The NHS is high in list of voters' concerns.

The 'extra' £2 billion for the NHS announced today in the Chancellor's autumn statement is welcome. But it is too little and very late. The government has been warned over the past four years of cuts that the NHS is 'on a precipice' and would have difficulty meeting needs. Mr Cameron promised that the NHS would be 'ring fenced' and protected from the cuts, but so-called efficiency savings have eaten into NHS budgets to the tune of £20 billion.

Responding to the announcement today by the chancellor that NHS services are to receive £2 billion in extra funding, BMA Council Chair, Dr Mark Porter said:

“There is little doubt that the NHS is under unprecedented pressure from a combination of rising patient demand and contracting budgets. Doctors and other healthcare professionals are working hard to deliver first rate patient care to the public, but they are being undermined by a lack of resources and staff."

The BMA has also welcomed the designated investment in GP services.

“The chancellor’s announcement that more funding will be allocated to the NHS is an encouraging step forward as it does appear that politicians of all parties are starting to get the message about the dire state of the NHS finances. We are particularly pleased that policymakers have listened to the BMA and confirmed that £250 million will be allocated annually for the next four years to invest in GP premises and out of hospital infrastructure.  Many GP facilities have been starved of investment for decades with the result that a number of GP practices are too small and inadequate to cope with the number of patients coming through the surgery door."

But the crisis in the NHS is more than simply funding.  It is a crisis created by the government. We  recall the promise that there would be no 'top down' extensive reorganisation of the health service. Yet this is exactly what has happened against advice of doctors' bodies such as the BMA. This has put an extra pressure on scarce front line resources.  The reorganisation was senseless and unnecessary particularly in a time of recession.

There have been more than 38,000 'exit packages'  for NHS managers agreed since 'reforms' began. Yet some 4,000 of those  have been  rehired.  There is something ludicrous about managers taking lucrative redundancy deals only then to be recruited once more as consultants! The cost of redundancy payments for NHS managers has hit almost £1.6bn since the coalition came to power. The government's handling of the NHS has been at best inept.

As Mark Porter warns

“Despite this announcement, the NHS continues to face a number of challenges, with staff shortages, especially in emergency care, remaining a cause of concern.  We need this announcement to be the start of a long term programme of investment in the NHS that is backed by all policymakers so that patients continue to get the care they deserve and need.”

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...

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...

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...