Thursday, 17 May 2007
The true colours of the BMA revealed
If ever a letter summed up the apologetic stance of the BMA then this is it, published in today's Times. This letter has been jointly penned by those noble warriors James Johnson and Carol Black. They start by relying on the crutch of the 'independent' review panel, a tactic used by the incompetent Hewitt as a way of pretending that there was no choice in the matter:
" The Review Group examined all the options available to remedy the failings of MTAS. They concluded that withdrawal from the process was simply not an option."
They then continue by trying to argue that there is simply no alternative as there is a risk of harming the NHS, patients and colleagues:
"We agree that a better system is needed, but believe that it should be achieved through argument and negotiation, not action that could risk harming patients, the NHS or our colleagues."
Their logic is sadly lacking. The current MTAS farce now risks massive harm to patients, the NHS and our colleagues; these two people have been complicit in the railroading through of this disastrous bad joke. It is unbelievable that they have the gall to claim that a bit of damage may be done if we don't listen to their wise words; frankly they should have thought about this before they took part in destroying a perfectly functional old system. Their next piece of argument is even more incoherent:
"We restate our support for the Chief Medical Officer and his role in improving junior doctors’ training. He pioneered the principles underlying the reform programme. Serious though they have been, it would be a far-reaching shame if those principles were obscured by recent problems with the online application system."
The CMO has been one of the chief architects behind MTAS and MMC, if not the chief architect. The letter's bungling logic assumes that these 'noble principals' of the reform are somehow completely separate from the shambles of MTAS. They are not. The principles mean absolutely nothing in isolation, it is like using Tony Blair's good motives as some kind of defence for the failed Iraq war; the claimed benign motives do not excuse the indefensible and corrupt policy, after all the real motives behind MMC are still being withheld by the DoH and the CMO. So much for the good intentions behind MMC.
This pathetic argument has been used by politicians like Hewitt to try to continue to force MMC through, it simply does not cut the mustard. MMC and MTAS are part of the same government game that aims to lower standards in medical training and create a disempowered incompetent sub consultant grade. The CMO must resign for his betrayal of the medical profession, the fact that Black and Johnson are defending the CMO puts them on the same side of the fence as him; this side must be napalm'ed.
Do not believe the sycophantic spin, MMC and MTAS are part of the same evil government game that promises to wreck good medical training in this country, just so that the government can gets its filthy mits on yet more power. The BMA should be deeply embarassed of what is going on. Remedy is doing the job that it should be doing by representing the views of the profession; while the BMA is actually so complicit with the government's agenda that they are even arguing against the majority opinion of their own members in court. Shame on the BMA, they are sinking even lower than even I thought possible.