Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

They are not underpaid. The medical profession is unique and should not be compared to other sectors as far as pay is concerned, just as we do not say that members of the armed forces are underpaid due to the fact that the hours they work and the kind of work they do should (if you take it in isolation) merit significantly higher pay. If you want to compare them to other sectors it is worth bearing in mind that the pay in lots of the highest earning professions (the law, investment banking etc) starts out pretty shit for the workload. It's not uncommon for newly qualified solicitors and junior investment bankers to earn around minimum wage when you divide their pay by the insane amount of hours that they do. The remuneration comes later on and the last time I checked senior doctors earn an extremely good living....especially as most of them these days seem to top up their pay with private work.



Whenever the topic arises on Question Time there always seems to be a junior doctor in the audience threatening to move abroad if the contract is not changed. To me it seems to be one of the primary arguments that they make.

The 90 hour work weeks are an extreme example and I would be fairly confident in saying that no doctor is performing surgery at the end of a 90 hour week.

I'm sorry but your comparing sectors such as law and banking to medicine. Ok there is a lot of work in those professions but in medicine you have that mental workload, have to carry out skilled procedures despite being knackered. It can also be very physically draining and I know of many people that have had a week on call and walked 10 miles a day but have been on their feet for 14 hours a day for 7-9 days straight. In fact if you compare hour to hour pay under the new contract it's more comparable with stacking shelves in a supermarket.

And Let's face it there aren't any careers where you have to make as many important decisions that effect people's lives and mistakes kill.

At the end of the day doctors are very privalaged people and all enter the career wanting to help people, and derive a lot of satisfaction out of that but if people aren't appreciated they aren't going to deal with the pressure and put up with the responsibility.

Also the argument that people should just leave if they can't put up with it is ridiculous people put in a lot of their sweat and tears into this profession over a long duration. They Give up a lot for this profession, normally from the age of 14 while their friends are playing football or out at the cinema they're revising to get grades and volunteer in nursing homes to get to where they want to be because this is the dedication it takes to even get to medical school. These are the people that are so dispondant now.

Also people always talk about back in the day how doctors used to work much longer shifts than now. I kid you not it was only yesterday a consultant told me that when he was a junior doctor he overdosed 40 patients with medication as in his day they were overworked( but no one cared at the time as it was seen as minor as mistakes happen every day). News flash doctors are still overworked and still make mistakes every day and guess what this contract will only make it worse.

People talk about how the profession is worse now than it was previously and You know what maybe you have a point if you take the view doctors should be good little worker bees who just work till they drop, do as their told and would never dream about striking.

But this new generation of doctors moving away from the old ways of Oxbridge taught scientists on wards think about the wider picture. They think about how what they do effects patients as a whole and think about how things can be improved rather than blindly following orders. They have learnt from history that tired doctors = worse outcomes and they feel that the professional thing to do is not to stand by as predecessors have done but to do what they feel is best for their patients.


By the way you have to be kidding that people aren't doing operations at the end of a long week. I once saw someone after already working about 65-70 hours over the past 5 days then get asked to cover a shift that someone called in sick. He had 2 hours to go home after his final 12 hour shift to have a shower and a meal with his wife before going in to assist in a 8 hour operation.
 
I think the Junior Doctors have to accept they won't just get everything they want from this new deal.

Everyone has had to make concessions in the public sector, I know better than most, and you won't beat down a government determined to cut continually.

The NHS should be 24/7 though. No doubt about it.
 
Aren't most Junior doctors on year long placements that rotate? (I think something like 75%) in which case its going to be pretty easy to get most of these onto new contracts as the next contract offered is on the new terms - sign it or leave are the options (same with new graduates) - of course some will go into other sectors (pharma etc) some will go abroad, some will leave medicine but I think the vast majority will sign the new deal - and my understanding is that the new deal is still probably going to be good enough to bring in doctors from around the world to fill any shortfall from those leaving.
So within a couple of years you probably have 80-90% of junior doctors signed up to the new deal and of course when (if) they get promoted and become consultants etc then the T&C already exists ref 24/7 so I suspect it will be easier for trusts to keep that in there.
Switching existing consultants will of course be much more difficult and perhaps it will be a 10-15 year process whilst Junior doctors on the new contract come through to achieve that.
Don't see the government backing down - Don't see the doctors striking and removing emergency care cover so as I say I can see it being stuck out and soon enough most Junior Doctors will have signed up or have gone.
 
