Friday, 1 April 2011

BBC - Duty of Care ... and a Dereliction of Duty

To date the BBC has singularly (and deliberately) failed to address the fundamental issues raised by current NHS reforms ... e.g. rewarding GP's for rationing healthcare (a clear conflict of interest), as well all the other fundamental issues raised by every medical professional body (e.g. British Medical Association, Royal College of Surgeons, Royal College of Nursing etc etc)

In my humble opinion this is not only a dereliction of duty, but also points towards a deliberate conspiracy between the BBC and the Government, which is allowing the Government to press ahead with controversial and detrimental NHS reforms which affect everyone's health and well-being, and destroy the NHS. For instance, ask yourself why the Government are trying hard to bribe the greedy GP's to take part (with lucrative personal rewards for implementing it) ... and why all the true, honest, trustworthy and honorable GP's are so against it.

Current NHS reform were not asked for, or voted for, by anyone ... yet are being pushed through rapidly by this Government regardless of all the concerns raised by professional bodies and the general public. The introduction of the NHS was a key moment in UK history, and its destruction is equally as dramatic. Yet the BBC are failing to cover this issue in any real way (despite the public repeatedly asking them to). Nick Robinson is conveniently (for the Government) and deliberately not addressing it, preferring to focus all his attention on Libya instead, and the BBC's health correspondent, Fergus Walsh, is not addressing the issue either (despite his stated aim of wanting to look into the future and into the ethical issues associated with healthcare in particular).

Here is what I have posted on his blog when discussing the sharing/adoption of good practice (nb my post, the first post in response to his blog, was referred to their moderators rather than posted, despite the fact it broke no house rules ... and was then left that way!) 

Hospital managers also have a responsibility to adopt world class leadership and management practices ... but unfortunately such practices are almost completely opposite to what most managers currently understand/practice! However in leading hospitals the adoption of 21st century practices is quietly (and successfully) transforming patient outcomes, radically improving patient care and reducing unnecessary stress for both patients and staff. The problem is this type of 'management' is radically different to 'traditional management' ... and needs far less 'management' ... which perhaps goes some way to explaining why some managers are rather slow to spot it and adopt it! (i.e. it's a mixture of ignorance, apathy and self interest on the part of leaders and managers). Why don't you have a look into this area as well?
PS Why are you not also blogging about the ethics of profits v patient care (e.g. rewarding GP's for rationing healthcare)? IMHO if this blog is worth anything at all it should really be tackling this. Or is this an 'agreed no go-area' for the BBC! I note Nick Robinson is also completely avoiding this area and is happy to allow the Government to quietly destroy the NHS too ... through reforms no-one voted for and every professional body is against ... yet no-one is being listened to ... ethics, democracy, an independent BBC? I think not.

... and here is what I subsequently posted (post 11), which the BBC did reluctantly post!

Post 1 was referred for no good reason and has still not been reviewed/published! 
IMHO the BBC health blog is failing in its duty of care by not tackling the fundamental (and once in a lifetime) ethical issues/crisis which the NHS is facing at the moment (e.g. allowing GP's to profit from rationing healthcare - i.e. conflicts of interest), and Nick Robinson isn't either (preferring to focus only on Libya), despite the fundamental concerns raised by every professional medical body. Incompetence, dereliction of duty, conspiracy ... could be any or all of them.
The BBC appear not to want to upset their paymasters ... and this is not the licence fee payer - but the Government who decide how much (if anything) the licence fee payer has to pay! Independent ... I think not! They are just as bad as the politicians ... i.e. looking after themselves with no responsibility/duty of care.

I think these posts say it all really ... i.e. don't expect the BBC to feel they have a duty of care to the public (who they are supposed to serve - as we pay their salary), as they know the group who actually decide their fate is the Government  ... who agree the level of BBC licence fee and force people to pay ... but then most learned people in the blogosphere realise this already (nb the ex-director general of the BBC, Greg Dyke, Jeremy Paxman and Peter Sissons etc have all previously voiced their concern about this in the past).