In article <[log in to unmask]>, Bradley Cheek
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>That is really sad. How many gp-uk patrons are still bma members. If so, why?
As the BMA and the GMSC are the only representative organisations for
the medical profession in general and general practitioners in
particular, resignation is akin to saying "I don't want a vote or a
voice in decisions affecting my profession". It clearly saves the
doctor money, but decisions and recommendations made by the GMSC/BMA
still affect all GPs.
The way in which GPs can influence LMCs, and the strong LMC/GMSC link,
as well as direct links with GMSC members, makes it pretty democratic,
and any failure in democracy is more related to lack of interest on
behalf of the average GP.
I agree that the GMSC might attract people who "enjoy committees", but
most seem motivated by a genuine desire to "improve the lot of GPs", and
we need those sorts of people to discuss and negotiate, and "represent
our views" with those who affect our future.
The "Out of hours" deal has not suited everyone, but I am convinced that
it has contributed to a significant improvement in the morale of GPs
that I speak to. There are problems still in rural areas, but the GMSC
and the Govt have indicated that they are still open to ideas and
suggestions.
We should work together, using compromise rather than confrontation, to
develop a strong system of General Practice within a primary care led
NHS.
--
Jon Rogers
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|