I think the Junior Doctors have to accept they won't just get everything they want from this new deal.

Everyone has had to make concessions in the public sector, I know better than most, and you won't beat down a government determined to cut continually.

The NHS should be 24/7 though. No doubt about it.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But Junior Doctors already work that, and paying them less money for the same work (as well as promises that Hunt has made to the public that its about a 7 day NHS and doctors that they'd work less hours and have more weekends off) is bullshit. He's just trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

There's actually very little to prove that care over the weekends is significantly worse, and if it is, its not because junior doctors are getting paid too much to work them.
 
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But Junior Doctors already work that, and paying them less money for the same work (as well as promises that Hunt has made to the public that its about a 7 day NHS and doctors that they'd work less hours and have more weekends off) is bullshit. He's just trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

There's actually very little to prove that care over the weekends is significantly worse, and if it is, its not because junior doctors are getting paid too much to work them.

What's also lost in the discussion about a 7 day NHS is whether its what people *actually* want. They certainly say they want 7 day services, and of course we all want great emergency care on the weekends etc. But I'm honestly not sure I believe that people would rather have an operation on a Saturday than a Thursday. And I'm sure that GPs would be much quieter on a Sunday morning than a Monday morning.
 
I'm sorry but your comparing sectors such as law and banking to medicine. Ok there is a lot of work in those professions but in medicine you have that mental workload, have to carry out skilled procedures despite being knackered. It can also be very physically draining and I know of many people that have had a week on call and walked 10 miles a day but have been on their feet for 14 hours a day for 7-9 days straight. In fact if you compare hour to hour pay under the new contract it's more comparable with stacking shelves in a supermarket.

And Let's face it there aren't any careers where you have to make as many important decisions that effect people's lives and mistakes kill.

At the end of the day doctors are very privalaged people and all enter the career wanting to help people, and derive a lot of satisfaction out of that but if people aren't appreciated they aren't going to deal with the pressure and put up with the responsibility.

Also the argument that people should just leave if they can't put up with it is ridiculous people put in a lot of their sweat and tears into this profession over a long duration. They Give up a lot for this profession, normally from the age of 14 while their friends are playing football or out at the cinema they're revising to get grades and volunteer in nursing homes to get to where they want to be because this is the dedication it takes to even get to medical school. These are the people that are so dispondant now.

Also people always talk about back in the day how doctors used to work much longer shifts than now. I kid you not it was only yesterday a consultant told me that when he was a junior doctor he overdosed 40 patients with medication as in his day they were overworked( but no one cared at the time as it was seen as minor as mistakes happen every day). News flash doctors are still overworked and still make mistakes every day and guess what this contract will only make it worse.

People talk about how the profession is worse now than it was previously and You know what maybe you have a point if you take the view doctors should be good little worker bees who just work till they drop, do as their told and would never dream about striking.

But this new generation of doctors moving away from the old ways of Oxbridge taught scientists on wards think about the wider picture. They think about how what they do effects patients as a whole and think about how things can be improved rather than blindly following orders. They have learnt from history that tired doctors = worse outcomes and they feel that the professional thing to do is not to stand by as predecessors have done but to do what they feel is best for their patients.


By the way you have to be kidding that people aren't doing operations at the end of a long week. I once saw someone after already working about 65-70 hours over the past 5 days then get asked to cover a shift that someone called in sick. He had 2 hours to go home after his final 12 hour shift to have a shower and a meal with his wife before going in to assist in a 8 hour operation.
People would understand the junior doctor's case a little bit better if they actually worked in a hospital or knew someone who did. All I can say to those who don't is please don't believe the stuff coming from government.

The bit I've put in bold above is not an uncommon situation in hospitals. Doctors know this sort of thing happens far too often and are desperately trying to prevent it happening in the future. Ignore the bits about the pay rise too, they will most likely be taking a pay cut.

We don't want to lose our doctors and have to import them from abroad. Communicating with someone who's first language is not English can be difficult at times, both for patients and staff and miscommunications of any type can also increase the risk of mistakes. Tiredness by any worker anywhere can result in mistakes but in a medical environment the mistakes can quite literally be fatal. We do not want to increase the workload of any hospital staff, most are at breaking point as it is.

