Rapid Responses to:

EDITOR'S CHOICE: Jane Smith The clear vision of outsiders BMJ 2006; 333: 0-f [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

NHS shouldn't be made independent

Hari Muppala   (29 July 2006)

The NHS is not a 'treasure' - merely a means to an end

Bruce G Charlton   (30 July 2006)

Independent NHS, What?

Jay Ilangaratne   (31 July 2006)

NHS shouldn't be made independent 29 July 2006
Hari Muppala, Senior House Officer Burnley General Hospital Send response to journal: Re: NHS shouldn't be made independent	Dear Editor No doubt NHS is a global treasure with enormous promise that is on its way providing excellent service to the people. But, in my personal opinion if an institution is made independent there is risk for lack of transparency and accountability. At the most NHS can be autonomous. Politician’s visions are broad, futuristic and represent that basic community and its people about whom we are all concerned. And there role in every aspect of our life cannot be kept aside. In spite of this if there exists any doubt about there role, it should be left to public debate. Dr Hari Muppala drmuppala@dochdoc.com Competing interests: None declared
The NHS is not a 'treasure' - merely a means to an end 30 July 2006
Bruce G Charlton, Editor-in-Chief, Medical Hypotheses Newcastle University, NE1 7RU, UK Send response to journal: Re: The NHS is not a 'treasure' - merely a means to an end	The NHS is neither a national nor global treasure. It is just an increasingly-inefficient means to the end of providing health services. Until this fact is recognized and acted-upon, the recent staggering increases in funding will continue to yield little significant overall improvement in health care. Competing interests: None declared
Independent NHS, What? 31 July 2006
Jay Ilangaratne, Founder www.medical-journals.com Send response to journal: Re: Independent NHS, What?	Neither Godlee nor any of the pundits commissioned by the BMJ have clearly defined what is actually meant by "independent NHS authority". Simply saying the NHS should be "protected from the capricious effects of party politics" is now a well rehearsed notion,but that would not fit well with realism. That is because the NHS is a taxpayers' asset, and it is the taxpayers who vote for a political party of their choice which eventually as the Government becomes the guardian of the NHS.In other words, whether one likes or not,it will be impossible to seperate "party politics" when the Goverment of the day has the sole responsiblity for running an institution.Hence, should we go against logic to fight intrusion of "party politics" into the NHS? Or is "party politics" the main reason for the alleged lack of independence in the NHS? Competing interests: None declared