Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well firstly, I am a little confused about how the white paper thing is going to change things. I've tried to read the thing itself but it confuses me a little. Basically I understand that they're going to give a more managerial role to GP's and get rid of SHAs etc, so that there are less sort of "hierarchies" I guess and so that the patient's needs can be attended to more effectively. I do see how some people don't think it's a good idea, as GP's aren't really trained to handle a load of money. But they do know more about the drugs etc. so would know which ones are better to invest in... what do you guys think?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JessicaStacks)
    Well firstly, I am a little confused about how the white paper thing is going to change things. I've tried to read the thing itself but it confuses me a little. Basically I understand that they're going to give a more managerial role to GP's and get rid of SHAs etc, so that there are less sort of "hierarchies" I guess and so that the patient's needs can be attended to more effectively. I do see how some people don't think it's a good idea, as GP's aren't really trained to handle a load of money. But they do know more about the drugs etc. so would know which ones are better to invest in... what do you guys think?
    What'll happen is GP surgeries will end up outsourcing the management of money to private companies for a fee. That fee is paid by taxpayers money. It also allows GPs to "shop" for the best deal around for your healthcare, undermining the NHS and putting more tax money in the hands of companies which only care about profit.

    These reforms are about getting rid of the NHS, and lining the pockets of the private healthcare sector (who can afford lobbyists).

    I hate the tories. :argh:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chonicles)
    Thanks a lot It was Newcastle

    Thanks again I appreciate it. I am actually looking forward to the interview, I feel really well prepared and I am confident about my retake in Jan - so I'm out of the downer period that I was in after missing my offer by such a frustratingly small amount of UMS.
    Ah, Newcastle ? :eek: I actually love Newcastle University ... though now, that's made me lose a bit of respect for them. :mad:

    But anyways, as they say, "everything happens for a reason", so maybe, going to Peninsula might be the better option for you in the long run.

    Best of luck with the interview though, and do let me know how it goes !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harbour Seal)
    What'll happen is GP surgeries will end up outsourcing the management of money to private companies for a fee. That fee is paid by taxpayers money. It also allows GPs to "shop" for the best deal around for your healthcare, undermining the NHS and putting more tax money in the hands of companies which only care about profit.

    These reforms are about getting rid of the NHS, and lining the pockets of the private healthcare sector (who can afford lobbyists).

    I hate the tories. :argh:
    Really I always thought the NHS was a good system. They did have some issues with waiting times and funding etc, but those probably could have been fixed with little things rather than trying to reform the whole way it works. If you had to save money in the NHS how would you do it? It's unfair really do reduce funding for certain areas or diseases as one might think its discrimination, but what about things like drug reviews etc?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by JessicaStacks)
    Really I always thought the NHS was a good system. They did have some issues with waiting times and funding etc, but those probably could have been fixed with little things rather than trying to reform the whole way it works. If you had to save money in the NHS how would you do it? It's unfair really do reduce funding for certain areas or diseases as one might think its discrimination, but what about things like drug reviews etc?
    It is a good system actually, and if you look at healthcare system polls the NHS ranks highly among them always.

    These changes have come under a lot of criticism and the white paper review has already been changed and amendments made already. Its really hard to find where to cut funding because each hospital and each region has different needs, different patients and technology so rather than just tell everyone to cut a set amount of money and hit targets, the tory govt want to change a number of things including the introduction of these commissioning groups which will be able to decide on the healthcare for their region. But I disagree with the way they are going to go about it as do many others.

    You may have read that a lot of nursing jobs in particular have been cut recently; with as many as 4000 in a year. Also jobs of midwives have been cut and hospitals have been closed with their services and clinics merged with others. All to save money. Whether these are the right changes or not are yet to be seen. On the one hand, the govt says it needs to save money for the rising population and costs of healthcare but is it to the detriment of patient care?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vox0)
    It is a good system actually, and if you look at healthcare system polls the NHS ranks highly among them always.

    These changes have come under a lot of criticism and the white paper review has already been changed and amendments made already. Its really hard to find where to cut funding because each hospital and each region has different needs, different patients and technology so rather than just tell everyone to cut a set amount of money and hit targets, the tory govt want to change a number of things including the introduction of these commissioning groups which will be able to decide on the healthcare for their region. But I disagree with the way they are going to go about it as do many others.

