Newsnight - 22:30 BBC2 Monday 22nd January

#2
I bloody hope so! Someone or something needs to highlight the fiasco that are MDHUs, things are not as rosy as the powers that be would love us all to believe!
 
#5
Just finnished watching this rather short piece, the impression is given that all military staff at the old military hospitals sat about waiting for a service person to get injured or require our help, odd that as I am sure that at the CMH we were close to 80% civillian patients/casualties. The vast majority of out of hours work was civillian too. I did an attachment with Hampshire Ambulances and the casualties always asked to go to the CMH even if they were close to another hospital
 
#6
I can't believe that treating civilians in mil hospitals wasn't even mentioned. And what's happened to Paxman? He allowed Twigg to get away with not answering his question "Is it acceptable for an injured soldier to be told to hide his uniform so as not to upset other patients/ justify the war in Iraq to civvys in the hospital." Twigg just repeated that the standard of care is excellent and that the NHS has been responsible for veterans since 1948.

What a waste of air-time, I expected better from Newsnight.
 
#7
Twigg is an utter disgrace, spineless and evasive.

I don't often sit in front of the TV shouting obscenities but I was in full cry tonight.

I can't think straight right now.
 
#8
LostBoss said:
Twigg is an utter disgrace, spineless and evasive.

I don't often sit in front of the TV shouting obscenities but I was in full cry tonight.

I can't think straight right now.
I try to keep an even balance but, tonight, LostBoss, I agree with you!

:pissedoff:

Litotes
 
#9
Is Selly Oak for rehabilitation?
 
#11
Apollonia said:
I can't believe that treating civilians in mil hospitals wasn't even mentioned.
Ditto! Which is what led me to join LostBoss and Litotes in yelling obscenities at the screen! Twigg is a mealy-mouthed individual who didn't even look as if he was convincing himself with the rhetoric he was spewing forth. :pissedoff:
 
#12
An accurate and objective analysis of an existing state of affairs may be arrived at by measuring the yawning gap that exists between, on the one hand, that which is described by Minsters such as Twigg and on the other, the reality of that which is physically experienced by those it affects.

That gap, the credibility gap, is the unit of measure, the yardstick by which contempt for him and his political gene pool is both measured and applied!
 
#13
Both myself and Mrs Worm saw tonight’s programme.
As I have previously said, although in the past, service personnel may have not been treated in a manner that we all would have liked the situation now is much different as both myself and Mrs Worm can say as members of today’s purple medical services. The work that we do is under difficult conditions not only operationally but also in today’s politically fuelled NHS environment, however, we still work hard to ensure that the military patients get treated quickly, professionally and in the best possible manner that they deserve due to the manner and where they work.

What irritates me the most is programs like this that drag in a handful of ex-soldiers from operations such as the Falklands who complain about the care that they have received. Many of these soldiers were treated 25 years ago in military hospitals.

The care that we provide today and everyday is the best that we can possibly give and is constantly improving. Recently an reserve service person was treated in Iraq as the care that we were able to provide there was better then what he would have received if back in the UK i.e. twice daily physio sessions.

I have said it before and I will say it again, especially as I work there, Selly Oak is the best place for our troops to be treated if, unfortunately they are wounded.
Worm
 
#14
Ahem.......


34. At 11:16 PM on 22 Jan 2007, lwm wrote:
For both interviewees to claim that there is not a sufficient population base to justify a Mil Hospital is disingenous at the least and a blatent lie at worst. As with almost all the closures of Military Hospitals there were passionate campaigns from the civilian community (who provided upto 80%) of the 'client base'. Spin a line about insufficient training opportunities for specialisations there.

Perhaps Mr S.Weston might have been approached to answer questions about (as it was raised by Mr Twigg) burns care; I a sure many nurses at QEMHC would be more than happy to corroborate his accounts.

Lierbour is shown yet again to fail.

Complain about this post
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/01/soldiering_on.html
 
#15
As I have previously said, although in the past, service personnel may have not been treated in a manner that we all would have liked the situation now is much different as both myself and Mrs Worm can say as members of today’s purple medical services. The work that we do is under difficult conditions not only operationally but also in today’s politically fuelled NHS environment, [/quote]

Are you NHS worms or Mil worms then? why are you not looking after mil patients? Why should the NHS affect our quality of care? Do you actually put on a uniform (if you serve) daily and face your client base dressed in that uniform?


What irritates me the most is programs like this that drag in a handful of ex-soldiers from operations such as the Falklands who complain about the care that they have received. Many of these soldiers were treated 25 years ago in military hospitals.
And were obviously shown a better level of care and respect than a worm like you is now prepared to show them. If standards have fallen then its down to the likes of you........incidently everyones busy.......................

The care that we provide today and everyday is the best that we can possibly give and is constantly improving. Recently an reserve service person was treated in Iraq as the care that we were able to provide there was better then what he would have received if back in the UK i.e. twice daily physio sessions.
********, what is being complained about is the level of care post service and role 4

I have said it before and I will say it again, especially as I work there, Selly Oak is the best place for our troops to be treated if, unfortunately they are wounded.
Worm
Job assured, MRSA under control, security measures in place convenient for late night transports?
 
