Okay, so, technically it may be correct, that there’s a causal relationship between access to medical services, the demand on those services and the availability of those providing the services. If supply goes down due to a strike, then yes, services are being interrupted to those who need them, and thus the situation is “harming” patients… By some definition of “harm”.
However, this bullshit headline implies that doctors are actively and intentionally harming patients and they are exclusively responsible for that, which is entirely untrue.
It’s the government’s responsibility to ensure that the healthcare system operates effectively and efficiently, and if they’re pushing people to the point where they feel that they need to execute a strike in order to be heard, that’s a significant sign of poor management at best, IMO.
The headline tries to shift the concept of responsibility for patients being “harmed” from the lack of doctors due to the strike… From the government, who is actually at fault, to the doctors, who are simply trying to get a fair deal.
The government for not negotiating to get this nonsense sorted out quicker, and the doctors for choosing to withdraw their labour. The doctors know full well that this will harm patients, but they chose to do it anyway. So let’s not pretend this is a one-sided thing.
I am not truly sure I could blame either side of that.
The government were - and are - people who explicitly campaign with/for this shit. You could be angry if they didn’t completely trash the country, its finances, and its health system to enrich themselves, after all that’s their very agenda. Voters for them - much as I cannot understand why anybody would vote that way - would rightfully be angry if they did stuff like care for anybody but themselvs. The voters would have been lied to.
At the same time, the doctors can only do so much to protest while also ensuring patients get as much care as possible. I talk to a doctor frequently. She was recently diagnosed with advanced-stage breast cancer while around the same time her mum was also diagnosed with cancer. You know what she did? Go to work. And do long hours. More than she is paid for. Becaue there’s no alternative. No one else can see to the patients. She would rather need to recuperate herself and care more for her mum, but there’s just no option. That’s so fucked up I lack words, and it also means the UK has a natural doctors problem: The ones that don’t move away because fuck, why wouldn’t you?!, they die off faster rather than slower or at least quit the field to protect their own health.
At some point, doctors end up having to force the issue. If they don’t do it, things never improve.
Okay, so, technically it may be correct, that there’s a causal relationship between access to medical services, the demand on those services and the availability of those providing the services. If supply goes down due to a strike, then yes, services are being interrupted to those who need them, and thus the situation is “harming” patients… By some definition of “harm”.
However, this bullshit headline implies that doctors are actively and intentionally harming patients and they are exclusively responsible for that, which is entirely untrue.
It’s the government’s responsibility to ensure that the healthcare system operates effectively and efficiently, and if they’re pushing people to the point where they feel that they need to execute a strike in order to be heard, that’s a significant sign of poor management at best, IMO.
The headline tries to shift the concept of responsibility for patients being “harmed” from the lack of doctors due to the strike… From the government, who is actually at fault, to the doctors, who are simply trying to get a fair deal.
But it’s both sides that are to blame.
The government for not negotiating to get this nonsense sorted out quicker, and the doctors for choosing to withdraw their labour. The doctors know full well that this will harm patients, but they chose to do it anyway. So let’s not pretend this is a one-sided thing.
I am not truly sure I could blame either side of that.
The government were - and are - people who explicitly campaign with/for this shit. You could be angry if they didn’t completely trash the country, its finances, and its health system to enrich themselves, after all that’s their very agenda. Voters for them - much as I cannot understand why anybody would vote that way - would rightfully be angry if they did stuff like care for anybody but themselvs. The voters would have been lied to.
At the same time, the doctors can only do so much to protest while also ensuring patients get as much care as possible. I talk to a doctor frequently. She was recently diagnosed with advanced-stage breast cancer while around the same time her mum was also diagnosed with cancer. You know what she did? Go to work. And do long hours. More than she is paid for. Becaue there’s no alternative. No one else can see to the patients. She would rather need to recuperate herself and care more for her mum, but there’s just no option. That’s so fucked up I lack words, and it also means the UK has a natural doctors problem: The ones that don’t move away because fuck, why wouldn’t you?!, they die off faster rather than slower or at least quit the field to protect their own health.
At some point, doctors end up having to force the issue. If they don’t do it, things never improve.