Hi

I speak as on of the last few for whom MRCGP was optional. I finished
Traineeship in 1985 and because the college was engaged in political
activity with which I had no truck, I refused to take my MRCGP. It has been
a slight problem. However I am now GP sneior partner, ex fund holder, ex PCG
chair, ex commissioning chair, medical student trainer, failed medical
student kick in arse practice (100% retake pass record- I evidently kick
hard enough), ex NHSIA consultant, ex Government advisor.

Why am I ex so much. I found that brown nosing, and arse licking left a
nasty taste in my mouth, and I am not a politicial. PC what is that, I am
sitting at one (oh the other sort of PC pestilential clap trap- you see why
I did not get on). I also found that what ever I did, made no difference
what so ever, and my work could be junked in the bink of a political eye
(evidently needs a sharp stick poking in it). I gave up, and now I treat
patient (my God that is what I was trained for), I teach medical students
hopefully without destroying their optimism and I have appled to train PRHO
in GP.

What is good about General Practice. It attracts the mavericks who recognise
bullshit as they will not brown nose their way to the top. Yes, men/women
need not apply. And that is what government fears. free thinking independent
intellectuals. Is that not what the Soviet block and China fear/ed as well.
The control culture of the current government cannot co-exist with such
people which is why it is trying to homogenise and destroy general practice
and fill it with yes men/women clones. This is what we should be fighting.


Richard J




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Bradley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: The RCGP


> >The development of vocational training for general practice was an
> >outstanding achievement and GP training, along with the standards set
> >for training practices, remains the RCGP's jewel in the crown.
>
>
> The RCGP has tried, on the whole to do good things, but some of its
eminent
> members have been equally concerned about empire building and their own
> self-promotion.
>
> Strangely enough, on the quotation above with which many or most would
> agree, there is virtually no evidence of benefit.
>
> GP training has become an empire in itself, no longer focused on the needs
> of intending GPs and their patients - and now it is to be extended.
Indeed
> recent discussions have highlighted how in the UK (and this has
> implications well beyond medicine) training is sneered at by
"educationalists".
>
> After 20+ years experience of suburban general practice what, if any
> hospital and community attachments seem as though they would have been
useful?
>
> Rheumatology, rehabilitation and orthopaedic medicine.
> Psychiatry - child & adolescent, adult and psychogeriatrics
> Dermatology including clinical photography and skin surgery
> Geriatric and palliative care medicine
> General and community paediatrics, perhaps including some OP ENT?
> OP Antenatal care, Gynaecology, FP and GU medicine.
> Radiology, particularly the acquisition of skill in diagnostic US.
>
> If all this was complemented by some IT skills, team and practice
> management, maybe some basic Occupational Health and medicine as it
happens
> in general practice, together with a little more support for regular
> sabbaticals there could be a real sea change.
>
> What was and IS delivered includes very little of this.  No wonder those
> coming off training schemes feel so unready to become principals.  Will
> David Haslam be the last chairman in any meaningful sense of a Royal
> College of General Practitioners (as opposed to primary care)?  In the
> papers Mayur Lakhani says not.  The next 3 years will tell.
>
> Julian