Six new rights - spin not substance

So are the new 'rights' for patients being unveiled by Gordon Brown anything but spin? He has promised to scrap unpopular targets in favour of a list of rights that patients can demand:

• An operation within 18 weeks of patients first seeing their GP
• A free health check-up for all at the age of 40
• Treatment from an NHS dentist
• Die at home if they suffer from a long-term medical condition
• See a cancer specialist within two weeks
• Be treated in accident & emergency departments within four hours.

They all sound great but strangely familiar, except perhaps for NHS dentistry. Firstly, I doubt very much whether these targets will be scrapped in favour of a 'patient' right. I can't see Brown trying to defend himself on why he doesn't know what the length of waits are and I can't see Burnham not getting concerned if the number of people waiting 18 weeks waits was to increase.

Of course ministers will keep a close eye on these areas and they will come down hard on hospitals and PCTs who are seeing increasing waits. Laissez faire is not something that Labour are good at. It would be quite a bizzarre state of affairs to have a government in a position that it doesn't monitor and manage key indicators of accessibility for NHS service.

This is clearly spin rather than substance, but that said, making it clear what patients should expect is welcome.

The dentistry right is the interesting one. Access to NHS dentistry is extremely patchy across the country and needs significant investment and time to get it right. How many people will have their right to an NHS dentist met by a dentist 20 miles away?

HEALTH SECRETARY’S ‘VESTED INTERESTS’ IN SOUTHAMPTON’S WATER FLUORIDATION SCHEME

Green MEP for the South East Caroline Lucas has challenged the Secretary of State for Health Andy Burnham over his position as vice president of the British Fluoridation Society – at a time when health authorities in Southampton were giving the green light to a “mass medication” water fluoridation scheme.

The Health Secretary was instrumental in proposing the inclusion of compulsory water fluoridation in the Government’s 2003 Water Act. He resigned from this position in recent weeks, but Dr Lucas MEP today joined with UK Councils Against Fluoridation (UKCAF) to question why Mr Burnham’s links with the Society were not included in his register of interests, despite strict Parliament regulations stating such interests must be declared.

Dr Lucas MEP said: “It is of great concern that the Health Secretary was able to closely align himself with a body whose sole business it is to promote water fluoridation, at the same time that he was due to make key decisions about the future of the UK’s water supply. Parliament’s regulations on MPs’ interests are supposed to prevent alliances which can fundamentally inform policy – but clearly they are not fit for purpose.”

Earlier this year, the Green MEP warned that the region’s health authorities were setting a “reckless precedent" for future fluoridation schemes in the South East with their decision to press ahead with fluoridation plans in Southampton.

Although 72% of people in Southampton voted against fluoridation in a poll conducted by the Strategic Health Authority, the SHA is pressing ahead with the scheme. A legal case regarding the highly criticised consultation process has been announced and legal aid has been obtained by the person bringing the case against South Central SHA.

Dr Lucas MEP commented: "The ill-advised decision to implement water fluoridation in Southampton demonstrates contempt for the views of many local people - and for the evidence against fluoridation itself.

"Water fluoridation has simply not been proven to be effective for teeth, and some studies have indicated links between fluoridation and serious ill health effects, including thyroid problems, skeletal fluorosis, bone cancers and mental problems.

"The scheme in Southampton amounts to a mass medication of the population. I have made a formal complaint to the European Commission regarding the failure of the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to properly classify hexafluorosilic acid, used in fluoridation of drinking water under the UK Water Act 2003, as a medicinal product. The correct classification would likely mean the UK’s water fluoridation schemes would contravene EU law.

“In place of mass fluoridation, the UK Government could be improving the health of our teeth through targeted schemes such as providing free toothpaste for poor families. This decision in Southampton sets a reckless precedent for future fluoridation plans in the South East, and we must be vigilant of further attempts to affect our water in this way."

ENDS 

Notes to Editors

For more information on UK Councils Against Fluoridation, visit www.ukcaf.org 

Letter to Indy on dentistry

Letter to the Independent on the new dentistry report:

Sir, The renewed debate on NHS dentistry is very welcome and Professor Steele's report contains some useful ideas, however unless the government addresses the real problem that many people simply can't afford to pay for dental treatments, improvements in dental health will not take great leaps forward.

Dentistry could easily be funded through taxation and be free at the point of need, making it a universal service and not one that is 'expensive or slightly less expensive'. Free access to dentistry would cost a fraction of the money spent on NHS IT or running the NHS market, yet would deliver massive benefits to the people who need it most.

It is time that the government addressed the real problem, that NHS dentistry fails the primary test of NHS services - it is not free at the point of need.

