Elitism in politics

Doctors' leaders have today called upon the three main political parties to draw up plans outlining how they will make their profession less elitist. Medicine has a proud tradition of training ethnic minorities dating back decades, whereas until the 1980s there was not a single black, Asian, nor openly gay MP in parliament, and so few women that the advent of all-women shortlists was necessary. About a third of all politicians were educated privately (7% of the population are educated there), with almost half of the Conservatives' ranks hailing from fee-paying schools (not all, however, went to Eton, although in 1966 when 81% went to private school a lot probably did). The BMA have therefore announced that they feel MPs would be well-served by taking as an example the medical schools around the country which are working to improve the representation of the communities they serve among the doctors they train.

Not really, alas. In a display of rank hypocrisy which is up there with the worst of them, unnamed "ministers" have told doctors, lawyers, and accountants they have to draw up plans for making their professions less elitist. That's doctors et al have to make their own professions less elitist - not MPs'.

Alan Milburn appears to be the architect of this nonsense, and although his own credentials fit the bill (raised by a single mother, working-class background), his eagerness to sell the healthcare system out from under the feet of the public by taking 30k a year from private healthcare firms makes one rather question his judgement. Do any of these firms provide private medical education, one wonders?

The best thing about this pitiful pre-election vote-grab? The BMA raised this issue in 2004, urging MPs to back an early day motion to the effect that medicine should not be an elitist profession. Six years later, Alan and the largely privately-schooled oafs in Westminster have adjusted the plank on one eye, noticed that several medical schools (notably King's College London) have already begun transforming their admissions policies, and have told doctors' leaders that doctors need to come from a wider range of social backgrounds.

We know. We told you so six years ago. Back to your port, cigars, extraordinarily long holidays, and your lucrative taking of the shill from the private sector.

Drunks, psychos, and drunk psychos

I have been working nights recently, which is a joy; the old adage that half are fine and half are drunks or psychos is not that much of an exaggeration. There is of course relatively little to be done about this - the recent journalistic throwing-up-of-hands about it, while entirely correct, will not result in any action. That story from 2010 was written in similar form six years ago. Comparing the two plucked-from-air numbers suggests that alcohol is costing the health service an extra billion quid a year. Without digging through the numbers, my guess is rather than reflecting there being more boozers or their somehow contriving to piss on the floor in A&E in a more expensive way, the percentage cost they amount to is similar, and the burgeoning admin, management, and "consulting" fees spent on the NHS inflate the figure artificially.

Anyway, last night one of my patients was both drunk and psycho (NB: not a technical term), but was perfectly pleasant and to his credit made an honest if unsuccessful attempt not to urinate on the floor. In the end he got admitted to an observation ward overnight to sober up, and that necessitated handing him over to the morning team. I ran through the history, and mentioned that he had a mental illness "with some inappropriate behaviour - for instance, he commented on how handsome I was, and asked if I had a boyfriend - but he wasn't acutely psychotic."

Whip-smart, one of the day team piped up, "Well - I don't know...". I was smiling about it all the way home.