At 08:03 AM 10/5/98 +0100, you wrote:
>Yeah, but we can't simultaneously sit on both sides of the fence - as usual!
>
>A (-:
True Andrew. But who's sitting on both sides? The debate is helpful
because the issues are becoming clearer.
Doctors should not comply with forms of NHS rationing that are not sanctioned
by parliament. We should work with the executive and aim to be co-operative
but we should not subvert our professional position to executive expediency.
I share the government's stated view that rationing by postcode must end.
I share the government's stated view that the public should be involved in
decision making in health care, particularly, in my view, regarding priorities
and rationing.
The decisions about rationing issues should be made on an issue by issue
basis,
sanctioned by parliament, but equally individual issue decisions should arise
from principles also sanctioned by parliament.
If issues of safety or efficacy were the central relevant issues to Viagra or
Orlistat or Montelukast (GP prescribing discouraged by BHA today) it could
only
be because of a serious failure of our medicine licencing system.
These drugs have been licenced because an expert, professional and
internationally
sanctioned body has come to the opinion that such medication should now be
available to the public through suitably qualified medical practitioners.
The apparent ease with which professionals can "forget" their need for
independence from the state is not new, but remains terrifying.
Is anyone really on the other side of this fence - and if so how do they
justify
it?
Julian
JB
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|