Last thing to remember is that junior doctors already provide a 7 day service in hospitals. Consultants and ancillary staff are the ones who do not provide a full 7 day service.
 
What's also lost in the discussion about a 7 day NHS is whether its what people *actually* want. They certainly say they want 7 day services, and of course we all want great emergency care on the weekends etc. But I'm honestly not sure I believe that people would rather have an operation on a Saturday than a Thursday. And I'm sure that GPs would be much quieter on a Sunday morning than a Monday morning.
From experience my GP's surgery has started doing appointments from 6:30am for people who work and also offers appointment 5pm to 8pm three evenings a week. Furthermore they are open Saturday mornings... As somebody who often has to travel for work at short notice this has been great for me - also we can get our young child seen far more quickly and whilst the surgery is less busy at these times its worth noting that they only have one or two doctors and one nurse in at these times opposed to typically having around 10 doctors and 4 nurses... its a fantastic service and it has been great for me and my family - I live in an area with a large elderly and unemployed population and prior to this I was often quoted long periods to get an appointment now I get in same or next day.
 
Are junior doctors getting a pay cut?

By Laura O'Brien
February 09, 2016


As the situation currently stands, pay is not going to be ‘cut’ in the sense that most junior doctors will either be paid more than they were this autumn, or the same amount, for at least three years. That’s due to “pay protection” measures that were introduced to the contract in November. But some might feel worse off, for instance if their autumn pay happened to be lower than usual.

And some doctors would be paid less under the new contract than they would otherwise have been, given increases in responsibility or weekend shifts they might take on.

Key details of the contract, including how it pays for out of hours work, have changed since the dispute started to make headlines last summer. The proposed “scenarios” that were put forward for negotiation back then—before pay protection was introduced—would have meant pay cuts for some junior doctors, although their architects have said that the scenarios were intended to be a starting point for negotiations rather than the finished product.

The government wants junior doctors’ Saturday daytime hours to be paid at the basic rate

The government wants to change the way doctors are paid for weekend shifts, among other things. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has argued that this will help the NHS move towards being a ‘seven day service’, saying that hospitals currently don’t have the incentive to roster as many doctors as they need at the weekend due to “excessive overtime rates”.

The exact details of the proposals have shifted over the course of negotiations. But generally we’re talking about a rise in hourly pay for standard hours and a rise in the boosted pay rates doctors get for night or certain weekend shifts. At the same time, fewer hours would be paid at those boosted rates.

Particularly contentious are changes to pay for Saturday daytime hours. They would be paid at the same rate as weekday hours, though later proposals mean some extra payment for those who regularly work Saturdays.

Proposals put up for discussion in July would have meant a pay cut for some doctors

Back in July 2015 the body tasked with reviewing proposed contracts said it supported two pay “scenarios” to be used “as the basis for further discussion/negotiation between the parties”.

The pay structures were those submitted to it by NHS Employers, another body which supports the new contract. NHS Employers said the structures would result in pay cuts for doctors who tended to work nights or weekends:

“Unsurprisingly, as a consequence of increasing basic pay, those specialties who work very few additional rostered hours benefit on the whole from an increase in basic pay. Some specialties where out-of-hours working is high, but overall weekly hours are less than elsewhere, see total earnings that are lower than under the current system.”

So all sides agreed the proposals up for discussion at the time would have resulted in a pay cut for some junior doctors.

In September a senior figure from NHS Employers reportedly told journalists at HSJ (£) that the proposals were “not ideal” and that they were always intended to be a “starting position” for the negotiations.

Later versions of the contract introduced “pay protection” for three years

November’s proposals contained a new “payment protection” mechanism to help address concerns about falling pay.

Some junior doctors would have a minimum ‘floor' of pay based on their pay as of this October, and this will be in place until July 2019. If the new contract reduces their earnings to below the floor then there'll be a top-up to bring it back up to that level.

The floor wouldn’t rise along with inflation, so doctors could see a real terms pay cut under the system. Some will also be worse off if their salary in the autumn of last year was lower than what’s ‘usual’ for them—for instance if they happened to be working a lower-than-usual number of night shifts at the time.

And some might also be paid less under the new contract than they would otherwise have been, and in that sense would be worse off.

