Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Good Economics or Potential Fraud at BMA?
- Jay Ilangaratne (30 January 2004)
-
Good Economics or Potential Fraud at BMA?:postscript
- Jay Ilangaratne (2 February 2004)
-
Is there a doctor in the house?
- Ron Law (4 February 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Jay Ilangaratne, Founder Medical-Journals.com
Send response to journal:
|
Whilst the editor was on his way to the WEF on 22nd January, an interesting piece of news appeared in the medical press.Perhaps,the editor knew about it before most of us,or felt it was something insignificant to be of noteworthy. The 'Hospital Doctor' of 22 January 2004 gave headline coverage to some comments of Mr Nizam Mamode, a member of the BMA's consultants committee. Being on the theme of economics, I cannot agree more with the editor(see Editor's Choice)that money seemed to be invloved in everything from football to...etc.Thus,it would not be wrong to suggest that even medical trade unionism nowadays is heavily invloved with money.After all, the editor will know the wealth and assets of his journal-owner,the BMA. However,BMA's money is its memebers', and if any concern is raised about its funds or its handling--however trivial it may be--we as memebers, ought to know the real truth behind such allegations.In this regard, I cite Mr Mamode's following comment,as reported in the 'Hospital Doctor'(22 January 2004): "Mr Mamode, a consultant transplant surgeon in London, also attacked what he called the BMA's 'secret committees'. These include the compensation committee which, he claims, pays out thousands of pounds to members of craft committees for missing private practice clinics, without revealing its decisions." Regrettably though,neither the BMA's website nor this issue of BMJ provide any coverage of the above matter.It is plain, the above allegation clearly suggests serious impropriety within the BMA,thus, it is one that should not be rejected outrightly without a fair and independent investigation. The BMA members are statutorily entitled to know about its finances as per the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.The council members who are also directors of the BMA are legally accounatble for its finances. Whilst, I am personally not at all surprised about BMA's secrecy,this is not a personal matter, but one that could have a profound impact on the entire membership and their funds. I urge the BMA Chairman and council members, to provide a response to the above central allegation of Mr Mamode, unambiguously, and as a matter of urgency.The BMA members do not deserve anything less than that.Usually, there is no smoke without fire.Further, it is unlikely that a responsible member like Mr Mamode would make such serious allegations publicly if there wasn't credible evidence to back his claims; moreover,no responsible publisher would disseminate such material without sound evidence to back its revelations. Competing interests: In search of the truth as a fee-paying member |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jay Ilangaratne, Founder Medical-Journals.com
Send response to journal:
|
In ‘Hospital Doctor’ of 29 January 2004(1),Mr Johnson, Chairman of BMA Council has responded to Mr Mamode’s allegations. However, the conspicuous absence of any reference to alleged ‘secret compensation committee’ is rather worrying. Any allegation of financial impropriety should be tackled head on--openly--without showing signs of complacency; so far, the BMA had failed to address that issue properly. Further, Mr Mamode’s allegations have now spread to the national newspapers. ‘The Observer’ of Sunday the 1st February 2004 gives prominent coverage(2) of the original story which appeared in ‘Hospital Doctor’ dated 22 January 2004(3). It is also reported(2) that Mr Mamode is “facing internal hostility”. I repeat my request(4) for an independent and impartial investigation into alleged impropriety within the BMA, without further delay. The BMA membership deserves nothing less than that. Bare denials are simply insufficient to prove innocence. It may be that the scale of this problem is far worse than what is portrayed in ‘Hospital Doctor’. Moreover, the BMA’s credibility will depend on how it deals with such serious allegations, especially as it had sparked-off from within. References (1)Hospital Doctor, 29 January 2004, www.hospital- doctor.net/hd_news/hd_news_article.asp?ID=14084&Section=News [accessed 2 Feb.04] (2)The Observer, 1 February 2004 observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1136380,00.html [accessed 2 Feb.04] (3)Hospital Doctor, 22 January 2004, www.hospital- doctor.net/hd_news/hd_news_article.asp?ID=13989&Section=News [accessed 2 Feb.04] (4)Good Economics or Potential Fraud at BMA? (BMJ Rapid Response, 30 January 2004) http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7434/0-g/DC1#48685 [accessed 2 Feb.04] Competing interests: Fee-paying BMA member |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ron Law, Risk analyst Beyond Alternative Solutions
Send response to journal:
|
How refreshing to see such an intellegent [and witty, and brave] report on the conference of the nuveaux kings & queens of this free and democratic world. It was especially refreshing to hear the views of the vice-guardian of the Greatest Democracy money can buy. I was, however, somewhat distressed at not finding out whether the man in the balaclava succeeded in getting his Big Mac... nothing a dose of Aropax won't fix [yes, I am over 18 years of age and wasn't suicidal.] The bit relating to CEO criticism was right on the button. [..."Well who wants to criticise. We all think that there but for the grace of god….." Exactly, I thought, the reaction of doctors—with Bristol and Shipman as results.] Then I read the e-response of Jay Ilangaratne. My immediate thoughts were; 'Oh dear, another promising career in need of the services of a risk analyst and some immediate re-engineering.' One can hear the axe of one of the remnants of 1950's/60's unionism falling as one spe... Competing interests: Not a member of the BMA |
|||