On 03/18/98 11:52:08, "Adrian Elliot-Smith" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>With some imagination could we drop the payment
>arguments - Ahmad's coercion objections are more interesting
>(particularly in his local context)?
Thank you Adrian.
My arguments against PCGs has never been about who gets paid what
(although this is an interesting one in terms of who decides the quality
of the GP-Executive'?).
Nor have they been about whether PCGs are good or bad thing. I do not
want to enter into futile games about 'my model is better than yours'.
The debate is about what works for each *individual*.
My argument has always centred on the freedom to choose what works best
for me and my patients. The Manifesto doesn't even mention PCGs!
Of course, that *Fundamental Principle* has spawned a wider debate about
the 'State of the Profession'. I do not believe that the current
leadership is working in the best interests of doctors. Nor have they
done for a very long time. Not since Cameron as far as I know.
I welcome that debate very much. It now forms the foundation on which
the DFI is built. 'The State of the Profession' is an honourable and
worthy cause for *all* doctors wether they approve of PCGs or not.
Even the most ardent supporters of PCGs will always have a home in DFI
*if* they support the 'Fundamental Principles'. :-)
Do you see where I am coming from?
Ahmad
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Ahmad Risk
http://www.cybermedic.org
Chairman British Healthcare Internet Association <http://www.bhia.org>
Director Internet Healthcare Coalition - USA <http://www.ihc.net>
Home: +44 1273 724866/748198
Work: +44(1737)240022 Fax: +44 1737 244660
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|