Archive for category ICONS – Panic button
Who is Dr Lucy Reynolds?
Posted by admin in ICONS - Panic button, NHS : NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, NHS Reforms, National Health Service on March 15th, 2013
You can see from her qualifications that Dr Lucy Reynolds is not a medical doctor, however she takes a keen interest in the way the NHS in England is changing following the Health and Social Care Act legislation last year. She is a Research Fellow at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and her interests include the way healthcare system structure, financing and health outcomes interact.
Privatisation of the NHS will not happen with a “Big Bang.” Maybe it would have been more honest if it had been introduced in that way because it would have been obvious. If you stay in England, and you and your family use, or will use the NHS (that means nearly everyone in the country) then this question and answer session is worth watching.
……..
…….
Please read DISCLAIMER by clicking on LEGAL tab above
Jimmy Savile : Beyond belief
Posted by admin in HEALTH POLITICS, ICONS - Panic button, NHS : NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, NHS Reforms, National Health Service on October 13th, 2012
Even though Jimmy Savile was a “benevolent” superstar, and even though he is now described as a “predatory paedophile,” it is beyond belief that he was put on a pedestal within hospitals and given the degree of access to patients to the extent that is being reported.
He was appointed as head of a task force to run Broadmoor, the high security psychiatric hospital. Why would they want him in that role? What qualifications did he have? Celebrity status? Large donations of money maybe?
JIMMY SAVILE SEX SCANDAL : GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE BROADMOOR ROLE
They say he even had his own set of keys!
SAVILE HAD A SET OF BROADMOOR KEYS
He seems he might even have had a home from home at Stoke Mandeville hospital for spinal injuries.
STOKE MANDEVILLE HOSPITAL STILL HAS QUESTIONS TO ANSWER OVER THE JIMMY SAVILE CHILD ABUSE SCANDAL
He was even an Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Radiologists.
Why? What contribution to the training of radiologists did he make? Money again perhaps. Maybe they should dismember the above link to this press release and stop being so sad.
It seems they are squirming now.
“Yesterday the Royal College of Radiologists squirmed over having made Savile an honorary fellow for his fundraising efforts. A spokeswoman said: “Had we been aware of these allegations at the time the RCR would not have had this association with him.”
Perhaps the Royal Colleges should concentrate on training doctors, and avoid being bribed by honouring non-medically qualified people who have not passed their exams but who have purchased their way in.
Please read DISCLAIMER by clicking on LEGAL tab above
National Health Action Party
Posted by admin in ICONS - Panic button, NHS : NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, NHS Reforms on October 9th, 2012
A new political party has been born in the UK.
It is in response to the Health and Social Care Act which recently became law and which many believe will be the beginning of the end of the NHS as market forces take their toll.
It would be wonderful if a candidate could stand in every single constituency, and everyone who is ill, might become ill, or fears for the future healthcare of their children and grandchildren when they become ill, joins, supports or at least votes for this party during the next general election.
It would be even more wonderful if the party won the next election and a new Prime Minister was selected from their ranks.
Impossible?
Not really.
No political party had a mandate from the people of this country to govern during the last election.
There was no mandate for the Health and Social Care Act.
There was no mandate to unwind the NHS.
Supporting and voting for this party would make a very strong statement to every other major political party that they are not to be trusted with the healthcare of this country because priority is being given to business interests over health.
Welcome
The National Health Action party was formed by a group of like-minded healthcare professionals, who strongly support the original principles of the NHS and are shocked by the failure of the democratic process as demonstrated by the appearance and the passage through parliament of the Health and Social Care Act.
We believe the resulting legislation will destroy the NHS in England as an effective, efficient health system fair to all citizens and patients. It will transform a cost-effective public system of health care into one that will be more expensive, wasteful and unequal, whilst diminishing levels of public trust and corroding standards of ethical behaviour. Quite apart from the direct effects on healthcare provision, the destruction of the NHS also marks the violation of important social values. The NHS was more than just a structure for the delivery of healthcare. It was also a social institution that reflected national solidarity, expressed the values of equity and universalism, and institutionalised the duty of government to care for all in society.
The NHS marked out a space in society where the dictates of commerce and the market were held in check so as to give expression to socially directed goals, for individuals and society as a whole. Thus the NHS became the glue that holds together the social fabric of our nation. As the NHS is under so much threat, we believe that a new political party is needed to defend the NHS and its values, and we have therefore set up the National Health Action party.
We welcome members from all walks of life who value the NHS, not just NHS professionals.
P.S. If you have difficulty accessing this site today it is because it is receiving so many hits apparently!
Please read DISCLAIMER by clicking on LEGAL tab above
Health and Social Care Bill : Risk Register leak
Posted by admin in HEALTH POLITICS, ICONS - Panic button, NHS Reforms on March 27th, 2012
The Health and Social Care Bill has trundled its way through the House of Commons, the House of Lords, where it was subject to about a thousand amendments, and back through the House of Commons. It will have become law once it receives Royal Assent. The Bill may already be approved by the Queen, in which case it becomes an Act of Parliament i.e. Law.
This has been one of the most controversial pieces of legislation that has passed through parliament. Although it refers only to English Law there may be ramifications for the healthcare in other UK countries.
Many believe the law was intentionally long and unintelligible and few understood its full implications. There is a widely held view that it heralds the end of the NHS in England and is designed in such a way that the government abdicates much of the responsibility for the healthcare of the citizens in England, and that the NHS over the next few years will move fast forward into the private sector with some care funded through taxation and some rationed and paid by the patient directly or through separate insurance cover. There is a worry that the private sector will cherry-pick the most profitable and easy to treat conditions.
Another controversy was that the government refused to publish a document indicating the risks associated with Bill. This is known as a Risk Register and it is normal practice for these assessments not to be published. However, because of the perceived risk to the health of the nation the coalition government was told to publish it but refused to do so. Recently what was alleged to be an early copy of the Risk Register was leaked to at least two individuals and last night Twitter was chirping away about the contents.
This alleged Risk Register is currently located here :
HEALTH BILL TRANSITION RISK REGISTER 15 OCT 2010
Note the red and orange warnings.
And note the government-speak gobbledygook in the “Mitigation Actions” column.
No doubt the government will respond (if it chooses to respond at all) by saying this is an old document and the thousand amendments have solved the problem.
There are many who do not agree with that view.
Here are two of these people :
The Professional Case for Withdrawing The Health and Social Care Bill from Daniel Saul on Vimeo.
Please read DISCLAIMER by clicking on LEGAL tab above
Infanticide
Posted by admin in Abortion, ICONS - Panic button, Infanticide on March 9th, 2012
It could be said there are certain things in life that are so unthinkable that they are better left unsaid, until someone else decides to broadcast their thoughts on the matter and as a consequence it becomes a concern that needs to be fully addressed
Some unthinkable thoughts regarding infanticide have been inserted into a respected journal of bioethics. The paper is called “After-birth abortion : why should the baby live?” The authors are Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
In it they argue that abortion is not different ethically from infanticide and therefore infanticide should be subject to the same rules that allow abortion.
There was a cyber-uproar regarding this and the two bioethicists involved felt threatened by some of the things that were being said.
The blogosphere’s response was vicious.
However, here is a a debate on the matter that does not carry death threats for the authors of the article or for the editor who permitted it to be published.
“The paper raises two distinct questions. The first is not in fact whether the authors have a point: it is the more general question of whether the paper, undoubtedly deeply repugnant to many in its content, should have been published in the first place. The argument is that, by sowing what Dr No once called Malicious Seeds of Mischievous Doubt, ivory tower academics introduce ideas into society that will then grow in to abhorrent practical applications; and that therefore the ideas should never be aired in the first place.
But Dr No, as he said in Malicious Seeds, has no truck with the suppression of ideas. Debate is always better than silence, however potentially or actually repugnant the idea, and so he applauds the courage of the JME in publishing the paper, and so forcing the debate into the open. In return, it is beholden on those who object to the ideas to advance not fire-crackers and death threats, but sound argument that exposes the flaw in the philosopher’s reasoning, and so ensure the mistaken idea is dealt a blow that is as legitimate as it is fatal.”
Please read DISCLAIMER by clicking on LEGAL tab above
Disease mongering
Posted by admin in Disease-mongering, ICONS - Panic button on February 28th, 2012
Antibiotics given in the right doses for the right infection at the right time have saved millions of lives worldwide. However they only work for bacterial infections. They are often given “just in case” an infection is bacterial and a best guess antibiotic is chosen. Sometimes the guess is right, but at other times wide of the mark.
Guidance now given is not to prescribe antibiotics for certain conditions that are likely to be viral in nature for they will not work, and doctors and patients are being discouraged in overusing this class of useful drug because this encourages antibiotic resistance.
Antibiotics have remarkable life saving properties but they are also great money spinners for drug companies, especially if they are used indiscriminately. But because they really do save vast numbers of lives, they are probably not a very good example to quote when considering disease mongering.
What if drug companies were not always altruistic? What if some of them were more interested in their stock-market performance?
Have you ever considered what is meant by the term “disease mongering?”
If not, you should.
