The BMA is selling a fantasy. Strikes will harm patients and erode trust | The Secret Consultant

IIt is difficult to believe that, again, we are going to the industrial action of our resident doctors (formerly juniors). This has only been a year since the last strike round and the duration of it – five days to two weeks of notice during the summer when people are absent – is designed to send a message.

The consultants were, on the whole, favorable to the cycles of previous strikes. There is recognition that our residents are more difficult than us. There are more financial difficulties than before, their wages do not go as far as ours when we trained, and they have raised more student debts. In addition, they have to pay several thousand pounds in the general registration of the medical council and the compulsory conference and examination fees which are far from being covered by their study budgets in narrowing – it always seemed to be scandalous while I also trained. Consequently, most consultants were satisfied when residents received their 22% salary award last year. It was like a step in the right direction.

This time, however, it’s different. There does not seem to be a discussion on strikes, apart from the way we cover them. Most of us fear being considered carefree; We know that our residents talk to each other and we could get a reputation if we say what we really think.

In the conversations I have had, however, the feeling is that it is too early to leave and that there is little hope of additional awards at this stage. There is no doubt that the support of consultants to this series of strikes is much lower than before.

We are mainly tired of having to lean back to support other strikes that this time seem futile. There are internal quarrels about the cover now that a large part of the good will has disappeared. We are worried about the effect on patients, as well as the erosion of confidence in the profession. Above all, we are concerned about patient safety.

The discussion of the British Medical Association on patient safety continues to focus on hospital care and emergency care in hospitals. Indeed, attempted trusts to maintain elective care during the strike sparked the fury of the union. The members were warned of expecting “manipulative media attacks” and have assured that strikes are safe; It is the NHS that is irresponsible to try to maintain planned care.

The patient’s damage, however, presents himself in many forms. It includes patients with chronic diseases, such as asthma and diabetes, who find themselves in A&E because their appointments are canceled. It includes patients with chronic pain and disability when operations are delayed.

Resident doctors, especially those who have qualified more recently, rarely frequent ambulatory clinics or multidisciplinary team meetings where this aspect of patient health is the most notable. They are not exposed to the desperate requests of patients and general practitioners, whom I receive daily, asking that meetings be presented. Only a relatively low number of residents will have worked in primary care or will have the responsibility to prioritize patients seen or operated in a system short of resources. It is easier to reassure yourself on the cancellation of elective work if you do not see it or if you do not see it or if you have to face the fallout.

And this is where I dispute a large part of the rhetoric of the BMA. Resident doctors have been informed that they are not responsible for any damage to patients as a result of the strike and were invited not to declare in advance whether or not they strike. NHS trusts have the sole responsibility of ensuring patient safety and that the ultimate responsibility of the government is said not to access remuneration requests.

Simultaneously, the BMA advised the consultants to resist attempts to attempt to make “extra-contractual work” during the strikes. This is all that is different from what we are supposed to do one day given and includes the coverage of the services while the residents strike. Again, there is the same assurance as the responsibility to maintain patient safety falls to our employers, not to us.

So how does BMA think that NHS trust are supposed to maintain security, two weeks, when it tells its residents to strike and encourage consultants not to intervene to help? Does the union really think that the cancellation of all elective work is also “safe”? What if the planned work continues is it really concerned about the impact on patient safety, or that it will make the strikes less effective?

During the last strikes, we have acquired a better idea of the number of people necessary in the neighborhoods and which could be spared for planned work. This has a significant cost – we have to work much harder for everything to happen – but many of us feel quite strongly about the care to patients than we are ready to do it. I believe that the maintenance of security is accompanied by a duty to maintain planned care as much as possible.

I have a huge sympathy for our resident doctors, but believe that you can strike in mass without any responsibility for the consequences, it is – for me, at least – a fantasy at the leak sold by the BMA. The probability of a successful result must also be a factor in the decision to take such a huge risk. Individual doctors must make their own decisions to strike, of course, but they must be convinced that the cause justifies the damage that will be caused.

Doctors no longer take the hippocratic oath, but that does not mean that we are not linked by moral and professional responsibilities; Not just for our employers, but for our patients. We have to remember that.