Junior Doctors' contract dispute- views from a junior doctor.

[The Stationmaster]

The JDs are not asking for a pay rise. It's that simple.

 

The BMAs concern is, and always has been, that the proposals mean that the same number of junior doctors would work more hours. That creates two issues:

1. The government expects the same number of junior doctors to do more work, which will lead to junior doctors working longer hours. Tired doctors make mistakes.
2. Junior doctors are being asked to work more for the same, or in rare cases less, pay.

#1 is the most important, and is a safety issue. Tired doctors kill. If you're happy with the idea of being admitted to hospital under the care of a junior doctor who may potentially be on the tail end of a 12+ hour shift then more power to you, but I'd personally prefer my medical professionals to be awake and alert.

 

#2 is also important, but simply because nobody would seriously be happy with that situation if it were them. It's also important to remember that while some people may be forced to swallow their pride and do it anyway, a medical doctor is one of the most highly trained professions in the world. They can, and are, voting with their feet and leaving the NHS & the UK.

 

Now whether or not the media have been lazy in reporting the dispute is a different matter; it's easy to just call it a "pay dispute" (particularly if your proprietor happens to be right leaning, perhaps, although I've seen similar laziness on the part of the BBC for example) but the BMA themselves have always been rather clear that it's about safety.

 

Er no - if you have the same number of Doctors they can't work more hours (especially in view of various restrictive clauses in the new contract).  What happens, if we are going to have even Doctor coverage on every day is that the hours they put in will be in different places, but only IF local circumstances require that situation.

 

According to various figures being bandied about the NHS is currently short of X,000 Doctors (of whatever grade or specialism I don't know) and this figure is not new although the detail might well have changed.  If shortage of Doctors is 'unsafe' then surely 'industrial action' would haves tarted a good while back if this is what it is about?  But it didn't.

 

Equally withdrawing your labour when you're a health service provider is hardly going to make anything safe - it in my view the ultimate hypocrisy to strike  on the grounds of 'safety' when by your very action you reduce the sort of 'safety' you are talking about - in plain English it's just daft and leaves a smoking hole in your own foot (but then I've never come across a strike in Britain which has done otherwise for those who took part).  There are far more effective forms of 'industrial action' than the blunt instrument f going on strike but oddly the presumably highly educated decision makers in the BMA seem intent on confrontation of the good old 1970s variety.

 

As far as pay is concerned the sole argument seems to be, now, over saturday enhancements - something which ceased to exist in most British employment years ago - if it ever existed at all ?  In my view it is a byzantine practice in any case as it costs more to administer - even what is proposed in the new contract falls well into that category.  And let's not overlook the fact that the basic pay rate at Junior level is being substantially increased - something which counts for far more than 'average overtime earnings' in many ways.

 

So - apart from some sort of political crusade by the BMA -  I still don't understand what this strike is about, apart from money; and that takes me right back to the 1970s.

 

Standing all of this aside the NHS itself is in drastic, and long overdue, need of major overhaul.  every change over the past few decades seems to have increased bureaucracy at the expense of frontline services, the frontline services are themselves dished out willy-nilly to anyone who enters a surgery or hospital door whether they contribute to the system or not, and the daft renaming of casualty units (referred to above) has undoubtedly added to the strain at that level.  The trouble is everybody is so wrapped up in various ideas of what the system should do and just how sacred it happens to be that when someone tries even small initiatives they cause trouble.   But there is a need for realism - the pot of money is not bottomless, even if we gave our entire tax take to the NHS it would still be short of money and resources and i doubt it would benefit the patients.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I would rather have a whole bunch of JDs in industrial conflict, trying to win their cause, and stay in position.....than the  alternative...which is, they all say 's@d it', and go and work elsewhere......ie, the 'vote' with their feet...

 That's where we fundamentally differ. I believe the honest course if you find working conditions intolerable is to move on to what you believe to be superior. 

 

This works in three ways:

The individuals taking this action find out whether or no the grass genuinely is greener elsewhere.

The employing organisation is potentially presented with undeniable evidence that its working conditions package is not acceptable.

The professional bodies and academic institutions will make changes to the recruitment, training and career expectation as required in response.

[Vanders]

Er no - if you have the same number of Doctors they can't work more hours (especially in view of various restrictive clauses in the new contract).  What happens, if we are going to have even Doctor coverage on every day is that the hours they put in will be in different places, but only IF local circumstances require that situation.

 

Of course you can. You increase the hours worked. Don't be fooled by the EUWTD either; the 48 hours is averaged out over 26 weeks, so you could easily have a doctor working an 80 hour week.

 

"Doctors won't work more hours" might be what Jeremy Hunt is saying but that isn't what the contract seems to say. If the JDs aren't expected to work any more hours than they currently do, why is Jeremy Hunt so reluctant to keep the clauses that restrict working time in the new contract?

 

According to various figures being bandied about the NHS is currently short of X,000 Doctors (of whatever grade or specialism I don't know) and this figure is not new although the detail might well have changed.  If shortage of Doctors is 'unsafe' then surely 'industrial action' would haves tarted a good while back if this is what it is about?  But it didn't.