Stuart Jeffery
Health spokesperson for the Green Party

European Federation of Nurses

With elections approaching fast lots of groups start calling for pledges from candidates and health care is no exception. Dignity and care in health care is essential, but lacking in many areas and certainly has suffered at the altar of NHS finances. Fortunately there are good people out there who are willing to take a stand at the risk of their own career. Margaret Haywood is on of them.

This pledge campaign came in to me by email and like many that I come across, is a no-brainer and should be supported

Stuart

EFN European Election Manifesto

With up to 6 million nurses within Europe, the European Federation of Nurses Associations (EFN) and its members are a significant voting force.

The EFN members are calling on MEPs to support three priorities and use their influence to help:

ü	Implement the European Directive which regulates the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications (DIR 36).
ü	Plan the EU Workforce for Health to meet citizens’ needs.
ü	Deliver Quality and Safeguard Patient Safety.

The EFN members are taking action

· Questioning MEP candidates about how they will influence the EU’s impact on health and employment;

· Engaging with the press on the significant issues MEP candidates need to address;

· Rallying members to make their vote count.

Act now!

For more information visit: www.efnweb.eu

NHS privatisation is barmy says BMA chair

Hamish Meldrum's letter in the Guardian is well worth a read. The BMA have been very hit and miss in the past over the question of privatisation. It is great to see such a strong statement by their chair.

"The suggestion that privatising further aspects of public services would save money is barmy economics (Treasury report suggests cutting thousands of public sector posts, 22 April). Instead of employing the staff and running the service yourself, you would simply be handing the cash to someone else to do so. Where is the sense in pouring money into the clutches of the private sector, whose prime motives are usually founded on making profits for their shareholders?"

BNP nurses should be banned from nursing

Police officer are banned from being members of the BNP or promoting the BNP and yesterday UNISON voted unanimously to call for BNP members to be banned from nursing.

I find it hard to imagine how a profession that has been built on caring and compassion can be compatible with racism. As a registered nurse myself, I would find it very difficult to understand how an openly racist nurse could provide care to without discrimination.

Well done to Unison (which I have recently rejoined after the debacle of the Unite elections), and I hope the NMC take heed of this call.

Green New Deal for the NHS

Today, the Green Party will launch a powerful bid to influence the health agenda towards the next general election.

The Green New Deal for the NHS proposes an extra £500m a year for maternity servces, plus £1.8bn a year for dental care. Most of this would be paid for by savings of £1bn on getting rid of Independent Sector Treatment Centres, and a further £1bn or more saved by scrapping the health care market.

There would be one-off costs of £1bn for reorganisation and at least £12bn to buy back the private finance initiatives, but liberating the NHS from PFI payments would save £1bn a year. So the Green New Deal for the NHS would pay for itself in the medium term, say the Greens.

On maternity services, the Greens' £500m stimulus would create a single-tier approach for all mothers:

 * A wider range of birth choices - including home birth for all women who want it.
 * All women to be entitled to support from a single midwife throughout each pregnancy.
 * A major recruitment drive for midwives.
 * Medical interventions to be significantly reduced.
 * Culture change throughout the NHS so that birth is treated as a normal event - not an illness - in which mothers are empowered and able to be in control.

The extra £1.8bn a year for dentistry would restore the principle of dental care free at the point of access, with an end to the severe difficulties many people are now facing in attempting to find an NHS dentist.




Dignity, compassion and accountability

But improving the health service isn't just about wise spending and better access to services, say the Greens. The Green New Deal for the NHS would also improve the accountability of those services, along these lines:

 * The NHS to be accountable to local government and thus to local people.
 * An end to the purchaser/provider split so that public health, service planners and providers of care are under local government.
 * The NHS to have centrally-defined minimum standards and national agreement on which treatments are available.
 * Local people and clinicians to have a real say in how and where these services are delivered.

Finally the Green New Deal for the NHS would restore and develop a culture of dignity and compassion in the UK's health service, the Greens say:

 * Health services must meet the needs of patients, not the needs of the market and corporate shareholders.
 * Maternity care must meet the needs of women and their babies.
 * Patients suffering with poor mental health must get a real say in the way they are treated. They must be told their diagnosis and must be able to set advance directives that spell out what type of care they want when they are ill.
 * There must be legislation to prevent discrimination against people with mental illness.

Caroline Lucas MEP, Green Party leader - who is widely tipped to become the first Green MP at Westminster in the next general election - said today: "We need to protect and improve the National Health Service, and we need to stop it being used as a vehicle for private profit. We believe the public wants this too. So we're throwing down the gauntlet to the other parties, to match the Green Party's commitment to the NHS."




Note

1. The report can be found at [http://www.greenparty.org.uk/reports][1]