    You may have read that a lot of nursing jobs in particular have been cut recently; with as many as 4000 in a year. Also jobs of midwives have been cut and hospitals have been closed with their services and clinics merged with others. All to save money. Whether these are the right changes or not are yet to be seen. On the one hand, the govt says it needs to save money for the rising population and costs of healthcare but is it to the detriment of patient care?
    Is anything going to happen to NICE? Will they still be in charge of assessing what drugs the NHS should invest it or will they completely disappear and it will be the job of the GPs? Also how are "drug assessments" conducted, I seemed to have read something about them... they look at whether patients actually take a whole course of the drug or whether people find that they have any problems taking it resulting in them not taking the actual drug in order to determine whether the drug is worth the money
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also, does anyone know about important NHS self-care initiatives that are trying to be promoted in the UK? Any recent strategies being adopted to target specific areas such as smoking/diabetes etc?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JessicaStacks)
    Is anything going to happen to NICE? Will they still be in charge of assessing what drugs the NHS should invest it or will they completely disappear and it will be the job of the GPs? Also how are "drug assessments" conducted, I seemed to have read something about them... they look at whether patients actually take a whole course of the drug or whether people find that they have any problems taking it resulting in them not taking the actual drug in order to determine whether the drug is worth the money
    NICE's job will probably get harder, as it might be the case that a private firm will say 'oh we've got loads of (insert expensive new drug), we'll give it to you for less as long as your CCG gives us these contracts'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A tram is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JessicaStacks)
    A tram is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
    Get superman on the case :cool:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JessicaStacks)
    A tram is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
    seriously doubt you'll get asked anything like this. you're going for a medicine interview, not taking a philosophy degree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingme)
    seriously doubt you'll get asked anything like this. you're going for a medicine interview, not taking a philosophy degree.
    I know, I know, I'm just wondering what people would do. It was in a book I was reading on medical ethics
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JessicaStacks)
    I know, I know, I'm just wondering what people would do. It was in a book I was reading on medical ethics
    It would depend, out of instinct I would try and save the majority of people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JessicaStacks)
    I know, I know, I'm just wondering what people would do. It was in a book I was reading on medical ethics
    well its a variation on a classic philisophical question - is it better to let a number of people die by inaction or kill one to prevent their death?

    there's no right answer, but in a medical interview I would say something like 'although it's hard to know how I would react in that situation, I think that allowing 5 die because you were unwilling to make a tough decision is just trying to absolve yourself of responsibility. Granted, no-one wants this responsibilty but if you're put in that position the responsibility is yours, like it or not. Faced with the lives of six people, the only logical (stress this, as it's easy to talk about these things, harder to do) thing to do would be to divert the train...' then I would start to talk about how NICE makes decisions on what treatments to offer on the NHS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JessicaStacks)
    A tram is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
    Well it depends on many factors doesn't it... If it was five ninety year olds vs one new born baby then in potential years/ benefit to society I would save the baby, if visually you were unable to determine anything about the people, then I think numbers would be more important so switch the track.
    Generally these questions are about the greater good and benefit to society. It works in a very similar way to 'Who should get this organ?' but without the complication of type of condition and therefore future survival, like if the organ was given but there are further health risks associated.

    I really doubt it'll be asked though... Unless you're being interviewed at a high up and therefore cryptic university, even then the questions are more likely to be more scientific or completely abstract and not directly about saving lives.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tinth)
    Well it depends on many factors doesn't it... If it was five ninety year olds vs one new born baby then in potential years/ benefit to society I would save the baby, if visually you were unable to determine anything about the people, then I think numbers would be more important so switch the track.
    Generally these questions are about the greater good and benefit to society. It works in a very similar way to 'Who should get this organ?' but without the complication of type of condition and therefore future survival, like if the organ was given but there are further health risks associated.

    I really doubt it'll be asked though... Unless you're being interviewed at a high up and therefore cryptic university, even then the questions are more likely to be more scientific or completely abstract and not directly about saving lives.
    Yeahh I think I personally would agree with you.

    BUT, you would then be left with the fact that you changed the track, and because of what you DID, somebody died. If you don't change the track, then people died because you didn't do anything to stop it.


    The scenarios in that book are quite extreme- I've read most of it, and it is interesting, but it brings up points that you just wouldn't think of and scenarios that you wouldn't be faced with at this stage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do we need to know about the details of cinical audits and things? There was a question in my book on them... all I know is that you need to regularly take part in these in order to keep up to date etc. but I wouldn't know what else to say. I'm just so worried I'll get asked something I have no clue about that is just general knowledge to those who live in the UK...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by twelve)
    Yeahh I think I personally would agree with you.

    BUT, you would then be left with the fact that you changed the track, and because of what you DID, somebody died. If you don't change the track, then people died because you didn't do anything to stop it.


    The scenarios in that book are quite extreme- I've read most of it, and it is interesting, but it brings up points that you just wouldn't think of and scenarios that you wouldn't be faced with at this stage.
    But then again if you didn't do anything to stop it it means you were too afraid to take the responsibility because doing something would make it partly your fault, while if you didn't your hands would be clean. Do we want doctors who are afraid of responsibility? (Not targeting you in particular...just being devil's advocate) :K:
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by JessicaStacks)
    A tram is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
    Option c) Not my problem :awesome:


    Nah I'll kill the one person instead of the five. Simple maths
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by JessicaStacks)
    A tram is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
    Question sounds extremely familiar... Introduction to medical ethics?

    I would flip the switch as it will benefit the most people. Saving five lives and losing one is better than the alternative imo.
 
 
 
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.