I read it on bbc news website.
Can't give you the exact reference, but there have been several
emollient interviews on radio to that effect.
Dr Martin Goldman
Senior Medical Advisor
Forest Laboratories UK Ltd
tel +44 (0)1322 550550
direct line +44 (0)1322 429355
fax +44 (0)1322 555469
www.forestlabs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Hawking
Sent: 31 July 2007 21:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 'Non-story' in the Mail
In message
<[log in to unmask]>,
Martin Goldman <[log in to unmask]> writes
>The thing is that in previous years, vacancies had been filled, and new
>doctors knew well in advance where they were going.
>Under the new system, there are many vacancies unfilled (not through
>lack of applicants) and some juniors have to change their lives at a
few
>days notice.
>The official response is that locums will be employed to ensure no
>hazard to continuity of patient care.
Do you have a source for this?
How many suitable locums (in junior doctor grades) are there, and how
easy are they to locate and employ at very short notice?
>
>This is a part of a grand plan to demonstrate that doctors and their
>careers are not needed by the health service, and the health service is
>doing them a favour by employing them when cheaper alternatives would
do
Bit like the problems in General Practice.
The "new contracts" (should we start numbering them?) in 1966 and 2003
were driven by the same thing - a situation where the previous funding
situations were unable to deliver the government agenda. In 1966, this
introduced funding for premises and staff (yes, truly, there had been
*no* funding for these before then since the NHS started in 1948..) and
in 2003, crucially, it abolished the Red Book - where the total funding
for general practice depended on the number of GP principals - and
payments for "over performance" were clawed back the following year....
An ideal situation for the Treasury - no possibility of any long-term
adverse effects on public expenditure - but disastrous as far as funding
general practice and recruiting new partners went: losing a partner
drastically decreased income while increasing expenses and workload: no
wonder new GPs saw the advantages of becoming locums: limited hours, no
additional responsibilities and no need to cover partners in times of
crisis.
Many years ago, one of the papers - I think the Guardian - commissioned
a legal report on what, for a Government, constituted "the foreseeable
future": the opinion was "three years or until the next general election
- whichever is the sooner".
I'd suggest that, as far as the NHS goes, it should have been "until the
appointment of the next Secretary of State for Health".
*Even* this government - and opposition - proclaim their belief in
education and training.
Do their actions suggest that this commitment does not include life long
professional development? Or should we all be happy to accept that , as
there are no educational or experience requirements for becoming a
politician - or even Prime Minister - apart from an ability to
please/manipulate the party machine - it is equally acceptable that our
future specialists - in General Practice as well as other specialities
should, by political design, be equally unqualified?
I would prefer the mechanic who treats my car to have had the training
and qualifications to lead me to believe he/she is capable of doing so.
The same applies to doctors.
MaryH
>
>Dr Martin Goldman
>Senior Medical Advisor
>Forest Laboratories UK Ltd
>tel +44 (0)1322 550550
>direct line +44 (0)1322 429355
>fax +44 (0)1322 555469
>www.forestlabs.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Russell Brown
>Sent: 31 July 2007 09:27
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: 'Non-story' in the Mail
>
>(Slightly OT)
>
>Do you know, I think that's the first time I've seen Adrain swear...
>
>He's not wrong though.
>On 31/07/07, Adrian Midgley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Paul Bromley wrote:
>> I see that the Mail has headlines about the junior doctor changeover
>> tomorrow. Don't they realise that this has always been goin on?
>>
>>
>It is much more fucked up than usual this year.
>
>--
>A
>
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _
>
>This email and each of any attachments transmitted with it is
>confidential, is the property of Forest Laboratories UK Ltd ("Forest"),
>and is intended for the addressee or entity named above. If you are not
>the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately and then
>delete the e-mail from your system.
>The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message
>is strictly forbidden and may be illegal.
>Whilst Forest takes reasonable precautions to ensure that this email
>and any attachment have been checked for viruses, including the use of
>antivirus software, it accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage
>resulting directly or indirectly from this e-mail or any attachment.
>Forest may monitor and record (including name and address details)
>email messages sent to and from this address for the purpose of
>maintaining system quality and detecting unauthorised use. Any views
>expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
>where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the
>views of Forest.
>Forest Laboratories UK Ltd. Bourne Road, Bexley, Kent, England. Tel:
>+44(0) 1322 550550 Company Registration No 532832
--
Mary Hawking
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
This email and each of any attachments transmitted with it is confidential, is the property of Forest Laboratories UK Ltd ("Forest"), and is intended for the addressee or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately and then delete the e-mail from your system.
The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden and may be illegal.
Whilst Forest takes reasonable precautions to ensure that this email and any attachment have been checked for viruses, including the use of antivirus software, it accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from this e-mail or any attachment.
Forest may monitor and record (including name and address details) email messages sent to and from this address for the purpose of maintaining system quality and detecting unauthorised use. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the views of Forest.
Forest Laboratories UK Ltd. Bourne Road, Bexley, Kent, England. Tel: +44(0) 1322 550550 Company Registration No 532832
|