Forum menu
I'm with tjagain on this point:
If he wants to meet up with staff then he needs to set up a meeting where he is NOT taking staff away from their jobs to do so.
He would also go without a camera crew and his hangers-on, go in quietly and on the agreement of the people who he wishes to talk to.
Javid seems to be courting controversy to keep him in the media's spotlight and for alterior motives.
He would also go without a camera crew
Why would he go on a publicity exercise about the covid vaccine without a camera crew?
If he wants to meet up with staff then he needs to set up a meeting where he is NOT taking staff away from their jobs to do so.
A meeting probably takes them away for longer.
because of Javids visit somone received less care that day than they would have done without Javid being there
The counter argument is because of Javid's visit some staff got more resources or felt more valued/listened to and therefore every patient for the rest of the year was better off! Or some people at home decided to get vaccinated and didn't end up in hospital and the whole system was better off. Now I don't rate Javid, but if you want better care in hospitals etc its probably best not to treat them as secret institutions that public and politicians never see inside, and who's front line staff never meet the top man even briefly.
They politicians can meet staff so long as they are not taking them away from their work
Having had experience of politicians visiting units its hugely disruptive and damages patient care
I also object to them using the NHS for personal publicity
Poly - I also refused to go to useless meetings. Got threatened with disciplinary for doing so. I quoted the NMC code of conduct to the management and pointed out that to go to their useless meeting when I had patients to care for would put me in breach of the NMC code. they dropped the threat and stopped trying to make me go to useless meetings
I also had a non NHS emplyer try to tell me that my primary loyalty was to the company. I pointed out to them that under the code it was actually to the patients first, the NMC code second and then the company ie that if the company told me to do something that was against the code not only did I have the right to refuse but also a duty to refuse. they didn't like it one bit.
My patients came first,
Poly – I also refused to go to useless meetings.
So you think that Javid should listen to staff but only at a special meeting which you would condemn as useless.
I think it's fair to say that whatever Javid were to do, whether it's stay in his office, go to a hospital, speak to staff either in a special meeting or not a special meeting, you will oppose it.
The problem for you is who Javid is, what he has or hasn't done isn't really relevant, it's all going to be wrong. You should have said that from the start, would have saved some misunderstanding concerning what you were on about.
As someone who works in a hospital, I would value politicians coming in and interrupting my work day, if that meant a) My opinion was heard b) I felt valued c) the NHS / my specialty got national publicity.
I'm happy to see the health minister on the shop floor, seeing for himself what's going on. It's very short-sighted to see it only as taking healthcare workers away from their patients and grandstanding on the part of the politicians.
No Ernie.
Its purely about Javids actions here
1) using the hospital for a personal publicity stunt
2) taking staff away from their duties which damages patient care
If a meeting has some purpose and does not damage patient care i would go. I would certainly meet with a politician as long as the meeting did not take me away from my patients
I think the concepts outlined in the NMC code are hard for layfolk to understand
make sure that any treatment, assistance or care for which<you are responsible is delivered without undue delay
Superficial - so you are happy to breach the code?
Poly – I also refused to go to useless meetings.
who got to decide whether the meeting was useless?
Me - its my responsibility under the code. Its my duty and obligation under the code. Again if you are not ( and even sometimes if you are) its hard to understand a professionals obligations under the code. You have to refuse an order from management if it means breaching the code of conduct.
its a simple 2 part test test. "will this improve patient care?" " Will patient care be delayed if I go to this meeting"
The fact the management dropped the threat of disciplinary shows I was right. they also change the meeting times so it did not interfere with patient care. I was not the only one to refuse
There is an uncomfortable reality that many politicians are trying to do what most would accept is the right thing. Many may not agree with the decisions or reasons but it’s hard to argue that some really don’t try. It applies to politicians of any mainstream party. It’s why the vitriol that is blindly spouted is often really misdirected.
In part they have "themselves" as a group to blame for that. Partisan political point scoring and an inability to stamp out sleaze within their ranks means that the public don't see politicians as people trying to solve problems for the good of society/country but as manipulators trying to make themselves successful. I dare say that many who pushed the "democratic will of the people" even believed they were doing the right thing - although you have to wonder if they are intellectually qualified in that case...!