Imagine a hypothetical junior doctor who mostly works on weekdays at the moment, but who ends up doing much more Saturday work by 2018. Under the current contract she would get a pay rise for taking on those Saturday hours. Under the new government’s proposals her pay might not rise by as much as it would have.

Her pay might rise as she gets more experience and moves up to higher pay points. At the very least it would remain at October’s level. But it wouldn’t rise as quickly as under the current contract.

NHS Employers says it can’t guarantee that no one will have a pay cut at the end of the three years, but points out there’s no such guarantee at the moment either.

It says as long as junior doctors progress through training at a typical rate and don’t significantly reduce their hours, they should not see a reduction in overall pay. It says the exception is a small number of doctors who are currently working unsafe hours and will have these reduced by the new contract, and so would see reduced pay.

There’s also the matter of pension contributions—it’s been reported (£) that the government predicts the rise in basic pay will mean the doctors affected will have to pay £250-300 more per year.

Other doctors—those already in ‘higher' training or in posts that lead automatically to such training—will continue to be paid according to the current system rather than the new contract up until 2019.

https://fullfact.org/health/are-junior-doctors-getting-pay-cut/

Should you hear either the Government or BMA talking in terms of absolutes, it's time to reach for the salt i suspect.


More taxes! All the taxes :)

Lifestyle improvements can only go so far, and such politics will naturally take time to propagate, so yes there shall need to be more money.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure there must be more too it than weekend hours rate.

In my opinion though if we are moving to a 24/7 NHS then hourly rate should be the same for those 7 days as it will be the norm to work it.

I don't get any extra for working Sat/Sun.
 
Manipulating the definition of unsocial hours has been going on for a long time in the private sector. Before I became management I was a Sainsburys warehouseman for 6 months whilst waiting for my train scheme to start. My shift was 0200-1000, the shift was deliberately timed because the Sainsbury definition of unsociable hours was any shift that started between 2200 & 0159, so all I got paid was my flat hourly rate.
 
I'm sure there must be more too it than weekend hours rate.

In my opinion though if we are moving to a 24/7 NHS then hourly rate should be the same for those 7 days as it will be the norm to work it.

I don't get any extra for working Sat/Sun.

Just because you're being fecked over doesn't mean the people who may be required to save your life should.
 
Manipulating the definition of unsocial hours has been going on for a long time in the private sector. Before I became management I was a Sainsburys warehouseman for 6 months whilst waiting for my train scheme to start. My shift was 0200-1000, the shift was deliberately timed because the Sainsbury definition of unsociable hours was any shift that started between 2200 & 0159, so all I got paid was my flat hourly rate.

Railway rates have been unbelievably complicated, having been incessantly tweaked over a hundred years of union negotiations. The better railway companies have consolidated most of it into basic pay now though, so attracting a higher quality of staff. Those staff who worked a lot of overtime haven't gained, but the others certainly have, and for a lot of grades it's hugely improved their pension too.
 
I'm sure there must be more too it than weekend hours rate.

In my opinion though if we are moving to a 24/7 NHS then hourly rate should be the same for those 7 days as it will be the norm to work it.

I don't get any extra for working Sat/Sun.
There will be more to it than that. A lot of these negotiations will have knock on effects to other parts of their work and the doctors will be taking those into account. Hunt couldn't give a toss because he won't understand the finer points and he most probably thinks the main part of the deal will work well from his point of view.

As for "out of hours" work...I believe that anyone working outside what is classed as normal working hours should be paid extra. That includes everyone. Working 24/7 is not the norm in our society and I would never want it to be. Family life and regular downtime together is important for society.
 
There will be more to it than that. A lot of these negotiations will have knock on effects to other parts of their work and the doctors will be taking those into account. Hunt couldn't give a toss because he won't understand the finer points and he most probably thinks the main part of the deal will work well from his point of view.

As for "out of hours" work...I believe that anyone working outside what is classed as normal working hours should be paid extra. That includes everyone. Working 24/7 is not the norm in our society and I would never want it to be. Family life and regular downtime together is important for society.

I agree. Those working unsociable hours should get extra in their wage. Saturday and Sunday daytime though are not unsociable for a 24/7 service in my opinion.
 
I'm curious, do you know what @TheReligion actually does for a living?