 

Equally withdrawing your labour when you're a health service provider is hardly going to make anything safe - it in my view the ultimate hypocrisy to strike  on the grounds of 'safety' when by your very action you reduce the sort of 'safety' you are talking about - in plain English it's just daft and leaves a smoking hole in your own foot (but then I've never come across a strike in Britain which has done otherwise for those who took part).  There are far more effective forms of 'industrial action' than the blunt instrument f going on strike but oddly the presumably highly educated decision makers in the BMA seem intent on confrontation of the good old 1970s variety.

 

Well you kind of answered your first question with your own statement: striking is an option of last resort. The BMA have not taken this action lightly; they've been negotiating with the government for the past 3 years, and is of course the very first strike of its kind.

 

And I don't buy the line that "Striking creates harm!" That isn't what the hippocratic oath says, and the data available suggests that nobody has died as a result of the action. The BMA have resorted to a strike (which if you like, you can see as short term harm) to try to stop long term harm. Suggesting that JDs shouldn't strike because of some imagined harm it might cause is like suggesting that a doctor should be happy to burn to death attempting to save people from a burning building: doctors have a right to self preservation and self interest just as much as anybody else.

[Dave47549]

This would be the same statistics that say that no one dies due to no cover on a weekend. 

 

As for tax, it's lucky that some of us pay 40% as there'd be no NHS, Although I fail to understand why you'd think that I had offshore tax arrangements apart from being able to make a cheap soundbite shot.

 

 

 

 

You drove past while I was someone sitting in Bedford hospital yesterday afternoon.

 

'Cheap soundbite shot', says the Man bragging of his 40% tax status (actually, I've paid higher rate at one time, but I was working 80+ hour weeks to do so). I also didn't implicate that YOU PERSONALLY had offshore arrangements, but thanks for making the assumption.

 

Of course, being in hospital (I will assume you're referring to an NHS facility) yesterday, you shouldn't really be able to comment further, being dead through neglect obviously......

[chris p bacon]

'Cheap soundbite shot', says the Man bragging of his 40% tax status (actually, I've paid higher rate at one time, but I was working 80+ hour weeks to do so). I also didn't implicate that YOU PERSONALLY had offshore arrangements, but thanks for making the assumption.

 

Of course, being in hospital (I will assume you're referring to an NHS facility) yesterday, you shouldn't really be able to comment further, being dead through neglect obviously......

Sheesh,  what is it with some people.

 

If you quote a comment as you did, then make a cheap snide comment it is quite obvious you are making that comment in reference to the quoted comment.

 

Why else quote my comment !

 

And yes it was an NHS facility, I like to visit occasionally so I can see what service the poor and chavs in society have before I'm chauffered to a private facility.

[Dave47549]

Sheesh,  what is it with some people.

 

If you quote a comment as you did, then make a cheap snide comment it is quite obvious you are making that comment in reference to the quoted comment.

 

Why else quote my comment !

 

And yes it was an NHS facility, I like to visit occasionally so I can see what service the poor and chavs in society have before I'm chauffered to a private facility.

 

I'll leave the cheap snide comments to you if it's all the same. As a 40%er you're obviously more entitled than I am.

[chris p bacon]

I'll leave the cheap snide comments to you if it's all the same. As a 40%er you're obviously more entitled than I am.

Yet again you miss the point about tax and turn it into a comment about priviledge and entitlement. I will point out to you that you have contradicted yourself about being "snide" The dictionary definition of snide is  derogatory or mocking in an indirect way.   So you state that you're leaving the snide comments to me, but  then make one yourself about entitlement.  I've got a few shovels if you'd like to dig yourself a bigger hole.

 

My point is that there are a decreasing number of taxpayers in this country and yet the budget for the NHS rises. Where do you think the money comes from to pay for this ? I don't have a problem with paying tax but I do have a problem with it being poured into a black hole, The days of the NHS as a free entitlement are coming to an end and people have to understand this and stop treating the NHS as a sacred cow that must be worshipped.

[Dave47549]

I've got a few shovels if you'd like to dig yourself a bigger hole.

 

 

Oh yes, it's all my fault.

 

And yes it was an NHS facility, I like to visit occasionally so I can see what service the poor and chavs in society have before I'm chauffered to a private facility.

 

I take it your hole's bigger than mine?

[chris p bacon]

I take it your hole's bigger than mine?

That was sarcasm in relation to your comment.

 

I have a 1.5T digger if required 

[Torper]

The days of the NHS as a free entitlement are coming to an end and people have to understand this and stop treating the NHS as a sacred cow that must be worshipped.

 

I find that statement utterly depressing. A decent health service, free at the point of use without penalising anyone for being sick or injured, is an essential requisite of a civilised society.  IMO our NHS is sacred and it retention is absolutely vital.  Yes it is expensive, but paying for it is what tax is all about and if some people and organisations have to pay more tax to preserve it, so be it.  The government could also, of course, reconsider some if its spending priorities.  I have to say that the more I read about the NHS in England, the more thankful I am that I live in Scotland.

 

DT

[sp1]

I find that statement utterly depressing. A decent health service, free at the point of use without penalising anyone for being sick or injured, is an essential requisite of a civilised society. IMO our NHS is sacred and it retention is absolutely vital. Yes it is expensive, but paying for it is what tax is all about and if some people and organisations have to pay more tax to preserve it, so be it. The government could also, of course, reconsider some if its spending priorities. I have to say that the more I read about the NHS in England, the more thankful I am that I live in Scotland.

 

DT

A decent health service, free at point of use for those that have paid for it........