BMJ  2008;336:804 (12 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.39545.432407.59

Observations

Public Policy

Does the NHS really need a constitution?

The best hope is that ministers will resist the temptation to introduce instant solutions to problems that are rooted in the nature of the NHS as a tax funded service that rations scarce resources

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The junior health minister Ara Darzi proposed it. The prime minister endorsed it. The BMA supported it. The secretary of state for health is busy working on it. The notion that the NHS should celebrate its approaching 60th anniversary by unveiling a constitution now has a seemingly irresistible momentum. Who can argue against an NHS constitution that would, in Lord Darzi’s words, "enshrine the values of the NHS," "increase local accountability to patients and public," and "define the rights and responsibilities of patients?"

The rhetoric is seductive. But once we start thinking about how we might translate it into practice, the arguments begin. Let’s start with the rights and responsibilities of patients. How are these to be defined? Will the rights be restatements of existing policies about waiting times between referral and treatment or in accident and emergency departments? Or will they define entitlements to a specific package of NHS . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Article

Think again

Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2008 336: 0. [Extract] [Full Text]