No idea but I don't really see how it matters. Just because one profession is getting screwed doesn't mean another should. Guessing police from what he said.
 
Why would this be the case if the strike is about patient safety (as the junior doctors assure us)? Could it be that it's not about patient safety at all, but about pay and conditions? How would junior doctors moving abroad impact on patient safety in England?

The strike and the issues with the contract are multi-factorial, which is unsurprising considering it is a complicated issue. Patient safety is a concern, despite your patronising tone. It can already be dangerous enough as there are not enough doctors. Spread those out further over seven days, make them work more dangerous hours and patient safety us further compromised.


But it is also about living conditions. Doctors aren't robots. It's not unreasonable to want to be able to have a life outside of the hospital. It's not unreasonable to want to see your family, to be able to attend weddings and other big occasions. It's not unreasonable to want your employer to be flexible enough to not rota you for on calls over your wedding even when you give them 8 months notice, which seems to happen suspiciously often. And when you impose a contract that will only increase the unsociable hours rota'd as normal hours, it's not exactly unreasonable that doctors may finally say that's enough and look for better alternatives for them and their families.
 
I think the Junior Doctors have to accept they won't just get everything they want from this new deal.

Everyone has had to make concessions in the public sector, I know better than most, and you won't beat down a government determined to cut continually.

The NHS should be 24/7 though. No doubt about it.

The junior doctors aren't going into this negotiation aiming to win anything. There is very little in this new contract that is better than the old. The negotiation has never been about improving on the old contract, to the levels of our colleagues in the South Pacific, North America etc. It has simply been about mitigating the impact of a pretty poor contract offer.

And doctors have made concessions in the past. Effective take home pay has fallen by I believe 10-17% iirc for the majority of doctors over the past 10 years, as have many of the previous benefits that doctors previously had. Which has all been taken on board without much complaint. The majority of doctors consider this a step too far though.

The NHS emergency services are already 24/7. There are doctors in the hospital for every second of every day of every year, night and day.

If we're talking about a 24/7 elective NHS service, then we're talking about something completely different. There are multiple issues to consider. Firstly, the support staff in the hospitals must also be 24/7. Adult social care is already slow enough during the 5 weekdays, especially having had their funding gutted by the tories over the past parliament. There is no point a patient being seen by the doctors and being treated for elective services if they cannot be discharged because they're not being seen by physios, OTs , asc, dieticians etc etc

Secondly, there are already not enough doctors for elective services over 5 days. This is not an exaggeration. There are not. So many on call slots are either filled at the last minute or not filled at all. So many times the wards are left looked after by a skeleton team. Spread these same people out over 7 days and not only will there logically be less people during the week, there will be less doctors full stop. Increase the number of doctors.

Finally, the demand from the public for elective 7 day services is not clear. Some GP services trialled a 7 day service.....only to find that people did not use the service. Turns out that people didn't want to spend their Saturdays and Sundays with the doctor. Surprising that isn't it?

So then, what exactly is this call for a 24/7 NHS? Considering the NHS (and especially the emergency services, despite abuse from members of the public, including Hunt) is already 24/7?
 
If they can't cope with the workload then they are in the wrong profession.

The way that junior doctors are trying to blackmail the country by threatening to move abroad is appalling and it isn't being met with the public revulsion that it merits. The BMA have clearly done a very good PR job on this because nobody seems to be be calling them out on their startling contradiction/hypocrisy. To play the 'we're doing it for the patients' card only to then threaten to abandon the NHS for more money/fewer hours abroad insults the intelligence.

Actually, the majority of us are not in the wrong profession. We are not robots. Doctors are hardly a group of people that people known for shirking hard work. However I assure you that you do not want to be treated for a serious problem by me or any of my colleagues if we are tired. You also will not want s tired surgeon performing an operation.

It's not a threat. It's an ongoing reality. 23% of junior doctors (itself a ridiculous term that covers every single doctor from a fresh faced doctor out of uni to a doctor just months away from being a consultant) after their second year in 2009 were not applying for specialty training in 2009. That number is now almost 50% I believe. Training posts are going unfilled. Locum posts, nowhere near as necessary 10-15 years ago, are now a vital part of the NHS, as the government plays politics with the health of the population and the number of substantive doctors is not enough.

