I am extremely disturbed by recent reporting in the press about the stance of the BMA with regard to Government policy on handling the COVID pandemic.
It appears that the statements voiced through the BMJ are being interpreted as the opinion of the medical profession as a whole. Having read this week's editorial the opinion of I SAGE is apparently being accepted as the view of doctors in the complex medico political issue of the pace of easing the Lockdown.
As no data was presented by I SAGE for professionals with our statistical and analytical training to scrutinise I was unable to evaluate the advice proffered by this so called independent group. Having seen the names and careers of I SAGE, I strongly suspect a political bias to their output and feel at a such a time of national crisis the BMA more than ever needs to remain true to delivering impartial views based on scientific evidence.
I was particularly shocked when at the daily Coronavirus update the BBC journalist posed a question as to who the teaching profession should believe about the safety of limited school restarts - the Government or "doctors" citing the BMA as the source.
I resent being implicated in the furore over this issue without appropriate consultation notwithstanding the fact that the opinion expressed in this fast moving debate was a week out of date.
As a BMA member for 40 years and an NHS Consultant for 30, I feel increasingly uncomfortable with the overall stance of the Association which seems out of step with my own experience as a committed NHS regional Consultant.
The working environment I have experienced has not left me short of PPE, overburdened me with inappropriate changes in roles or left me unsupported by management. I read in the BMJ constantly and see on television a picture of disharmony and anger over the handling of the pandemic by this government which is completely at variance with my own "on the ground" daily lived professional experience.
Our trust made timely massive changes to its work patterns and continued to provide access to any patient with acute disorders across all specialties. Staff in all area have worked calmly and with good humour. Those however dealing directly with ill COVID patients have been faced immense pressures but as I understand it had good support from management and colleagues across the specialties.
The BMA clearly has a powerful voice and I appreciate that we should not parrot a narrative that slavishly follows official government advice without question when patient safety is at risk. The public's health remains the central focus of our professional lives but I feel that any opinions must only be expressed after rigorous scrutiny otherwise the reputation of the BMA as the authoritative face the profession will be tarnished and our views marginalised.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
18 May 2020
Timothy Dabbs
Consultant Ophthalmologist
Leeds teaching hospitals NHS trust Beckett St Leeds LS97TF
Rapid Response:
Re: Covid-19: Testing testing
Dear Editor
I am extremely disturbed by recent reporting in the press about the stance of the BMA with regard to Government policy on handling the COVID pandemic.
It appears that the statements voiced through the BMJ are being interpreted as the opinion of the medical profession as a whole. Having read this week's editorial the opinion of I SAGE is apparently being accepted as the view of doctors in the complex medico political issue of the pace of easing the Lockdown.
As no data was presented by I SAGE for professionals with our statistical and analytical training to scrutinise I was unable to evaluate the advice proffered by this so called independent group. Having seen the names and careers of I SAGE, I strongly suspect a political bias to their output and feel at a such a time of national crisis the BMA more than ever needs to remain true to delivering impartial views based on scientific evidence.
I was particularly shocked when at the daily Coronavirus update the BBC journalist posed a question as to who the teaching profession should believe about the safety of limited school restarts - the Government or "doctors" citing the BMA as the source.
I resent being implicated in the furore over this issue without appropriate consultation notwithstanding the fact that the opinion expressed in this fast moving debate was a week out of date.
As a BMA member for 40 years and an NHS Consultant for 30, I feel increasingly uncomfortable with the overall stance of the Association which seems out of step with my own experience as a committed NHS regional Consultant.
The working environment I have experienced has not left me short of PPE, overburdened me with inappropriate changes in roles or left me unsupported by management. I read in the BMJ constantly and see on television a picture of disharmony and anger over the handling of the pandemic by this government which is completely at variance with my own "on the ground" daily lived professional experience.
Our trust made timely massive changes to its work patterns and continued to provide access to any patient with acute disorders across all specialties. Staff in all area have worked calmly and with good humour. Those however dealing directly with ill COVID patients have been faced immense pressures but as I understand it had good support from management and colleagues across the specialties.
The BMA clearly has a powerful voice and I appreciate that we should not parrot a narrative that slavishly follows official government advice without question when patient safety is at risk. The public's health remains the central focus of our professional lives but I feel that any opinions must only be expressed after rigorous scrutiny otherwise the reputation of the BMA as the authoritative face the profession will be tarnished and our views marginalised.
Competing interests: No competing interests