As usual this debate has polarised into two sides, which are gainsaying each
other's arguments. Is this a characteristic of general practice? It always
seems to happen.
In 1989 I was sat on a Medeconomics editorial board meeting, and was roundly
harangued by this bloke (a well known GP) who accused me of cowardice for
not following him and resigning immediately and taking all sorts of other
actions that in retrospect make Ahmad look like like a lily-livered
moderate. I told him then that there was no way I was going to make a fool
of myself because the profession at large couldn't really be arsed to do
anything about the changes, and I didn't want to find myself in a minority
of one (or two, if he resigned as well.)
Needless to say, he didn't resign, although I remember one or two who did
take his advice and had to crawl quietly back when the revolution failed to
happen. Three years later, he was featured in a freebie opening a
fundholding gin palace paid for with some frightening amount of GPFH
savings. My how time heals.
Pardon my scepticism about the radical wing of GP-UK, everyone, but I think
Mark may well be expressing the views that will eventually prevail. I don't
think PCGs will do anything radical, they are too underpowered. As far as
most GPs are concerned, it will just be business as usual. In the scheme of
things we would be much better making a stand over the Review Body's likely
recommendations than bothering with this two bit stuff. I shall now bow out
of this debate!
A
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Mark Pasola
> Sent: 17 October 1998 10:55
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: What happens if we don't co-operate with PCGs?
>
>
> There's lots of talk about non-co-operation due to the apparently derisory
> levels of reimbursement for board members. There is no mention at all you
> notice of payment to co-opted GPs not on the board.
>
> I'm as unimpressed with all this (not least the whole concept of PCGs) as
> the majority, but I'm worried about the consequences of non-co-operation.
>
> There is too much political capital tied up in the success of PCGs for
> politicians to allow them to fail. If GPs withdraw co-operation then the
> spin doctors will be set to work, destroying our public
> reputation, and the
> PCG board will be redefined in our absence.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|