First Obligation of a Doctor
Posted , 6 users are following.
I am new on this forum. I hope my topic is appropriate.
I've just visited my GP earlier today and seen a new doctor there for the first time. While talking about taking tests for my condition, I asked the doctor if the test could include a couple of others that I have concen about since I am going for a blood test, The doctor then says the resources of the National Health is important and refused my request.
My question: Should a doctor be more concerned about the welfare of the National Health resources over that of the welfare of his patient ? I find it prettry worrying when doctors start to think of the resources of the NHS in the first palce over that of his patient. I would be very interested to know what others here think.
5 likes, 7 replies
archemedes richard_56
Posted
Primarily I believe that all doctors have a duty of care to their patients, but where it is known that the resources are simply not there, or hard-pressed to cope because of severe financial restraints placed upon the NHS, then although I am certain it goes very much against the grain, a doctor may well have to refuse certain requests if they are not deemed strictly necessary.
This is far from a party political broadcast, but if you believe that things could be better under a different political party, then you will shortly have the opportunity to start correcting that situation.
richard_56 archemedes
Posted
Party political and politics aside, and based on financial restraints, then are we saying it is better to take the risk of a patient developing the problem before it is seen to or it is better to take preventative mesaure where in the long term, it is cheaper ?
But in the last analysis, should doctors be involved in this sort of decision since much of the financial resources is in one way or another squandered by each politial party in power at that time. Should a patient's health be involved with politics or should doctors be independent regardless and only care for the patient's welfare ?
archemedes richard_56
Posted
Common sense dictates that medical problems should be dealt with proactively before they become a real issue, but with the cash-strapped health service being the way it is I doubt if this is happening. We see more and more surgeries using 'wait and see' tactics with their patients, which to my mind is entirely wrong.
A good example putting a price on a life is where special drugs are needed for patients suffering with serious conditions, but the health service refuses to pay out for them because they are considered too expensive.
Unfortunately doctors have to do what they are told, and if the money has (as you say) been squandered somewhere else and they are told there is only so much to go round, then what can they do other than obey their masters?
People's lives are very much a political issue and will continue to be so, until such time as there is adequate funding and a cessation of wastage in the health service.
There is a very solid argument for all doctors to be independent and to control their own purse strings for the benefit of their patients, but where do you start while the whole establishment is in such a mess?
tiswas24537 richard_56
Posted
but they have been trying to break up the NHS for years
and if the conservitives get in the NHS is a goner anyway
so i suppose they are cutting back to get us used to it
thats only my gut reaction . its just a game of wait and see .
andrew49240 richard_56
Posted
frustrated61 richard_56
Posted
I do believe the doctor's first responsibilties are for his paitents however, does the National Health pay the doctors for their services? If that be the case, it's wrong. I recall taking my daughter in to see the doctor for her wrist. She plays the cello. Anyway, her wrist was hurting her so much she would cry to sleep at times. I took her to the doctor and asked for a referral to see a therapist and the doctor said NO!
Well, for some odd reason, I tend to get answers to my questions in odd ways. I was reading some information in a magazine and it said that doctors got bonus' if they DIDN'T refer paitents. I took that article and showed it to the doctor and she read it and came back with a referral. Any chance that might be happening with your GP? If that be the case, try taking the article in and do the same as I did, it might work in your favor as it did in mine.
Good luck!
Regards,
Frustrated
georgeGG frustrated61
Posted
thus we have a right to service as contributores. The Government has no money of its own. Privatisation has seen to that.
So we do indirectly pay the GP. It is the government and NICE as their agents have economic and clinical power over GP 's and do interfere with the clinical decisions without any knowledge of our case.
the result is pernitious. it will be very difficult alter it as the politics are so difficult.