#16
in the past, service personnel may have not been treated in a manner that we all would have liked the situation now is much different
The work that we do is under difficult conditions not only operationally but also in today’s politically fuelled NHS environment
The care that we provide today and everyday is the best that we can possibly give
I would not seek for one minute to impeach the sentiment expressed in your post. However, the first quote admits the existence of a situation that has long been inadequate while the second articulates the continuance of such difficulties which remain systemic. The two posts taken together may be summarised as saying and saying quite accurately: 'we are providing the best possible care we can within the constraints of the resources available to us."

If that is an accurate assessment then it begs the question, is the situation as it exists at present both adequate and satisfactory?

With respect, I do not think that it is, since the third quote misses one vital but important point:

What irritates me the most is programs like this that drag in a handful of ex-soldiers from operations such as the Falklands who complain about the care that they have received. Many of these soldiers were treated 25 years ago in military hospitals
I must respectfully dissent.

The point missed is the point made in the television report in that the gentleman amputee having lost his leg on OP CORPORATE 25 years ago has ongoing medical needs attributable to his service for which the existing NHS structure is inadequate. There are many hundreds more like him with ongoing medical needs attributable to both that and other prior and subsequent conflicts.

The Minister argues that the justification for the retention of Military hospitals cannot be financially sustained since there are insufficient military casualties who require treatment. He reinforces this argument by distinguishing between those who are entitled to treatment in military hospitals who are serving, and those who are no longer on the active list who lose that right and must therefore rely on the NHS.

The difficulty here is this artificial and arbitrary distinction between two classes of individual who have been injured and who have ongoing medical and psychiatric needs attributable to injuries resulting from armed conflict. All that separates these two artificially distinguished groups is the 'flash-to-bang' time!

Taken together, it drives a coach and horses through the argument that the numbers do not justify the cost.

The fact remains that there is no political will on the part of the Government to address these issues and to provide the resources to remedy them. The impact on the morale of those currently serving resulting from the fears over their medium and long-term care both as soldiers and former soldiers should they succumb to injury must be quite appalling!

The response of the government to this and other issues has been to attempt everything in it's power to silence the articulation of dissent on the spurious grounds of it's likely damaging affect on morale rather than address the issues that are responsible for sapping it in the first place!

Regards and best wishes
Iolis
 
#17
Letterwrightingman, I hope this clarifies things.

Both myself and Mrs Worm are regular serving personnel who proudly wear the uniform on a daily basis. Our ‘client base’ is the patient. That means that we look after anybody who is sick and or injured both the civilian population but also military personal who have come into our remit of care.

The level of care provided by myself and my colleges is the very best that we can provide. What I said previously was just that, the way we operate both as soldiers in the operational environment and as nurses in the UK setting has changed drastically over the past 25 years. The standard of care if has therefore improved and will continue to improve . if I provide poor care to anybody then I would happily hand in my registration as I have high personal and professional values and standards

Role 4 care is doing a damned good job so I’m not even going to comment. Post service care, as was stated in tonight’s program is down to the NHS to fast track ex-service personnel. Therefore it is the responsibility of the individual NHS trust who is looking after that individual to act appropriately.

Late night transfers happen due to the time of leaving an operational environment. If you’ve been on tour what time did you finally get back to the UK. Patients leave the operational setting at night due to safety considerations, however, if a patient is CCAST and their condition requires it the RAF areomed team will fly them out in the middle of the day direct to Birmingham if required.

Worm
 
#18
"...Therefore it is the responsibility of the individual NHS trust who is looking after that individual to act appropriately."
.

The difficulty with this aspirational approach disguised as a code of practice is that it is discretionary and allows the individual NHS trust to apply or ignore it without sanction since they base their priority on clinical need.

Indeed, there are some NHS trust which are distinctly hostile to the military and one can only conclude that there is no substance to such a policy. It is nothing more than a mere empty statement since it it both unenforced and unenforceable.

Regards and best wishes
Iolis
 
#19
Well said Iolis, but unfortunately the NHS is in charge of all healthcare within the country, civilian and military alike. Until the Government realise this there is nothing that anybody can do no matter how much it grates our military ethos. If it was up to the military then the injured military personal would be looked after by ourselves until the point came when they were fully fit again so service life.

Worm.
 
#20
Indeed. No matter how the Government dresses it up with an unsustainable argument for retaining the present unsatisfactory system; the main reason for maintaining a sub-standard service is, at it always was, on grounds of cost.

There will be no smaller version of that at which the American excel on a larger scale - a centrally located UK based tri-service BMH, organised for the treatment of Service people and veterans alike.

The approach of the government will follow the same tried and trusted pattern. It will simply wait until the issue fades from the headlines, along with fire-retardant foam on aircraft, thermal imaging deficiencies, lack of helicopter lift and sub-standard ammunition since once it drops off the media radar, the issue no longer exists and consequently, no longer needs to be addressed.

Regards and best wishes
Iolis
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top