Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on thebmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included online and in print as readers' letters, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window. Letters are indexed in PubMed.
The first two examples of adding layers of less qualified staff for
orthopaedic and respiratory conditions just seems wasteful duplication.
However the third example of the denied varicose vein surgery leaves me
puzzled and confused.
Surely, if vein surgery is a treatment option Dr Jenkins should be
explaining all treatment options to the patient and the patient will
choose the one that is likely to be most acceptable and effective?
What possible motive could Dr Jenkins have to deny the patient
treatment or to wish that the local health authority would do this on his
What possible good can come from a patient registered with Dr Jenkins
being denied access to treatment, while this would be available if they
were registered with Dr Beerstecher? If a patient has contributed equally
should they not expect equal coverage, wherever they happen to live?
Patients are making contributions to the national insurance. The
insurer determines coverage and should make treatment available equitably.
In the UK the great advantage is that the insurer and the patients are the
same and are best placed to decide what value to choose for what money
paid; fairly and openly.