This is how you lose the fight though. The consultant gets top billing and his views get churned out again.
They politicians can meet staff so long as they are not taking them away from their work
I 100% get your logic. On the other hand if 90% of the organisation are moaning about things that are wrong, and they are the ones who are too busy to meet the leadership the leaders get a biased view from the 10% who aren't at the coal face.
Having had experience of politicians visiting units its hugely disruptive and damages patient care
Having experienced it in other settings I 100% am not surprised. HOWEVER, I've also seen that the department that did host the politicians was front of mind when the budgets came to be set, and when the politicians came up with funding initiatives. Is it a greater good question? The 20 patients on the ward today are delayed for half an hour, but theres a small chance that life improves for all patients this year, versus best possible care for that 20 today but possibly worse care for all future patients (as your obstructive department gets budget cut to support more helpful ones).
The fact the management dropped the threat of disciplinary shows I was right.
A common misconception! That just means they decided it wasn't worth the argument.
By the way I also have a policy of not wasting my time in meetings I add zero value to and get nothing from. My current manager is on board with that. I am perfectly aware its probably career limiting. I am also aware that sometimes decisions will be made without me being there and I may have to live with them and have no right to complain because I was invited and decided I was too important for the meeting.
I've no time really for Javid, but he turned up to a GP practice near me where a patient had inflicted some pretty serious injuries to more than a few members of staff. No TV, no reporters, just him and a member of his team. The folk who were there all said that it felt pretty good to have had his time, that Javid's staff has followed up asking about GP staff members health, and some money for repairs and extra security turned up pretty sharpish.
Superficial – so you are happy to breach the code?
What code we talking about here?
GMC duties of a doctor:
2a) Engage with colleagues to maintain and improve the safety and quality of patient care.
2b) Contribute to discussions and decisions about improving the quality of services and outcomes.
Literally no one (apart from you) is suggesting that a patient was left waiting for analgesia / antibiotics / a commode while the staff chatted to Javid. You're being incredibly shortsighted.
You’re being incredibly shortsighted.
TJ? Really...
I am really astonished how few folk here seem able to understand what a serious ethical issue this is. also that it will cause staffing issues – it already has done in care homes.
Interestingly I saw someone elsewhere making that argument about a paramedic in Canada who just got fired for now being vaccinated. Someone countered with an argument that was something like this:
If 90% of the workforce are vaccinated voluntarily, and 3/4 of the rest do so under mandate, you lose 2.5% of the workforce. If you don't introduce mandatory vaccines and the virus is so prevalent that everyone who is not vaccinated gets sick over a 2 month period, each off sick for 2 weeks more than a vaccinated person would be - you effectively lose the same amount of available work - but with the higher risk of people being very ill and or dying. That's before you consider the implications on the wider messaging that 10% of medical staff didn't take the vaccine despite being on the front line - so either must be a dangerous vaccine or covid can't be that bad.
As I've said before in this thread I'm not convinced about mandatory vaccination, but these things are never as simple people would like them to be.
superficial - the NMC code of conduct for nurses which states as above that delays to patient care are unacceptable
so you really think the staffing on that ITU is such that they can lose a couple of hours ( at a bare minimum- probably much more) of staff time without it having any effect on patient care? ( half a dozen staff for 20 mins = 2 hours of staff time)
In the case I said above where I turned my back on a politician and walked off when they wanted to speak to me I had a patient that had shit themselves and I was the only staff member free to deal with it. Every minute I spoke to that politician was a minute longer that patient waited to be cleaned up. Under the code did I not only have the right to ignore the politician but a duty to do so. Stopping to speak to them would have put me in breach of thre code
Yes, and if you have some evidence that a patient on that ITU was lying in their excrement because their nurse was shooting the breeze with Sajid, then you should probably present it to any of a number of newspapers who would have a field day.
I have no evidence of course but I simply do not believe a ITU in london at the moment had 2 hours od staff time that could be used for political purposes without affecting patient care. Of course they could be having a quiet period and the time be available - ITU workloads tend to vary widely even hour by hour but given the current state of the NHS in london I doubt it
GMC page is down right now so I cannot see the fullcode for doctors but in the summary the first duty is "make the care of your patient your first concern"
As I said - I have had this argument with senior NHS and non NHS management several times and won every time because the NMC code trumps management instructions
As I said – I have had this argument with senior NHS and non NHS management several times and won every time because the NMC code trumps management instructions
Badgering people into submission with persistent self righteousness is not the same as winning an argument on merit.
