The end of a Parliamentary session is always a slightly fraught time as the Government of the day seeks to wrap up proceedings on the Bills in progress. So late night sitting, fierce debates and short tempers are the order of the day. This year has been no exception.
An issue with which I have been concerned is the extent of the requirement to use competitive tendering in the NHS in the future. Two years ago when I chaired a Committee looking into the regulatory burdens preventing the growth of charities and voluntary groups and we produced its report, entitled “Unshackling Good Neighbours” we found that the attitude of commissioners had a significant impact on the growth prospects of the voluntary sector
Too often commissioners were seen to be too ready to fall back on the “tried and trusted” and insufficiently prepared to try the new approaches often espoused by Charities and voluntary groups. The barriers used to shut out calling for a large number of Groups to tender, making tender documents over lengthy and complex, making monitoring procedures over elaborate and changing those procedures mid contract.
Whatever one’s view of the NHS we all know it face very considerable challenges – not least demographic from the rising health care needs of an ageing population and technological from the new and expensive procedures which help extend our life expectancy.
New approaches will undoubtedly be needed if we are to meet these challenges – the “familiar” on its own will not be enough.
So I was very pleased that the new Regulations while quite properly placing what was best for the patient as the key determinant nevertheless focussed on the role of competition and innovation in future tendering.
Lord Hodgson has got the better of me with the subject of tendering but i am very wary indeed of any suggestion by state organisations of competitivity. They have got no need; they are very nearly a monopoly.
Taking one example of the practical application of that monopoly in practice and that is the whole paraphernalia of private medicine women’s breast augmentation added to the amputation/disfiguring/maiming that goes on in the NHS when a woman admits to having “onc” a “lump” rather than a “bump”.
So incensed by the tremendously successful private cosmetic services that the invented
“French” poor silicone story was blown out of all proportion to discourage any idea that the elegant kind of “Cosmetic Surgery”
could ever be obtained from the NHS. It CANNOT.
If the NHs says cosmetic it means “Disfiguring and maiming” pure and simple.
If the private sector says “Cosmetic” it means enhancing the elegance, proportion, beauty, health, of the female form.
Elegance is an important concept in Mathematics. It helps to solve problems. It should not be ignored, but where would we be if everybody who wanted breast augmentation and beautifying, were to be given it free on the NHS?
There are other theatre surgery procedures in the NHS to which the same considerations apply. I suffer from one, and it was Professional negligence and malpractice, done every day of the week, in the case of that particular surgeon, through a life time of such professional surgery.
It is the empire building of the professional surgeon which is so wrong, and is yet accepted as part of a “Health system”
as making progress and go ahead.
The price of pharmacy products to the private individual, who does not wish to be involved with the NHS “carers” for whatever reason, is prohibitive and the effect is to maintain the monopoly of the service.
——–
The Leeds Royal Infirmary consultant surgeon who requested a forensic examination of his work pon account of disparate figures compared with other hospitals had a conscience.
Many other counsultant surgeons should have
forensic examinations of their work, conscience or no conscience. A good many would be found lacking.
Whatever one’s view of the NHS we all know it face very considerable challenges – not least demographic
Nor any less flagrant corruption of hospital theatre surgery practices, particularly in the area of kidney transplant surgery, and “harvesting” of them from vehicle accident victims.
“Harvesting” human organs, the most perverse and evil use of the word. Robbing them by coercion in the NHS.
In the day to day world a man who “knived” another in such a way would get 10 years.
In the NHS? DOING GOOD WORK! FINE SURGEON!!
The polite way of saying it about a surgeon ,is “Professional negligence and malpractice”.
My way of saying it “AGGRAVATED GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM!” Maximum sentence? LIFE.
There is not just an unholy alliance between orthopeadic departmens and the Kidney Transplant one (Nephrology). It is the Devil’s alliance, and should be investigated far more intensively. As one Lord bishop commented in the Chamber. It is NOT for one moment a generous act to donate a kidney, if you are living. It is one of the meanest things you can do. It is a crime. The Sanctity of the person is essential, and yet ignored every time a kidney is removed from a
“dying” motor cyclist to “donate” or “give”
to a nephritis sufferer.
Quite apart from which the Donors are URGED to DIE, and persuaded to have supernumerary operations to help them to do so.
That is tantamount to murder on the operating table over a matter of days.
How often do you hear “There did not seem to be too much wrong with him!” (after a broken leg?
It is most convenient for the “donor” to die over several days since the recipient can be prpared and be waiting in the next ward to receive the “generous” gift.
It is certainly not a gift from the injured man or woman, but one from the surgeons who want to be seen as heroic and saving lives in a dramatic way.
“He broke his leg? Does he deserve to die!?”
“He has nephritis, chronic kidney disease. Does he deserve to live?”
Who is making the choices?
The NHS is a sink well, or a stink well, of similar throughly bad practices.