THE PEDIATRICIAN AND THE PUBLIC

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1954 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-166
Author(s):  
EDWARDS A. PARK

The British National Health Service is a highly original system. Its organization is as democratic as our public school system and free from political control. It is the most interesting and exciting social experiment of my life which means a great many years. It is time that we give up one-sided consideration and turn to study it fairly, for whatever direction medical care takes in this country it is possible to learn enormously from the experiences of the British system. I believe that it has some serious defects but that in spite of them it has been a prodigious success in supplying the needs of the people. I think that in assessing the value of the British National Health Service we Americans fall into two errors. In the first place we compare the best which we have in this country with what we happen to run across and in some instances with the selected worst in Great Britain. The second error, which is the more important, is that we think primarily in terms of the physicians, i.e., ourselves. We involuntarily put ourselves in the place of the British physician and ask how we would like to be restricted as they are. The primary aim of medical service is the patient and, in the aggregate, the preservation of the health and welfare of the nation. In developing any system of medical care, it is necessary to consider first the welfare of the people, but it is a fundamental mistake not to consider adequately the welfare of the physician. I think that the error in the organization of the National Health Service was in considering almost exclusively the needs of the people and giving very little attention to the needs of the physician, who have been moved about and their activities limited and defined too much as if they were chess men on the board. From this error, it is the people who will ultimately suffer.

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1950 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-352

THIS issue contains two communications concerning the British National Health Service; a letter from Dr. Hugh C. Thompson, who is a member of the Tucson Clinic, Tucson, Arizona; and a reply by Dr. Edwards A. Park. The first two papers are those which were presented by a panel of visiting experts who were invited to discuss the British National Health Service at the recent annual meeting of the American Public Health Association in New York City. The first paper is by Mr. J. T. Rice-Edwards, F.R.C.S., who appeared as the official representative of the British Medical Association. One point brought out in the panel discussion was that the present National Health Service in Great Britain is not the child of the Labor Government, but rather had been agreed to in principle by all major parties. As early as 1933 the British Medical Association had recommended to the government that the panel system which then covered less than 50% of the population should be greatly expanded. The Beveridge Report, which laid the foundation for the whole broad welfare program, including the National Health Service, was accepted in principle by Mr. Churchill's government in 1942. Mr. Rice-Edwards points out in his paper that the profession agreed to accept service under the Minister of Health and also to make the service available to 100% of the population in 1944, before the present government came into power.


Health Policy ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alastair M. Gray ◽  
V.L. Phillips ◽  
Charles Normand

2003 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline Leonard

This paper adopts a feminist poststructuralist approach to demonstrate the ambiguities and complexities which exist in the relationship between work and subject. Recent studies in organizational sociology have argued that the discourses of work, and changing working cultures, have had a powerful effect on the production of subjectivities. New forms of working behaviour have been constructed as desirable, which often draw on personal qualities such as gender. This paper draws on research conducted with doctors and nurses in the British National Health Service to reveal the ambiguities which exist in the ways in which individuals position themselves in relation to these discourses. The discourses of work and organization are constantly mediated through, and destabilised by, the intertextuality that exists with competing discourses such as those of professionalism, gender, home and performance. Although organizational discourses are clearly powerful in the construction and performance of subjectivities, the interplay between discourses means that these are constantly destabilised and undermined.


2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 660-668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Newdick

Most now recognize the inevitability of rationing in modern health care systems. The elastic nature of the concept of “health need,” our natural human sympathy for those in distress, the increased range of conditions for which treatment is available, the “greying” of the population; all expand demand for care in ways that exceed the supply of resources to provide it. UK governments, however, have found this truth difficult to present and have not encouraged open and candid public debate about choices in health care. Indeed, successive governments have presented the opposite view, that “if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone.” And they have been rightly criticized for misleading the public and then blaming clinical and managerial staffin the National Health Service (NHS) when expectations have been disappointed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document