Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;326:1099 (24 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7399.1099
Contracts excluded the patient's voice and lacked an intellectual overview
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
It is said that behind every disagreement there are the bones of an old philosophy rattling around. Surveying the wreckage of the consultants' contract,1 and seeing also that the general practitioners' contract24 is floundering in heavy seassuch that even if it is rescued5 it will start life half drownedhas made us wonder what has gone wrong with the process of making contracts for doctors. We want to look deeper, to open out more fundamental debate about what medicine could and should be for, and so what should and should not be in doctors' contracts.
Doctors and managers historically have prided themselves on their
pragmatism rather than their philosophy. Getting the task done has been more
important than asking whether the task is valid in the first place. To the
negotiators from the BMA, the Department of Health, and the NHS Confederation,
setting out in 2001 to draw up a contract
Peter Davies, general practitioner
Mixenden Stones Surgery, Halifax HX2 8RQ (npgdavies@doctors.org.uk)
John A Glasspool, general practitioner
Victor Street Surgery, Shirley, Hampshire SO15 5SY (churchwarden1@btinternet.com)
Read all Rapid Responses