Badgering people into submission with persistent self righteousness is not the same as winning an argument on merit.
Wonderful! I don't often genuinely laugh out loud but this is one of those times. Thank you MSP.
Its funny MSP but really not true. You really think the board of a housing association or the management 3 levels above me in the NHS give up just 'cos i am being a self righteous prick? 🙂
Actually it was when i asked them to put in writing that they wanted me to break my code of conduct they backed down. Its funny how they will not do that. In the NHS one they totally changed the format and time of the meeting so that it did not compromise patient care.
I must have been a right pain in the arse to them 🙂 All in the name of defending my patients
I wouldn’t want to be treated by someone who works in the NHS, has seen the chaos and misery that COVID-19 has wrought on the public - specifically the unvaccinated - and who has actively chosen to refuse a vaccine themselves.
If they’re ignoring their colleagues, scientists, and the overwhelming evidence in favour of vaccination then their professional abilities should quite rightly be called into account, followed by dismissal on those grounds.
And stop calling it “compulsory vaccination”. If anything it’s making anyone that visits an NHS facility in the future safer as these crackpots won’t get their hands on them.
You really think the board of a housing association or the management 3 levels above me in the NHS give up just ‘cos i am being …
… stubborn with clear objectives.
Put it this way, for anything important… I’d be grateful to have you in my corner fighting for what you think is best for me. I know you’d never give up/in.
I wouldn’t want to be treated by someone who works in the NHS, has seen the chaos and misery that COVID-19 has wrought on the public – specifically the unvaccinated – and who has actively chosen to refuse a vaccine themselves.
If they’re ignoring their colleagues, scientists, and the overwhelming evidence in favour of vaccination then their professional abilities should quite rightly be called into account, followed by dismissal on those grounds.
And stop calling it “compulsory vaccination”. If anything it’s making anyone that visits an NHS facility in the future safer as these crackpots won’t get their hands on them.
This. X100
Flaperon - I quite agree they are crackpots. What I cannot agree with is overturning a long standing principle of medical ethics in that consent for treatment must be freely given.
I am really astonished how few folk here seem able to understand what a serious ethical issue this is.
I'm going to take issue with this claim.
I fully understand what a "serious ethical issue" this is and honestly, it's kinda patronising that you think that what is happening here is a lack of comprehension from your readers.
What you're overlooking is, it's not ignorance, rather I simply don't care what they believe. It's an abject irrelevance.
We are in the midst of a global pandemic. If you had a TV you might've seen it on the news. If I'm ever unfortunate enough to find myself in a hospital then I don't want the "vaccine-hesitant" anywhere near me because a) they're potential plague rats and b) they're demonstrably morons of the highest order, neither of which are qualities I seek in a healthcare professional.
"Not likely to give me a potentially fatal illness" and "not shit thick" really shouldn't be a high bar. Because come on, seriously, who the **** is "vaccine hesitant" and yet signs up for a job with the NHS? It's utter madness. P45s all round and bollocks to them, go and get those nice Europeans back, next question.
I know too many vulnerable people, some of whom are sadly now "knew" rather than "know." I'm bored of this shit, and I'm so very bored of people making excuses for it. I'm absolutely against mandatory vaccines for many reasons (not least of which is, it's a fearmongering tabloid fiction) but I'm 100% in favour of compulsory vaccines if it's part of your goddamn job (unless you legitimately can't). Go get a job on a building site, exercise your 'rights' to not wear hi-viz or a hard-hat and see how long you last. I give you till lunchtime.
consent for treatment must be freely given.
But it is.
You can have the vaccines, or you can find alternative employment. Choices, see?
With respect @tjagain I think you maybe need to take a step back from this thread -you are coming across as a tad fundamentalist and very irrational. I've given my opinion on mandatory vaccines previously.
