Skip to main content

BMA respond to collapse of private franchise at Hinchingbrooke Hospital.

A company which became the first private firm to manage an NHS hospital says it wants to "withdraw from its contract".

Circle Holdings, which operates Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire, said its franchise is "no longer viable under current terms".

Commenting on the announcement that Circle Holdings, which operates Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire, is withdrawing from its contract, Dr Mark Porter, BMA council chair said:

“What has happened in Hinchingbrooke shows that the responsibility of running a critical public service can never be handed, over and so the insistence on private providers as a potential solution to problems facing Hinchingbrooke was always misguided. This example also shows that that not even private providers are immune to the extreme financial pressures on NHS services, caused by a shortage of government funding.

“Patient care must remain the absolute priority at Hinchingbrooke hospital as the running of services is transferred. The doctors, nurses and other healthcare staff at the hospital deserve recognition for continuing to provide excellent quality of care for patients, under difficult and uncertain circumstances.

“The BMA’s preference would be for NHS providers over private management, but if the hospital is to be handed over to an NHS Trust to run, the services have to be properly resourced - we cannot continue to meet rising demand with underinvestment. At this moment, Hinchingbrooke’s finances remain in doubt, the hospital needs to put on a sound financial footing or else the problems facing it will only persist.”

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