Good news for Health Care?

And so we turn full circle. Health care is once again being restored to local regional governance. The announcement today that the £6bn health and social care budget for Greater Manchester will be taken over by regional councils under devolved NHS powers is in one sense good news. Local control will allow more joined up health and social care that is responsive to local needs. But there are concerns and these have been given by he BMA.

The Tories always have a desire to mess about with the organisation of the NHS. They most often do so in the hope that it will save money - that is 'cut' NHS funding. For this reason I am always wary of moves to reorganise health care provision. They fiddle with the deck chairs whilst the ship is allowed to sink, and then give as a reason the sinking of the ship. It runs a bit like this. The ship is sinking so lets reorganise all the deck chairs so that it sinks more slowly. The ship continues to sink and so the deck chairs are moved once again, trying to shift the ballast. This is how it is with NHS reform, when the bottom line is really funding. A well funded NHS is second to none. But it isn't well funded, or at least not well enough.

Yet again it means a reorganisation of a health service still reeling from the impact of the unnecessary reorganisation imposed by the coalition government. The Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, promised no top down reorganisation of he NHS, yet immediately set about imposing confused and ill-judged reforms. He promised the NHS budget would be protected from the austerity cuts, yet £20 bn has been taken out of the NHS budget for England under he guise of 'efficiency savings'. These efficiency savings have left a strain on overworked front-line staff.

Responding to the announcement that the health and social care budget for Greater Manchester will be taken over by regional councils, Dr Mark Porter, BMA council chair, said:

“There is no doubt that patients would benefit from more joined-up health and social care. However, any plans to do so would have to be underpinned by clear funding to ensure that an already dangerously over-stretched NHS budget isn't used to prop up a woefully underfunded social care budget.

“These wide sweeping changes will affect millions of people. We need to look carefully at exactly how they will affect the commissioning and delivery of services, and what the impact on patient care will be. We must also ensure clinicians have a central role in decisions over health care, something which was undermined by the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

“We need assurances on who is responsible if these changes go wrong. Doctors believe the secretary of state for health should have the duty to provide a universal and comprehensive health service, and must take responsibility for guaranteeing national standards in the of quality care across the country, especially if the delivery of care is to be devolved to local authorities.

“The NHS has just undergone unprecedented upheaval, there must be no more games with our health service and we need to avoid a situation where the NHS moves from being a national to a local political football.”

The reform is good in principle, but it must be put into effect with care. It must be made clear who is responsible for ensuring a universal and comprehensive health service across the country and how best this can be achieved.

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...

The Thin End

Search This Blog