Junior consultants will leave BMA “hand over fist,” warns chairman
BMJ 2002; 325 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7361.407 (Published 24 August 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;325:407All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Sir
Having just attended a BMA Roadshow in Birmingham, 21/08/02 I am
hardly surprised that there is still so much reluctance to vote yes for
the New contract.
The audience consisting mainly but not exclusively of SpR's were
patronised and given the 'Double Glazing Salesman'patter by Dr Hawker and
his colleagues such that the many questions arising were ignored.
Unfortunately Dr Hawker seemed to embark on long monologues each time a
question was fielded when he should have been succinct in his answers.
This resulted in frustration in the audience which eventually was
overcome with apathy and led to at least a 75% reduction in audience
population prior to the close of meeting ( myself included )
Personally although undecided I feel that there are some big
advantages to this New Contract. My fear is that the message will not get
across to audiences if they are treated in this way by the BMA.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir
Dr Hawker's portrayal of the JDC's response to the proposed
consultant contract as emblematic of a spit between consultants and
trainees is disengenuous to say the least. Since the release of the
proposed contract Dr Hawker and his colleagues have sought to stiffle
debate and to misrepresent the feedback they have received at the numerous
roadshows mounted by the BMA to "explain" a contract which is bad for the
future of patient care in the NHS to say nothing of the detrimental
conditions of terms and service it will lock our younger colleagues into.
His assertion that the JDC's objections are limited to the trainees
is breathtaking in its audacity. I have attended two roadshows, talked to
a large number of my immediate colleagues and to others around the
country. The overwhelming majority of my consultant colleagues are
vehmently opposed to this contract.
Dr Hawker chooses to ignore the very obvious split which divides the
people he purports to represent and the CCSC. Perhaps he should turn his
attention to that.
Susan Duncan
Competing interests: No competing interests
Much as the BMA might like to believe that the profession is split
along an SpR/consultant divide over the draft consultant contract, my
experience is that hospital doctors are united as never before in their
opposition to the framework.
I have yet to meet a consultant who is enthusiastic about the new
contract, and in every meeting I have attended, the no/yes split has been
in the region of 95:5. Like many of my consultant colleagues, I have now
joined the HCSA, and the unedifying spectacle of BMA leaders trying
actively to manufacture a junior/senior divide to protect their own
political careers will encourage many more to do the same.
Dr Hawker et al seem to think that by appealing to the self interest
of current consultants, he can persuade us to ignore the fact that the
framework sells out our junior colleagues. His plan will fail for two
reasons. First, he underestimates the altruism of the consultant body.
Secondly, there's nothing much in the new contract for us anyway,
representing as it does an insult to those of us who had hoped that our
contribution to the NHS might at last be recognised.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sixty Days to save the BMA-and the NHS
Sir.
The expensive battle for acceptance of the Consultant Contract
Framework has been lost.
The leaders of the profession have maintained a statesmanlike and
reasonable public image, which has been met with manipulation and
duplicity by Her Majesty's Government. They are intent upon direct
political control of the profession.
Consultants, percieving that the Government has taken their
representatives for a ride, are deserting the BMA.
This fragmentation will weaken the position of the BMA in new talks
with HMG and a new "clarified" Framework will not easily pacify the once-
sleeping giant of the Consultant body.
We see very clearly the agenda of crushing control which is designed
to make doctors serve the whims of politicians with the same numbskull
obedience as the NHS managers must display.
Once the unified National negotiating power of the BMA is broken,
local management will make deals with the disparate groups of consultants,
and political control will be effectively delivered through them.
Yet it is obvious that the BMA has the potential to deal with HMG,
witness the equitable settlement it achieved for Junior doctors.
It enjoys an unrivalled infrastructure of highly skilled Industrial
Relations Officers, networks, and finacial strength.
To save the BMA, and, indirectly, the NHS hospital service (as a
trusted supplier of personal care), is most urgent.
It requires immediate decisive action by the Association to regain
the confidence of its members.
The greatest danger is that the same organisational failure of
judgement which has led to the loss of confidence may mean that corrective
action will be too late, and too little.
Now, if ever, the stakes are so high that the profession must be
asked to consider what action should be planned to bring a recalcitrant
Government to the table.
This year is the strongest ever seller's market for doctors, especially
consultants.
Our duty is to patients, is emphatically enshrined in our "1948"
based contract, and this is not for sale.
Your faithfully
J.David Leopold
Competing interests: No competing interests