You claim to be be the only one understand medical ethics, that a medic above understands his gmc code less than you and it appears you have never taken a break, attended a teaching session or gave handover during your career.
I'm a nurse and worked itu for 12 years, it is incredibly common for staff to cover each others patient for short periods -lunch break/ handover/ training/ assisting in another bedspace/ transfers- I could go on - not at all as you portray it how you were on constant standby with your lamp and cloak like Florence to mop their fevered brow.
I agree about hte political point scoring bit, but some posters above show valid reasons to engage with these people but you are the only one who can see the truth apparently.
Take a break, for your own health.
Ok I apologise if I have come over too harsh but for me to reverse hundreds of years of medical ethics seems wrong and badly wrong
cougar - for consent to be freely given it must be given without duress. If the choice is " consent to a medical treatment or lose your job" that is duress.
I am just surprised at how many folk on here are prepared to throw away medical ethics over this. To mandate medication in this way is throwing away medical ethics - I have never seen in my lifetime ethics ignored like this.
And yes - its clear many folk on here simply do not understand how fundamental the point about consent is
it appears you have never taken a break, attended a teaching session or gave handover during your career.
Never if it put patients at risk. But then I managed my time well so as to be able to do this without putting patients at risk. I had the luxury of working in highly staffed units tho. I have refused to go off duty until my patients were safe. Its patients first . second and third to me.
So in the light of this we now need to rewrite the while textbook on medical ethics. No longer is valid consent needed. Now we can use whatever level of coercion is needed to medicate people with no legal supervision. I am glad i am retired because this is such a radical departure from the ethics I know that I could no longer work in heathcare under the new coercive ethic
What you’re overlooking is, it’s not ignorance, rather I simply don’t care what they believe. It’s an abject irrelevance.
And that is a fundamental cornerstone of medical ethic gone. Its a fundamental part of medical ethics that a decision may be irrational but still competent. I don't care what folk believe either. What I do care about is that hundreds of years of medical ethic have gone just like that
so we can now coerce people into taking medication without a court ordering it. that stinks to high heaven
cougar a choice of take this medication or lose your job is not a free choice. I will not stink up this thread any further but I can via PM if you like give yo a lot of information about why coercive measures are not acceptable in medicine
It a basic principle that has now gone
In times of extraordinary need (say a pandemic for example) protocol and situations need assessed and processes changed accordingly. If we are to abide by hundreds of years old ethics with no consideration of current day then that's insane. We don't live 200 years ago man!
Where is this mythical workplace, and how do I get a job? Or is it just you are a wonder nurse? I used to try and manage time but those selfish patients needing admission, arresting, shitting themselves always ruined my plans - how very dare they. You're coming across as quite arrogant and beyond reproach here. My patients safety was priority too, however if the option is I piss myself or can make poor decisions due too low blood sugar or dehydration I'll balance the risks and have a break while someone looks on.
I don't think I've seen anyone say 'valid consent' is not needed -that's you extrapolated opinion and your unwillingness to move from your position - its the TJ and TJagain way it seems.
Final post on this ( sorry I have been out for beers after a bad day)
For consent to be valid, it must be given voluntarily and freely, without pressure or undue influence, by an appropriately informed person who has the capacity to consent to the intervention in question. Some people may feel pressurised, by relatives or carers to accept a particular investigation or treatment.
This is the NMC code on consent
So this and all guides to medical ethics now need to be rewritten in the light of this that pressure or coercion is now a valid way to gain consent
Sorry I need to answer this
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone say ‘valid consent’ is not needed
actually under the NMC code that is exactly what folk are saying. they are saying the coercion of accept the vaccination or lose your job is OK - well that is clearly coercion and against the NMC code quite clearly as I quoted it above
Ok chaps - I will not post on this thread again unless someone directs a question at me
I am disgusted that people think coercing people into medication against the NMC and GMC codes of conduct is acceptable.
|I agree these anti vax folk are bampots and its not acceptable.
cougar – for consent to be freely given it must be given without duress. If the choice is ” consent to a medical treatment or lose your job” that is duress.
No it's not. Duress is decisions made under the threat of physical violence (or worse).
Hair-splitting aside, why is it problematic to expect healthcare professionals to take care of their own health rather than wholly avoidably expose their patients to greater risk?