Now, you can think that doctors are right in ultimately putting their families as their first priority. Or you can think that they are unscrupulous , selfish bastards. Ultimately, they are human. Ultimately, especially as the government insist on opening up the NHS to the private sector and increasingly introduce market forces into the equation, doctors will move with the market. Quite why this seems to disgust the government and its right wing supporters, often such fervent fans of the free market, is beyond me.

As I've explained above, the dispute is multi factorial. The fact that most doctors are disgusted with the ongoing privatisation of the NHS,as well as its underfunding by the tories as well as being worried about the impact this contract will have on patients does not mean that ultimately, they will not look to their and their family's life for the long term if the situation here continues.
 
Aren't most Junior doctors on year long placements that rotate? (I think something like 75%) in which case its going to be pretty easy to get most of these onto new contracts as the next contract offered is on the new terms - sign it or leave are the options (same with new graduates) - of course some will go into other sectors (pharma etc) some will go abroad, some will leave medicine but I think the vast majority will sign the new deal - and my understanding is that the new deal is still probably going to be good enough to bring in doctors from around the world to fill any shortfall from those leaving.
So within a couple of years you probably have 80-90% of junior doctors signed up to the new deal and of course when (if) they get promoted and become consultants etc then the T&C already exists ref 24/7 so I suspect it will be easier for trusts to keep that in there.
Switching existing consultants will of course be much more difficult and perhaps it will be a 10-15 year process whilst Junior doctors on the new contract come through to achieve that.
Don't see the government backing down - Don't see the doctors striking and removing emergency care cover so as I say I can see it being stuck out and soon enough most Junior Doctors will have signed up or have gone.

There is already a shortfall of doctors which is not filled by foreign graduates and the view that international graduates are queuing up to work here is about 5-10 years out of date. My foreign colleagues are some of the most upset about the contract and some of the first to be making plans to leave. After all, these are the people that have already made the big step of leaving their home country, their families to come to a different country. There is nothing holding them to the country.

There are already a huge number of doctors leaving the profession. I don't think people appreciate just how much of a crisis we are in. We are already below the OECD average for doctors per 100,000 population.

Edit:

11059373_10153625155387488_7520993357644366231_n.jpg


I think a lot more doctors will leave than you think (I know one who's left to become a barber and is the happiest he's ever been in his life. Another is a rabbi now and she is likewise incredibly happy. They don't all just leave the country to other medical jobs) and I also think you are most likely mistaken if you think the next steps available (removing emergency care cover and mass resignations as happened in Australia and NZ) are not still in consideration.
 
Last edited:
The 90 hour work weeks are an extreme example and I would be fairly confident in saying that no doctor is performing surgery at the end of a 90 hour week.

I wouldn't be quite so confident with that in the slightest. It does happen. And surgery is not the only dangerous thing that can happen if somebody is tired.

And for now, I'll stop spamming the thread!
 
I wouldn't be quite so confident with that in the slightest. It does happen. And surgery is not the only dangerous thing that can happen if somebody is tired.

You are not the first to have made this point, one which IMO must cast doubt upon the sincerity of the 'patient safety' argument, at least so far as the BMA is concerned. Why have they not kicked up a fuss sooner, when the cause would have been solely the quality of care (as opposed to pay)? Where were these people following the relations at Mid Staffs, or the scandals which have afflicted maternity centres across the NHS?
 
You are not the first to have made this point, one which IMO must cast doubt upon the sincerity of the 'patient safety' argument, at least so far as the BMA is concerned. Why have they not kicked up a fuss sooner, when the cause would have been solely the quality of care (as opposed to pay)? Where were these people following the relations at Mid Staffs, or the scandals which have afflicted maternity centres across the NHS?
The BMA does studies on these things and has highlighted problems it's aware of, but we don't really pay attention most of the time. They're always asking for the resources to make sure these things don't happen.
 
You are not the first to have made this point, one which IMO must cast doubt upon the sincerity of the 'patient safety' argument, at least so far as the BMA is concerned. Why have they not kicked up a fuss sooner, when the cause would have been solely the quality of care (as opposed to pay)? Where were these people following the relations at Mid Staffs, or the scandals which have afflicted maternity centres across the NHS?

