Skip to main content

Election promises not enough to fix NHS BMA warns

As the old year ends and a new year starts, there is more worrying news from the British Medical Association (BMA).  There quarterly survey across all branches of practice show that nearly 50% of doctors reported low or very low morale. Morale among GPs continues to be lower than other branches of practice. 74% of GPs describe their workload as being unmanageable or unsustainable, a percentage that has steadily increased in every quarter of 2014.  Little wonder then that the BMA start 2015, the year of the general election, with a sobering warning.

Morale is low and yet a new report finds that the NHS provides amazing value for money when compared internationally.  So what is the problem? All the evidence shows the NHS is stretched to breaking point and we can see that increasing month on month as the cuts bite into front-line services.

Pledges in the party manifestos for the coming general election should come with a health warning. Pledges and promises won't alone fix the problems.

Manifesto promises and pledges of support alone will not help protect the NHS, the chair of the BMA has warned.

In his New Year’s message to members, Dr Mark Porter says that with just months to go until the general election doctors and patients can expect to hear all politicians pledge their support for the NHS, but words alone will not help improve the NHS.

At a time when 74 per cent of GPs face unmanageable or unsustainable workload pressures1 and NHS emergency admissions have reached record levels2, Dr Porter says that “resources and commitment are vital too”.

Dr Porter says: “Every day in the NHS, we work hard to maintain the trust that our patients place in us. They in turn want the NHS to thrive, and the parties reflect that. But all too often politicians make promises as if words alone can improve the NHS. Resources and commitment are vital too.

“They pledge thousands more GPs, for example, but with no apparent recognition of the growing and unsustainable pressures faced by general practices, and when the numbers entering GP training in England have actually dropped by 15 per cent this year alone.

“And after each election, the new minister has the power to make us feel as if we’re in a giant snow globe. A colossal hand reaches for the NHS, and we’re being shaken up again with some new laws and organisations. After the turmoil the snow settles; everything’s in a different place, but little has been made better than it was.

“The time and endeavour would have been better spent in protecting what we are in danger of losing through starved resources and an obsession with competition and markets.”

Dr Porter adds that for doctors it is deeply frustrating that successive governments continue to makes changes to the NHS while opportunities for real change in order to improve patient services have been missed.

He says: “The NHS is, according to the highly respected Commonwealth Fund, the highest-quality and most cost-effective healthcare system of 11 leading economies, including Germany, France and the US. And so our many foreign admirers ask the same question: if the system is that good, why do your governments keep playing around with it?

“For doctors, it’s doubly frustrating when there has been so much unnecessary reorganisation, while real opportunities to improve services have been repeatedly passed over. There is nothing more demoralising than trying to make failed policies work, but doctors have never been a passive or reactive voice. It is down to us all of us to articulate and create an NHS that serves our patients best, in whichever nation we work.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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