I am just surprised at how many folk on here are prepared to throw away medical ethics over this. To mandate medication...
Again. No-one is mandating medication. This is not an ethics issue. Would you be shouting about the rights of someone not to have a malaria jab before going working in the Panama Canal?
It's not mandatory. Absolutely everyone in the country has the right to say no and like you I too will fight for that right. But, actions have consequences, I equally have the right not to let unvaccinated people into my shop (if I had a shop, which I don't.) That's how choices work.
And yes – its clear many folk on here simply do not understand how fundamental the point about consent is
And again, this is condescending. We understand. We just disagree.
If they don't consent then that is absolutely fine. Perfectly within their rights. But by turns then they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near people for whom their lack of consent might kill.
As a random example my mum is chronically poorly, aside from being a stroke survivor she's seemingly down now to just the one kidney. I picked her up from hospital after a 'routine' operation around Christmas. Contracting Covid will almost certainly finish her off. Are you seriously, as a nurse, going to tell me that "I choose not to have a vaccination for who the **** even knows what bullshit reason I've just made up" trumps my mother not being dead? Because if you are then you and I are going to have a falling out. I take your point and I broadly agree with it, but we are in atypical times and needs must.
Get vaccinated or **** off out of the health service. I know you like your black and white, but for once it really is that simple.
I am disgusted that people think coercing people into medication against the NMC and GMC codes of conduct is acceptable.
For the record I haven't seen a compelling argument to justify forcing healthcare workers to be vaccinated against their wishes. Perhaps it exists but I'm not aware of it. Has the risk that unvaccinated healthcare workers pose been quantified?
I am intrigued to know why someone like Dr James is so opposed to being vaccinated though. He obviously feels extremely passionate about it but the only reason given that I've heard is that he doesn't believe that he needs the vaccine. Which is quite a good reason for not having the vaccine but not a very good reason to refuse to have it. A good reason to refuse it would be if you felt that it might be harmful.
The most common reason given for vaccine hesitancy is "lack of trust". I can well understand how many people might not trust the medical professions, some people for whatever reason don't trust what they don't understand. But is there really somewhere in the region of 10% of health workers who share in this lack of trust? It's really quite worrying if that is the case.
Duress is decisions made under the threat of physical violence (or worse).
Nah, that's not true, it's not restricted to just that. Threatening to sack someone would also count.
Duress is decisions made under the threat of physical violence
Not according to the NMC as quoted above.
"For consent to be valid, it must be given voluntarily and freely, without pressure or undue influence,"
If you want to change the law on consent then fine - do it but do not attempt to pretend that this is a valid consent under the law as it exists
cougar - i studied this stuff under one of Scotlands top medico-legal experts at honours degree level and passed my exams with a distinction
I am disgusted that people think coercing people into medication against the NMC and GMC codes of conduct is acceptable.
I couldn't give a shite about your codes of conduct and I'm frankly disgusted that you seemingly think that the life of my mother is acceptable collateral damage.
And yes, of course I know you don't -actually- think that, but. This is where we're heading. Which is more important, patient safety or the rights of medical staff not to use PPE if they don't want? Because this is absolutely what this is, it's a pointless rejection of basic safety precautions for no rational reason. Would you go for an operation with a surgeon who was exercising his rights not to use antiseptic? How about anaesthetic?
I’m frankly disgusted that you seemingly think that the life of my mother is acceptable collateral damage.
I don't. I think anti vaxers are stupid and my dad is in the same position - he gets covid he will die
You don't think the codes of conduct nurses and doctors work under matter? They are there to prevent abuse
PPE is a different issue - I have disciplined staff for not using PPE properly - no ethical issue at all
cougar – i studied this stuff under one of Scotlands top medico-legal experts at honours degree level
Then you know more about it than me.
But again: I don't care. Couldn't give the slightest of shites what people "think" when lives are on the line. They can stuff their beliefs up your arse and grow up, or change career.
Healthcare professionals should be professional about healthcare. Are you denying that?
People in healthcare who are "vaccine hesitant" should be facing some probing questions. Are you denying that? We shouldn't be trying to change these minds?
Pff. I'm gonna go play some Forza before I get properly cross.