Last month’s day of action by doctors attracted a lot of criticism from
the Tory press – no surprise there! Here is an article we have received
from a doctor putting their case and explaining what really happened.
Last month’s day of action by doctors attracted a lot of criticism from the Tory press – no surprise there! Here is an article we have received from a doctor putting their case and explaining what really happened.
In
the days leading up to the one day doctors’ ‘strike’ on the 21st June, the
vitriol was in the air. A number of mainstream papers, supposedly
representative of the wide swathe of public opinion in the UK, took pot shots
at the democratic rights of the BMA and the ‘audacity’ of the medical
profession.
From
the Daily Mail to the Independent, the rhetoric of coercion, guilt and blame could
be seen both before and after the one day industrial action. In a commentary
piece printed on 17th June, the Daily Mail made reference to ‘handsomely paid NHS doctors’ belonging to the ‘militant
British Medical Association’. In its usual hurry to
demonise a group, and create antipathy in the less than broad minds of its
readers, the paper did what it does best. The title of this commentary piece
was ‘Striking doctors will destroy public trust…
and it might never return’.
Perhaps not so surprising that a paper whose
former owner Viscount Rothermere had a cosy relationship with a certain German dictator
during the 1930s still has a habit of misdirecting public frustration against
minority groups often too small or too poor to fight back. (First they came for
the immigrants…)
More careful observers may have noted that the
apparently ‘militant’ BMA (I wish) is
hardly a regular when it comes to calling for industrial action. The last time
members of the BMA did anything similar was back in November 1975 when junior
doctors took action over the introduction of new contracts meaning they would
be doing an extortionate amount of overtime. Then, as now, the medical
profession did not abandon any of its patients. In 1975, during the strike junior
doctors worked a maximum of only 40 hours a week in addition to dealing with
any emergency cases. This time around, the story was similar.
Despite healthcare unions agreeing to the
implementation of a rise in pension contributions and an extension of the
retirement age from 60 to 65 back in 2008, only a few years later the Coalition
returned to cut further and deeper. Consistent with its attacks on public
sector workers across the board, they demanded the retirement age for NHS
workers rise from 65 to 68 before they be allowed to collect their full
pension. Additionally, under new plans doctors will pay an even larger amount
in pension contributions each month to receive a smaller sum on retirement. The
rise will see some doctors paying up to 14.5% of their pay
into the pension pot. Those early in their careers will be most affected.
The BMA spent many months engaged in
discussions with the government requesting they rethink their plans. During
this time, prior to any ballot, the BMA surveyed its members to gauge their views
about the pension changes and their willingness to take any kind of action should
negotiations fail. Once dialogue proved fruitless, ballot papers were sent to all
104,544 union members asking
the following two questions:
- a) Are you prepared to take part in industrial action short of a strike?
-
b)
Are you prepared to take part in a
strike?
Across the six different branches of medical
practitioners balloted, there was a turnout of 49.8%. Of the 12,060 junior
doctors who voted, 92.3% answered yes to question 1 and 81.92% to question 2. In
total, an average of 70% of doctors across the board voted for full strike action.
All BMA members were expressly told to attend
their place of work on the 21st June with strict instructions that
they treat all ill patients and deal with any emergency cases as they would any
other day. Some non-urgent tasks, such as routine clinics, were postponed. These
and other tasks may well have been postponed anyway if a doctor were ill or busy
dealing with emergencies. The largely symbolic industrial action also saw
doctors wearing armbands or holding placards outside a hospital during their
lunch hour.
A colleague of mine commented that she and
all her colleagues ensured patients were adequately cared for. The vast
majority of doctors I know would not good conscience allow any patients under
their care to suffer harm or neglect.
Contrary to how some ministers or media
outlets portrayed the situation, the NHS was not going to collapse nor were
patients going to suffer on the 21st June. It is probably quite
realistic to suggest that the action had less impact services than a weekend or
a bank holiday, when there are far fewer doctors working shifts compared to
Monday to Friday. I’m still looking out for articles that blame William and
Kate’s wedding and the Diamond Jubilee for crippling the NHS.
Andrew Lansley criticised the BMA calling the
action ‘pointless’, a term that could well be applied to a number of his
party’s own ideas. He added that ‘All the BMA is doing is
creating uncertainty, discomfort and difficulty for patients, most of whom
could only dream of getting a pensions like theirs’. Granted that doctors receive
better pensions than most public sectors workers but in line with his party’s
ideology, Lansley evokes the rhetoric of ‘race to the bottom’ and divide and
conquer. Many public sectors workers have paltry salaries and pensions, their
pay should be increased.
The attempts to strong arm doctors into
abandoning the strike plays on Lansley’s knowledge that doctors, like other healthcare
workers, would not wish to do anything to put their patients at risk. His
comments take irony to a new level as many doctors are fighting to defend the
NHS from the very forces that accuse them of damaging it. Lansley’s Health and
Social Care Act allows for the slow and steady carve up of the NHS in a manner
of ‘death by a thousand cuts’. The Secretary of State for Heath should really
have thought twice before accusing anyone of ‘creating
uncertainty, discomfort and difficulty for patients.’
The day of action was largely symbolic and
the ‘strike’ action did not fit the pattern of that normally undertaken by
unions such as the RMT or the PCS. Nevertheless, doctors not only made their
point but also stuck to their principles of putting the patient first in order
that no one requiring emergency care be made to suffer on account of a
situation brought on by ineptitude of the Coalition. The thought of putting
patients before profit is something that Mr Lansley and co might do well to
consider.
Dr Tomasz Pierscionek (Academic Clinical Fellow in
Psychiatry)
