Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Freedom of expression or lack of it

A junior doctor has recently been suspended from work following an astonishing chain of events, amazingly this happened in the UK and not in China, I shall briefly outline the story below which demonstrates the dangers involved with vocally expressing one's anger at Comrade Brown et al's gross incompetence:

Doctors.net.uk (DNUK) is a website that doctors use for email and forum banter; Carol Black, a medico political stooge with umpteen committee positions, had recently been reelected unopposed into her position as chair of the Academy of the Medical Royal Colleges.

Given that the catastrophic failings of various recent reforms of medical training had resulted in so much suffering for so many junior doctors and their families, most doctors are not best pleased that no one has yet been held to account for these negligent reforms and that the same muppets are still manning the ship.

One doctor happened to express his dissatisfaction with events by posting some rather colourful comments concerning Carol Black's re-election. This doctor lives and works in Scotland, but strangely a key figure behind the government's reforms, a lady called Prof Elisabeth Paice, happened to be reading his words on this private DNUK forum and she reported these comments directly to one of her chums in the Highland Deanery. The doctor was then immediately suspended despite the fact that the comments were withdrawn from the forum rather rapidly.

The abuse of power that has occurred here seems to typify the way in which the filth who rule us 'govern' this country. Pulse has spoken to Prof Paice who tried to defend her position by claiming that she felt compelled to complain directly to this doctor's Dean due to the ‘excrementous and scatological’ language used. Personally I don't see why the withdrawal of the comment and a quick personal apology should not suffice.

Dr Rant has a typically mild mannered take on events. Dr Rant is fucking spot on:
(Fucking 'compelled'? Fucking 'COMPELLED'! What? Did you
think the poor bastard was fucking mentally unwell because he called your pal a
shit? I'll give you fucking 'mental illness'! Do his 'scatological' comments
seem a bit fucking tame now in retrospect? Do they? Well, fucking do they, you
stupid fucking tautological power-abusing bint?)


JuliaM said...

Suspended for commenting on a forum?

He should have negligently killed a few patients instead, or accused a grieving father of child abuse based on a tv documentary. They'd never have touched him then...

Patrick said...

Is it me... Or is always women that tend to take moral offence far quicker than men?... This is the 4th time Ive seen something similar recently, of which 2 were personally seen at work and play...

You girls dont half get your knickers in a twist

Disclaimer: I must point out that this is not the case for all women of course... :-)

EM said...

The girlies are just not up to any job in my view. Education health service, even the bloody prisons seem to be fucked up now so many girls are getting to the top. Fuck me I nearly forgot the police.

JuliaM said...

"...I nearly forgot the police."

I was about to point out that the Met's top brass wasn't a woman. But given his woeful performance, I'm not entirely sure he's much odf a man either...

Anonymous said...

Calling a turd a turd seems logical to me to many people in this country dont speak their mind

andrew said...

It's actually a very British characteristic to brood, sulk and resort to awkward insults. :P

We don't really have the American mentality of 'I'll give you a piece of my mind, dork!'

However, being close to the medical profession, I can say this behavior has gone on for a long time.

It's sad, but I doubt with the NHS behemoth so entrenched, the UK will ever realize that healthcare and political control do not work. (Until, of course, the whole thing runs the country into the ground).

Getting rid of the government monopoly on healthcare, will - by golly - allow people to think for themselves(!). They will be able to allocate their own money as they see fit to health whenever they need it, and doctors will actually be able to be doctors - not glorified civil servants...

the a&e charge nurse said...

Andrew - people DO think for themselves every time they light up, inject, or hit the bottle - don't forget cancer[s], cardio-vascular and respiratory diseases are still the big three [250,000 heart attacks each year to list but one heath stat].

So when one, [or more] of these conditions finally supravenes [as they inevitably do in the majority of cases] punters turn to the civil servants, sorry docs, to try and salvage the situation.

