endemic neuropathology, worse the BSE :
non-evidence-receptive brains of politicians
If you cannot fight them, join them. Become a politician.
Our minister of Health is a respected physician - researcher who chaired
the independent governamental EBM-board avant la lettre, The Dutch
Health Counsil. In matters of evidence-based health care policies we are
quite satisfied with her. I am not so confident that the next minister will
have a similar spine.
Once she slipped away when she declared in the Parliament that chronic
fatgue syndrome was a disease and therefore should be reimbursed.
Has been forgiven.
Nico van Duijn
Date sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:12:18 +0100
Priority: normal
Subject: Is it worth it?
From: "A.J.O'rourke" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask]
Send reply to: "A.J.O'rourke" <[log in to unmask]>
> Maybe I should not listen to R4 in the morning, but old habits die
> hard. In case this sounds pesonal, there is a hard message: "Why
> should health care professionals put time and effort into developing
> evidence-based practice, if those who really control the purse
> strings will manipulate the end product for political expediency?"
>
> Today's health stories
> 1. NHS ranked 18th in world health care (how? by what
> parmameters: best colour scheme in out patient waiting rooms?
> Reliability and validity of methods please).
>
> 2. NICE has decided agianst beta-interferon (Okay, I'm no expert on
> MS, but the evidence for widespread use seems shaky).
>
> Immediate knee-jerk response from Tory Health spokesman "We
> will review this decision when re-elected." (I admit that the first
> time I heard this I mis-heard it as "We will revoke this....") Presume
> he is unlikely to have sifted NICE's report and appraised its
> conclusion.
>
> So why on earth do we spend resources on things like NICE if the next
> administartion will simply "review" any decisions it makes? Surely
> there is absolutely no point in having such bodies if the powers that
> be cannot accept their findings impartially?
>
> I assume we are now dealing with those who believe that if the
> "evidence" is examined closely enough, it can be made to support ANY
> politically expedient policy (just as bigots can selectively extract
> passages form the Bible to support just about any bias).
>
> How can we achieve any progress in health care, as long as
> politicians simultaneously demand that anything the professions
> want to do has to be backed by "good qauality evidence" while
> reserving the right to say anything that may grub up a few votes for
> their party? Politicians control bigger budgets than PCT s ever will:
>
> shouldn't they be subject to more accountability and a bit of "
> professional re-validation" would do most MPs no harrm.
>
> We seem back in the game of political football: party A
> nationalises, so party B automatically privatises (having cooked a
> report to show this will save money and improve the service).
>
> Regards Alan O'Rourke
>
>
> Alan O'Rourke
> Information Officer
> Wisdom Centre for Network Learning
> http://www.wisdom.org.uk/
> Institute of General Practice
> Community Sciences Centre
> Northern General Hospital Sheffield S5 7AU
> Tel: 0114 271 5095 Fax: 0114 243 3762
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Dr.N.P. van Duijn, General Practitioner
Department of General Practice
Division Public Health
Academic Medical Centre
University of Amsterdam
Meibergdreef 15
1105 AZ Amsterdam
& Primary Health Care Centre 'de Haak'
Almere
the Netherlands
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|