THE FIGHT AGAINST DISEASE MONGERING : GENERATING KNOWLEDGE FOR ACTION
COUNTRY : AUSTRALIA
“The problem of disease mongering is attracting increasing attention [1–3], though an adequate working definition remains elusive. In our view, disease mongering is the selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of illness and grows the markets for those who sell and deliver treatments. It is exemplified most explicitly by many pharmaceutical industry–funded disease-awareness campaigns—more often designed to sell drugs than to illuminate or to inform or educate about the prevention of illness or the maintenance of health. In this theme issue and elsewhere, observers have described different forms of disease mongering: aspects of ordinary life, such as menopause, being medicalised; mild problems portrayed as serious illnesses, as has occurred in the drug-company-sponsored promotion of irritable bowel syndrome (see pp. 156–174 in [2]; [4]) and risk factors, such as high cholesterol and osteoporosis, being framed as diseases.”
Please read DISCLAIMER by clicking on LEGAL tab above
Warning: Teething gels
Posted by admin in Babies and toddlers, Child Health, ICONS - Panic button, MHRA : UK Regulation, Rare Diseases, Reye's Syndrome, Teething on January 11th, 2012
Always check the constituents of teething gels. They should not contain salicylates as a painkiller / anti-inflammatory agent. Aspirin is a member of the salicylate family, and neither aspirin nor any other salicylate salt should be given to children under 18. This is because it can occasionally be responsible for the development of a condition known as Reye’s Syndrome in children. This is a very serious condition, although fortunately rare.
Since April 2009, in the UK The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) advised that teething preparations containing salicylates should not be used. Always discuss the suitability of teething gels with the pharmacist when you purchase them. This is particularly important when travelling outside the UK.
Please read DISCLAIMER by clicking on LEGAL tab above
WARNING! Eye drug mix-up
Posted by admin in ICONS - Panic button, WARTS on December 28th, 2011
Eyes are delicate and so need to be treated with gentle non-irritant creams, drops and salves.
Warts are not delicate and are treated with substances that often cause considerable irritation.
You might imagine therefore that treating an eye lesion with a wart salve might cause a lot of damage.
The U.S. Food and Drug administration reports today that a patient has sustained eye damage because of a mix up between two similarly named drugs.
Durasal is a wart remover and is NOT approved by the FDA.
Durezol is a steroidal eye-drop that IS approved by the FDA
FDA ALERT TO PHARMACISTS AND HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS RE SIMILAR SOUNDING DRUGS DUREZOL AND DURASAL
COUNTRY : USA
12/28/2011
FDA is alerting pharmacists and other health care professionals of potential injury due to confusion between the FDA-approved eye medicine Durezol (difluprednate ophthalmic emulsion) 0.05% and the unapproved prescription topical wart remover Durasal (salicylic acid) 26%.
There has been one report of serious injury when a pharmacist mistakenly gave an eye surgery patient Durasal, the salicylic acid–containing wart remover, instead of the prescribed Durezol eye drops. Durezol is approved for treatment of inflammation and pain association with ocular surgery.
Several other cases were reported arising from confusion between Durezol and Durasal. In some cases, the error was discovered prior to the medication reaching the patient. There were also complaints received from health care practitioners concerning the similarity between the names Durezol and Durasal.
Due to the potential for confusion between these two products, pharmacists should be vigilant when filling prescriptions for the ophthalmic solution Durezol.
Please read DISCLAIMER by clicking on LEGAL tab above
Circle within circles
Posted by admin in HEALTH POLITICS, ICONS - Panic button, NHS : NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, NHS Reforms on November 13th, 2011
There’s an awful lot going on in UK healthcare at the moment and it is difficult to keep up to date and read and understand all the documentation involved.
In fact you might say the NHS is spinning round and round in circles.
The proposed new Health and Social Care Bill that removes the Secretary of State for Health’s “duty to provide” healthcare for citizens in England is currently being debated in the House of Lords having succeeded in its passage through the House of Commons.
“The Change” that is going on will turn healthcare in England into a commodity. It is happening even before the Bill has been given legal status.
In fact, David Cameron in a speech on regulation of the economy said that he wanted the NHS to be a “fantastic business for Britain” He cannot deny therefore that his vision is to turn healthcare into a commodity.
Enter the hedge fund supremos. In the form of “CIRCLE”
“CIRCLE HEALTH – THE “SOCIAL ENTERPRISE” RUN BY THE WORLD’S HARDEST HEDGE FUND MANAGERS
Circle Health – the company that last week became the first private healthcare operator to take over the running of an NHS district general hospital – has variously been described as a “John Lewis-style mutual”, a “third-sector provider”, and a “social enterprise majority owned by employees”. It is none of these things.
If it were, it would not have attracted about £120m of investment from highly astute and profit-driven venture capital and hedge funds, including Odey European, Lansdowne, Balderton and BlueCrest. These funds are run by ruthlessly brilliant investment managers whose reputations are built on spotting trends in the capital markets before anyone else.