The social darwinists out there might think, f**k 'em, they brought it on themselves and if they can't afford expensive medical bills [for a now long term health problem] why should I pay for it ?
In short, they are proponents of the S African approach to poor people with HIV [aka paracetamol therapy].

The vast majority of docs I have worked with generally tend to be supporters of a comprehensive and universal system - because theoretically it is the fairest and most humane.

Black & Co are in the vanguard of introducing market conditions for the junior docs [by ensuring there are more candidates than available consultant training post] with a relatively arbitrary system of determining who will actually get a vital foothold on the career ladder.

Understandably one or two junior docs are rightly incensed with this dreadful bit of NuLabourism, as well as the medical stooges, like Black, who are complicit with it.

If we are going to abolish the NHS, then lets have an open debate about what might replace it [although personally i wouldn't get my hopes up for an alternative system that delivers better results] - be that as it may I can't help thinking this vindictive treatment of a junior doctor only adds insult to MTAS induced injury.

andrew said...

Well, here's an idea, if the gov stops taxing people - then hey presto - they actually have money for themselves!

I personally believe every individual has the right to spend their money as they wish, and not have 'Big Brother/Nanny/Matron' decide what's better for them. It suits my market anarchist sensibilities to a tee!

If the NHS was privatized, we cut out the administrators, the managers, the politicians... and run each and every hospital locally whereby patients can negotiate payment with their doctors on a one to one basis (because, by golly, aren't they responsible adults?) - or sign up for something like BUPA.

The NHS and welfare state are designed to do nothing more than infantilize the population so that we become little tax paying slaves and cannon fodder.

Humans aren't born to live in a collective - we exist to fulfill our individual lives on our own terms. I'm not some herd animal to be tagged, tracked and managed by the government 'rangers' so I frankly don't buy into any of their altruistic rubbish.

Here's a thought, though. If you see a homeless person on the street, do you think 'Oh, someone else will deal with it!' or do you take it upon yourself, out of your own conscience and sense of morals to shelter the person or start up a charity?

It's called using your own initiative! Stop passing the buck to the government or those 'other people', take matters into your own hands. Be an individual who follows through with your convictions!

Complete Economic and Individual freedom of choice remove the need for the welfare state, in the end.

lost_nurse said...

"If the NHS was privatized...or sign up for something like BUPA."

This paragraph speaks volumes. The NHS may not be perfect, but I don't think you quite grasp how much your tax actually "buys" - at least in terms of acute care.

Devil's Kitchen said...

"The NHS may not be perfect, but I don't think you quite grasp how much your tax actually "buys" - at least in terms of acute care."

Lest we forget, A&E, we all pay compulsory insurance anyway. It's just that there is not, and never has been, an actual insurance fund.


the A&E Charge Nurse said...

Andrew - how do you use your initiative if you have dementia, or schizophrenia.......or if you are 3 years old ?

By the way, I have seen people that would have bled to death if it wasn't for the altruism of blood donors.

Devil's Kitchen said...

"By the way, I have seen people that would have bled to death if it wasn't for the altruism of blood donors."

Always a good one this: people try to argue that if we were left alone to get on with our lives, soceity would collapse and three year olds would starve on the street because People Are All Bastards.

And yet they still give blood...

Is it altruism? Or is it self-interest, e.g. if I give blood, so will others and they might therefore save my life.

In which case, Adam Smith's invisible hand works. And, of course, this also rather undermines the other great anti-libertarian argument -- that people are unable to appreciate long-term consequences.

Nice example, A&E...


P.S. Must check whether I can give blood again, actually. I couldn't for a while...

Rob said...

Yes, somehow people get together and do all sorts of altruistic things without needing the State to provide a monopoly 'service' (giggle) to do it. E.g. The National Trust, enormously varied sports clubs and other associations, etc etc. In fact, people are rather good at looking after others, far better than the State is.

