Letter: Girl B is victim of the internal market's climate of mistrust
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: There are three very good reasons for believing that the decision of the Cambridge and Huntingdon commissioning agency to refuse an operation to "Girl B" was based upon financial rather than clinical criteria.
1. The question the agency had to decide was whether or not it would fund an extra contractual referral (an ECR in NHS managerial speak). It follows, therefore, that a request must have been made for such a referral. If the clinicians involved did not make the request, then who did? Surely it is essential for these clinicians to speak out (that is, if they are allowed to).
2. According to press reports, lawyers for the agency continuously used the term "funding" as opposed to "providing" in relation to the treatment.
3. Other clinicians are prepared to go ahead with the treatment and, therefore, it must at the very least be considered as a reasonably clinical alternative.
In the days before the internal market ruined the NHS, such a very serious and difficult clinical situation as in this case would have been discussed between the parties involved in a spirit of complete trust. Under those circumstances, if it was the opinion of the clinician that it would be in the overall interest of the patient not to proceed with the treatment (but that if the relatives wished it could be given), it is highly likely that the advice given would have been graciously accepted. In the current climate, the spirit of complete trust has gone, because clinicians in their day-to-day work are being forced to take cost into account in formulating a treatment plan.
While accepting that health care funding must ultimately have a limit, in this country we are nowhere near that limit. In the UK, we only spend £582 per person per year on health, compared with the OECD average of £966 (OHE, 1992).
Do we want life and death decisions being made by quangos who are unaccountable? Is it not time that this awful experiment was brought to an end and the spirit of competition be replaced by a spirit of cooperation.
Yours sincerely,
DAVID ANTHONY JONES
Swansea
12 March
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments