Fascinating how the language used has changed so quickly. Laurence Buckman's 'letter' emailed by the BMA to those on its mailing list today refers to Option A and Option B. Earlier this week at my LMC's roadshow, the terminology used (more accurately) was Imposition A and Imposition B since neither is particularly an option except in muggers' terms i.e. "Give me your money or I'll knife you". Laurence wants to help us so he particularly emphasises that he doesn't want us to abstain as he clearly wants us to choose between the 'options' as he chooses to call them now and to help further he has even defined the issue for us as a choice of which option is "less worse for your practice, your patients, and the future of general practice". This might have the convenient effect, if followed, of GPs reaching the same conclusion as the GPC, since most would prefer to hand over the money than suffer the knife, but there's a clear overtone to this that there's no
chance of anyone being around to offer any assistance in your ordeal with the mugger so don't bother considering any outcome other than handing over your money or being stabbed. Some of us might have thought we were paying contributions to a form of 'bodyguard service' that might try to protect us from the muggers but it appears the limit of that service is to simply advise us to consider whether it is more detrimental to our wellbeing to hand over the dosh or be stabbed. Perhaps many will tempted to consider how worthwhile it is to continue contributing for receipt of such advice? My view, like Adrian's, is that we have a variety of ways we can choose to devote our time and receive consequent financial reward, not only the two impositions brought forward by government and I would have expected a 'bodyguard' worth paying for to have shown more initiative and resilience in a similar fashion. There has been an almighty and sudden shift in the language and
attitude coming from the GPC/BMA. A short time ago it was almost daily campaign emails, posters and handouts, suddenly its capitulation. Just who's future do they fear to be at stake most here, GPs or the negotiators?
----- Original Message ----
From: Fay Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February, 2008 9:47:38 PM
Subject: Re: extended hours: shift work not allowed?
Our negotiators have formed the view that Option A is less damaging than
Option B.They have formulated a set of questions that compels you to
vote for either Option A or Option B. Whether this is playing into the
hands of the government or a piece of devilishly cunning double bluff
remains to be seen.
Fay
|