As far as this incident is concerned, when doctors support a monopoly provider of healthcare they also effectively restrict themselves to a single employer. That employer can then fuck you around just for the sheer pleasure of it, and there isn't much you can do about it.

Dirty Euro said...

Peace has been won in gerogia thanks to the eu how does that make you euroskeptuic wankers feel LOL. Pig sick your nazi neocons did fuck all for peace.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Oh I agree Rob, it's not just the State that can provide services.

Think about energy, transport and the banks - I think they're all great.

Are you as happy as I am with the bills - sometimes I think the directors need to increase the bonuses they are awarding themselves, don't you ?

Wat Dabney said...

The medical profession has become one of the most powerful special-interest groups largely by high-jacking state power through the lie that it's all for our own good. A license to practise medicine? Why? I can check out their credentials on the Web. It's just a mechanism to keep the number of doctors low so as to raise salaries vastly above market rates. And a monopoly on drug prescription? Fucking rent-seeking at its finest.

Doctors always seem overly keen to dismiss any talk about ending the War On Drugs by making all drugs legal. This supposedly moral argument has more to do with the fact that, as part of such a process, medicinal drugs would necessarily have to be legalised at the same time - i.e. available without prescription. We'd enjoy the right of self-medication, while doctors would lose their lucrative dispensing monopoly.

JuliaM said...

"Are you as happy as I am with the bills - sometimes I think the directors need to increase the bonuses they are awarding themselves, don't you ?"

Well, just compare them to the obscene amounts paid to the directors of failing health services and trusts. And remember that we, the 'shareholders' of the NHS, don't get a chance to vote them out, unlike with banks and large companies...

Roger Thornhill said...

A&E: [although personally i wouldn't get my hopes up for an alternative system that delivers better results]

A&E has pressed her resent button...again. The NHS is far from a stellar performer - it only ranks as it does because the WTO put, at their own admission, undue emphasis on "redistribution".

A&E:Are you as happy as I am with the bills?

Considering that State services will begin or rapidly become quasi monopolies and that monopolies almost never provide value, responsiveness or quality (and certainly not choice) you appear to want those bills to be hidden from your eyes and "redistributed" to someone else. The State denies true choice and true accountability (via an infinite number of personal choices).

I am very open to the idea of universal healthcare as per the Swiss, French, Dutch or German systems, but not state run or administered and most certainly NOT a monopoly as in the UK and Denmark.

the a&e charge nurse said...

The Swiss, French & Germans have ALWAYS spent more on health and still do, the gap has closed, that's all [although this still does not make up for decades of under-investment].

Our insurance loving European friends may have slightly greater plurality - but I suspect 'choice' is probably comparable to that of the high street banks here [i.e. negligable].

One of the main reasons that the NHS has not fallen light years behind the big three [Swiss, French, Germans] is because of the dedication and effort of the junior docs [which far exceeds their contracted obligations, or working pattern].

Surely these guys deserve far better than the "Black & Paice" treatment ?

If doctors are no longer able to speak openly about what is going on around them [albeit with a frisson of personal invective] then I suspect that the climate of fear so loathed by the libertarians is about to get even worse ?

the doctor said...

dirty euro , I know just the Doctor and hospital for you , please supply you name and address for a referral .

Rob said...

"Think about energy, transport and the banks - I think they're all great."

Banks - I use free banking. I don't get charged a penny for either my business or personal accounts. If there was only a single, State-owned bank it would take me five days to take money out and I would have to fill in a ten page questionnaire about what I wanted to spend it on. This is assuming that the State hadn't already confiscated it to give to some self-defined oppressed group.

Transport - Cars are fairly cheap. They would be a lot cheaper still if the State didn't tax petrol as much as it does. Current energy prices are more to do with world energy supplies and the government's inability to plan for the future, than so-called 'company greed'. State-owned energy would have to pass some or all of the costs on, and worse, they would tax you to subsidise paying the bills of others.