In article <[log in to unmask]>, Ahmad Risk
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>I suppose what I really wanted to say is that 'we' are all colluding
>by accepting, or arguing to accept, arrangements that have been
>shown to be a) corrupt, and b) not in the best interest of GPs.
or c) the best interest of patients even? :-)
>My problem is that the establishment isn't listening. This, despite
>imminent advice from people like you.
Maybe there's a very long latent period - or it's like turning a fully
laden oil tanker
>I know you personally. I do not think you will follow the party line
>willingly. Yes, I would add my voice to your 'not guilty' plea :-)
That's good to hear :-)
- but please bear in mind that there are quite a few others who are
really trying very hard to get the right messages heard. As you clearly
recognise this can at times be a somewhat thankless task. We already
risk being viewed at times as 'agents provocateur' by the IMG. We
really could do without also being wrongly tarred as 'colluders' by our
colleagues.
>
>> Trouble is that IMG isn't good at listening to people within and
snip
>So who do they actually listen to?
People who are very persistent, are well networked and perhaps
economical in their use of public statements?
>The reason I am leaving the LURG is my perception that most of the
>stuff discussed there really hangs on what is happening nationally.
>A sense of anger overcomes me to feel that local solutions seem to
>depend on national ones. A kind of "Catch 22" really.
Hence my original expression of sorrow. A LURG should Represent Local
Users. Health care professionals are Users but not adequately
represented. I sympathise with your comment about National vs Local
above. It would therefore seem that three out of four of the words in
the name 'LURG' are inaccurate.
--
John Williams
Email: [log in to unmask]
Fax: 01483 440928
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|