As Silva has pointed out, the bma regularly does mention this stuff. It regularly updates the doh of the problems that junior doctors are facing the knock on effect this has had on patients. They have pushed hard for more doctors and more funding. They were the ones who pushed the government hard over multiple contract negotiations to ensure the 'good old days' when doctors used to work 100+ hour weeks, or when the on call would start on a Friday morning and you wouldn't leave the hospital till a Monday morning, which had appalling effects on patient safety, would be no more.

They have raised concerns about the structure of the training and about the impact of continued privatisation and underfunding on the state of the health care service.

With all due respect, I'm not sure you or the media are usually paying enough attention on low level talks between the bma and governments which are completely unrelated to anything newsworthy such as mid staffs to pick up on stuff like this.

Mid staffs was in large part a nursing issue, in the sense that there weren't enough nursing staff to safely look after patients. After that, they enacted a series of rules across the NHS, to ensure a minimum level of nursing for each ward based on number of patients, with consequences if this was not the case. Hunt has had this downgraded to simply a guideline, with no explanation why, while simultaneously ensuring that funding is inadequate. Why has he done that? Why are nursing bursaries, vital to ensuring people who want to be nurses can do so, disappearing?

What I find both funny and sad is that people who have been in the negotiations have outlined the government's desire to 'teach doctors a lesson and put them in their place'. They see this as a miners moment.

How's the mining industry doing jn the UK now? I wonder if that's what they want for the NHS?
 
Leaked report reveals scale of crisis in England's mental health services
Damning confidential report reveals suicides are rising and 75% of those needing help are not receiving it

A leaked report by a government taskforce has painted a devastating picture of England’s mental health services, revealing that the number of people killing themselves is soaring, that three-quarters of those with psychiatric conditions are not being helped, and that sick children are being sent “almost anywhere in the country” for treatment.

Details of the damning assessment have come to light just as the prime minister is planning to herald a transformation of mental health services.

The report, due to be published on Monday to coincide with an announcement by the prime minister on funding and new initiatives, lays bare a system that is routinely failing people from every walk of life.


While the prime minister is expected to trumpet his focus on mental health – six years after he pledged to put mental wellbeing at the centre of his government – his own taskforce condemns years ofunderinvestment and lays a significant portion of the blame on the current administration.

The postcode lottery of new mothers' mental health services

The study, overseen by Paul Farmer, chief executive of the mental health charity Mind, makes clear that the situation is dire despite promises of reform. “Many people struggle to get the right help at the right time, and evidence-based care is underfunded,” the draft report says. “The human cost is unacceptable and the financial cost is unaffordable.”

The taskforce’s study, A Five Year Forward View for Mental Health, publication of which was delayed for months by ministers, adds that controversial changes introduced in 2012 to the health service may even have made things worse by complicating the way treatment is delivered. It reveals:

• Suicide in England is now rising “following many years of decline”, with 4,477 people killing themselves in an average year.

• There has been a 10% increase in the number of people sectioned under the Mental Health Act over the past year, suggesting the needs of the sick are not being met early enough.

• In some parts of the country, more than 10% of children seeking help are having appointments with specialists cancelled as a result of staff shortages, yet one in 10 children and young people have a diagnosable mental health problem.

• A quarter of people with severe mental health problems need more support than is currently on offer and many are at serious risk of self-neglect.

• Despite the known impact of untreated postnatal mental health problems, less than 15% of areas provide effective services for women and 40% provide no service at all. One in five women develop a mental health problem during the perinatal period.

• Figures from 2013-14 show that the average waiting time for a child seeking a routine appointment with a mental health practitioner was 21 weeks, up from 15 weeks the year before.

• The average maximum wait for a community mental health team appointment is 30 weeks and mental health wards are far busier than guidelines allow.

The report says ministers need to find an extra £1.2bn a year for mental health services by 2020. One in four adults experience at least one diagnosable mental health problem in any given year.

In January, the prime minister announced that £290m extra would be spent up to 2020 on mental health, in particular for psychological problems related to childbirth.

It has yet to be seen if the government will fulfil all the demands made by the taskforce or ring-fence further cash announcements.In December, the Observer revealed that because of a lack of out-of-hours care, the number of children arriving at A&E departments with psychiatric conditions had risen to nearly 20,000 a year in 2014-15 – more than double the number four years ago.

