Brexit will damage health
BMJ 2018; 363 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4804 (Published 13 November 2018) Cite this as: BMJ 2018;363:k4804Linked Opinion
There is no version of Brexit which will benefit the NHS—only varying degrees of harm
Linked Opinion
Rachel Clarke: Why, as a doctor, I support an informed People’s Vote
Linked Opinion
Brexit won’t build a physical wall, but the boundaries it will create will be significant
All 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.
Beside the technical difficulties Brexit will cause in drug supply, there will be an inevitable decline in the numbers of healthcare professionals coming over from the EU to work in the NHS, despite a very likely "no visa" policy. The reason for this is European citizens will ask themselves a very simple question: do I want to work (and live) in a country that (apparently) doesn't want me?
As a European junior doctor working in Scotland, I have found myself wondering that over the last few months. Of course, this is not the truth. At least, not entirely. I have found great support by my colleagues and by patients, who often ask me "What will happen to you after Brexit?", a question I still have no answer to, with only a couple of months before Brexit kicks in.
And yet, whenever I hear politicians proudly announce that "free movement will end, once and for all", I wonder: does the majority of British people believe free movement across the EU is a bad thing? After all, it is free movement that allowed me to settle here in the first place. The sense of uncertainty about our position, immigration status and the European-wide recognition of any qualifications we have attained here don't help as well.
"I'll see you in 12 months", I told a patient last week, and then jokingly added "if they don't kick me out", at which point the Irish consultant said, "They may kick me out as well", while the Polish nurse shrugged her shoulders in resignation. That whole medical team might not be here in 1 year's time, and so might not 10% of doctors and 7% of nurses. This is how bad Brexit is.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I am absolutely shocked to read this editorial content supporting a second referendum. According to the article, politicians on both sides acknowledged that Brexit would leave the UK worse off. Therefore, now we are well informed and prepared for the second referendum to reverse Brexit. I am just wondering the extent of conflict of interest in that matter. Is there any difference between the politicians, media and the elites who are trying to reverse Brexit and the BMA trying to support them? Furthermore, it would be interesting to have a poll among BMA members before committing this kind of propaganda.
The authors believed that the members are well informed now about the consequences.
Are we well informed? If so what is new?
What is clear now is the well planned conspiracy to reverse the democratic mandate in 2016. In addition it is very clear now that the new deal UK will never be able to leave because the decision has to be taken jointly by the EU and UK. At least now the UK can leave with no deal. Not with the deal agreed by now.
Secondly is it difficult to understand that part of the U.K. would be under EU terms and conditions. U.K. will break with the help of EU
What we are well informed is to leave now or will never possible. The argument that U.K. future depends on 27 EU countries is a myth created by remainers to be included in the list of project fear
Common sense - walk out without any deal.
The temporary difficulties could be managed. UK is good in managing change.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I write with sadness. Sadness because of the forecasts of the authors. Sadness also because other factors destroying the health manpower are being ignored.
Looking back:
1. In the early sixties, booming economy. Full employment for the natives. (Please remember that the term NATIVE is used here in its correct sense.) Yet, the native Brits of all occupations and none were going out - wherever the grass looked greener.
2. Specifically doctors and nurses. Many went abroad. Many came back (some did not because they put down roots).
3. By and large the hospital administrators were decent human beings who looked after the medical juniors.
There were no “ directors of manpower”. One hospital secretary instructed the hospital chef to ask a new house surgeon WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO EAT. Those were the days when food choice was still limited.
QUESTION. Do YOU the chief executives take such care of the juniors?
One hospital secretary actually reminded me to make full use of my annual leave. Another one reminded me that I was entitled to study leave.
4, Doctors from abroad did come over. The General Medical Council used to send out inspectors every five years. The doctors from the inspected and approved medical schools were accepted for full registration. Other doctors - even from the United States of America - could only be registered “temporarily” and on an individual basis of "competence" assumed of acceptable level. A few of them did stay on.
5. In those days, as a by-product of individual contacts between teaching hospital consultants here and abroad, senior registrars would go on exchanges to Scandinavia.
6. Even in those days - 1960s - doctors from abroad would come for six months to some postgraduate teaching hospitals. I remember one from Post-war Germany who worked at Stanmore. His English was very good. Later he became a professor in Rhineland. Admittedly, some doctors from abroad were not very fluent.
7. Nurses. In London, they were, Londoners, some from the provinces, from Ireland, some from the West Indies, from Australia, New Zealand. There were some even from Germany and Italy.
Never heard from any of them of unhappiness about how they were treated. I believe, from my own observations that there was no discrimination. Except once, where a West Indian nurse felt that she had not been accepted for a ward sister’s job because of her colour. I am inclined to share her feelings.
8. Porters, Kitchen and Domestic staff. In London, they were largely from the West Indies, In the Midlands, they were local or Irish. I always saw them treated as fellow human beings. Always politely.
Now I ask:
Do you, the “chief executives”, executives...., senior doctors, senior nurse managers ....... treat the other mortals over whom you hold sway with the kindness and courtesy YOU would like to be extended to you?
Do you treat the doctors, nurses, radiographers, therapists, and other staff, even if they are not natives with the same kindness and consideration as you would expect if you were working abroad?
Competing interests: An ancient, decrepit patient (with memories still of an earlier era)
Re: Brexit will damage health
Dear Sir/Madam
Whilst I agree with most of the concerns raised in this edition of the journal, I couldn't help but be struck by the lack of any balancing arguments or opinions. For a reputable scientific journal, this is an error of judgement and one which should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.
Yours sincerely
Peter O'Donnell
Competing interests: No competing interests