Anyone who thinks their investment criteria might include a social dimension would do well to cast their mind back to 2009. Some of these funds made millions from identifying weaknesses in Britain’s banks, and betting the Treasury would be forced to intervene to rescue them. It might be too much to say they caused that banking crisis, but they saw it coming, and saw an opportunity to profit.
CARE MAY SUFFER, ADMITS PRIVATE COMPANY TAKING OVER NHS HOSPITAL
Circle’s admissions come in a share prospectus it was legally obliged to publish in June when the parent company, Circle Holdings, floated in London. It had been in negotiations with the government for two years over the takeover of Hinchingbrooke hospital; as the preferred bidder, it expected to be successful. In its document, the company reveals its aspiration to take over further hospitals but also spells out the risks to patients. It says: “As well as the establishment of further independent hospitals, Circle intends to significantly expand its NHS business.
“Circle’s growth has placed, and its anticipated growth will continue to place, a strain on its managerial, administrative, operational, financial, information technology and other resources and could affect its ability to provide a consistent level of service to its patients.”
The medico-political bloggers are on to it too. Here is what Dr No has to say:
The second difference, as Martin Amis might have said, is that the money is always after the money. While a GP in a tight corner will usually know his or her primary duty is unassailably to his or her patient, a venture capitalist sails to a different compass. We have only to look at Southern Cross to see in what direction that compass points. And news is already abroad that – like heads-we-win-tails-you-lose-bankers – Circle investors’ financial losses are already protected.
Will they be allowed to fail?
If not, who will bail them out?
The government?
With our, the taxpayers’, money?
Just like the banks?
And more :
LEST WE FORGET : A POPPY FOR THE NHS
And so it is that Dr No feels the queasy irony that Remembrance Day this year was stained by the news that the first national health service general hospital is to be run by the private sector. For, to the extent that the NHS was born of the sacrifice of those who fought in the Second World War, any move that threatens to destroy the body and values of the NHS is, in its way, an affront to those who fought and died in that war.
By further irony, the house colour of Circle is red. We shall soon see that red cast on the NHS blue of Hinchingbrooke. Let us hope that in the years to come that Circle red does not bleed to become the red of a poppy, a red poppy of remembrance for the NHS we have lost.
Please read DISCLAIMER by clicking on LEGAL tab above
Will the House of Lords administer the final medicine to the NHS?
Posted by admin in HEALTH POLITICS, ICONS - Panic button, NHS : NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, NHS Reforms, National Health Service on October 4th, 2011
Or will The House of Lords save this institution that comes to the rescue of us all when we need it most, because all through our lives, we, our parents and grandparents have funded it.
Or will our money that we pay through taxation be handed over to private companies, sometimes global companies, in order that their shareholders can profit from our ill health?
Here is the text of an open letter written to the Members of the House of Lords. It has been signed by more than 400 doctors.
It is now up to The Upper House to decide whether or not the Health and Social Care Bill becomes law.
Dear Honourable Members of the House of Lords,
As public health doctors and specialists from within the NHS, academia and elsewhere, we write to express our concerns about the Health and Social Care Bill.
The Bill will do irreparable harm to the NHS, to individual patients and to society as a whole.
It ushers in a significantly heightened degree of commercialisation and marketisation that will fragment patient care; aggravate risks to individual patient safety; erode medical ethics and trust within the health system; widen health inequalities; waste much money on attempts to regulate and manage competition; and undermine the ability of the health system to respond effectively and efficiently to communicable disease outbreaks and other public health emergencies.
While we welcome the emphasis placed on establishing a closer working relationship between public health and local government, the proposed reforms as a whole will disrupt, fragment and weaken the country’s public health capabilities.
The government claims that the reforms have the backing of the health professions. They do not. Neither do they have the general support of the public.
It is our professional judgement that the Health and Social Care Bill will erode the NHS’s ethical and cooperative foundations and that it will not deliver efficiency, quality, fairness or choice.
We therefore request that you reject passage of the Health and Social Care Bill.
It is not just global companies that are waiting in the wings for this windfall.
Cherie Blair, wife of Tony, our former prime minister is alleged to be waiting in the wings too. It is said that she has formed a private company with the rather odd name of “Mee.”
CHERIE BLAIR “STANDS TO GAIN FROM NHS PRIVATISATION
The wife of the former Labour prime minister is one of the founders of a business planning to open private clinics in supermarkets.
Her choice of venture is likely to prove controversial among Labour supporters, who will today set out their opposition to greater private involvement in the health system.
Other posts webwhispering about the Health and Social Care Bill can be accessed here.
Please read DISCLAIMER by clicking on LEGAL tab above