The taskforce further suggests that an investment of £10m a year in services for those who are suicidal would save the lives of 400 people a year.

It also concludes that the physical needs of those with mental health issues are also ignored. It suggests a 15% reduction in smoking should be achieved by 2020 by offering targeted support for smokers and ensuring all mental health inpatient units are smoke-free by 2018.

And there should be investment in training for teachers and those involved in professional childcare to ensure that mental health problems are picked up early.

That was the NHS: stories of hope, kindness and the human spirit

A warning about the level of service given to black African and Caribbean men is also made in the report. It says that people in this group are on average detained five times longer in secure care than other groups and more targeted care is required.

An NHS England spokesman said the leaked document was not a final version of the report.

More stellar work from the government on the NHS and the protection of the most vulnerable in society.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...doctor-who-conducted-study-says-a6872281.html

So, Hunt's misrepresenting data to suit the government's agenda.

This government has got fibbing off to a fine art.

What a surprise! It has also led to some patients presenting to our hospital on Monday, allowing themselves to become more unwell, because they either believed that there were no doctors at all on the weekends or that it was unsafe to attend the hospital on weekends. Excellent.

Along with the stroke weekend mortality and the obstetric mortality data he's disgustingly misrepresented, he is doing a lot of damage, intentionally so I feel.

His advice to parents to assess meningeal rashes by looking at pictures online was also outrageous, considering they can look very similar to completely benign and self resolving rashes.

Oh well, at least doctors and nurses are being taught a good lesson.
 
Does anyone else think that this Tory government almost wants the NHS to fail as a pretext for selling it off?
 
Does anyone else think that this Tory government almost wants the NHS to fail as a pretext for selling it off?
Nail on the head.Every day there is a drip drip demonizing of the NHS.And i feel the junior doctors would be playing into their hands with talks of going else where.
 
Nail on the head.Every day there is a drip drip demonizing of the NHS.And i feel the junior doctors would be playing into their hands with talks of going else where.

The demonisation and smearing of junior doctors really does bring to mind the Tory onslaught on workers in state-owned industries in the 80s. Now, as with then, the government knows that its easier to get away with treating a group unfairly if you manage to turn the electorate against them.
 
No.

Although given they see themselves as having no genuine opposition at the moment, they might see it as possible if they were so inclined.
 
Does anyone else think that this Tory government almost wants the NHS to fail as a pretext for selling it off?

I think they believe it would be a better service if their donors were able to extract (more of) a profit from it
 
Does anyone else think that this Tory government almost wants the NHS to fail as a pretext for selling it off?

No i do not (sounds like he same old scaremongering), but whether the motivations involved are pragmatism or politics will depend on the individual.

Healthcare provision does seem to drift from crisis to crisis however, and there are factions who seek to inflict their own brand of stupidity upon the nation: some within Labour circles see the solution as more NHS if you will, rarely considering its faults or the impracticalities of such; whereas others on the right would foster an increase in external interests beyond that which is wise, either borne out of disillusionment with the ideal or ideology.

The reality is that the Tories pledged an additional £8bn a year in NHS funding at the last election, compared with £2.5bn from Labour, and that neither figure adequately meets the financial demands of the health service. We're up to our necks in the proverbial, yet Jeremy Hunt and the brass at the BMA are more interested in squabbling.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone else think that this Tory government almost wants the NHS to fail as a pretext for selling it off?

No, and I'm very much anti-tory. They made a soundbite election promise that had scored well on the private opinion research without delving into it any deeper than that. Then they dumped the problem on someone ambitious yet not overly bright, and when it doesn't work they can blame it on him.
 
No, and I'm very much anti-tory. They made a soundbite election promise that had scored well on the private opinion research without delving into it any deeper than that. Then they dumped the problem on someone ambitious yet not overly bright, and when it doesn't work they can blame it on him.
Yup. Incompetence is always the likelier answer, ditto with Lansley's.
 
In regards to the Tories and the NHS, I think it's a mix of both. I don't think they're hellbent on completely destroying the NHS, but in a party who are generally ideologically committed to shrinking the state, or at least not expanding it and allowing people to "stand on their own two feet" (including the ones who that literally can't that they'd probably force to work), there's bound to be elements of the party who are probably quite keen on the idea of a privately run NHS because they think it might be more efficient.