- J Tobias
- Meyerstein Institute of Oncology, Middlesex Hospital, University College London Hospital Trust, London W1M 8AA.
Never one to avoid controversy, Aneurin Bevan knew from the start that his newly nationalised health service could work only with the full cooperation of the profession. Although a Gallup poll taken early in 1948 confirmed that the overwhelming majority of the public supported it, Bevan was enough of a pragmatist to realise that the doctors were another matter altogether - read Michael Foot's wonderful biography for a thrilling account.1
The merit award system was born of Bevan's recognition that to retain the services of the best, you must expect to pay. “Stuff their mouths with gold” was his simple yet effective prescription, a staggering volte face for an unflinchingly egalitarian Welshman. Effective? Highly, since most would agree that during the NHS's first half century one of its more remarkable features has been that the most outstanding individuals have indeed been attracted to staying within the service, usually working as consultants or University employees at large (generally teaching) hospitals.
Performance related pay and process
How has this been achieved? By the provision of merit awards, of course. Although all would agree that no system of preferment can possibly be perfect, what is wrong with the principle of recognising merit, then rewarding it? Casual reading of the General Medical Council's annual reports reminds us that not all doctors are the selfless altruists we all thought we were when we interviewed nervously at our medical schools. Don't give me all that tosh about how equally hard we all work, how uniform is the devotion of all practitioners to our patients, how we all love nothing better than a head-to-head two hour session with our students, etc, etc. It isn't true for teachers, nor for lawyers, musicians, estate agents, or even members of the royal family. Some are simply better at their jobs than others. Oddly enough …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Emergency admissions for diabetes fall by almost 7% in integrated care pilot scheme
Published 24 May 2012
Re: Television shows and education about sexually transmitted infections: no laughing matter
Published 24 May 2012
Re: The scatter of research: cross sectional comparison of randomised trials and systematic reviews across specialties
Published 24 May 2012
Re: Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study
Published 24 May 2012
Reply to Anne Szarewski and Diana Mansour
Published 24 May 2012
Most responses
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (8 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27