4 ms·

I did not know this thank you for bringing it to my attention. Seems like a pretty feeble excuse from Cleverly though. In my opinion, anyone who's capable of it

by rcarr 4y ago

I did not know this thank you for bringing it to my attention. Seems like a pretty feeble excuse from Cleverly though. In my opinion, anyone who's capable of it and wants to should study Medicine should be supported in doing so because the societal benefits are so great. The fact that we stop 17,000 from doing so is an absolute disgrace. We waste money on a lot of shit in this country, I'm sure the money could be found to send more people on to study medicine. It seems to be universal across the country that councils lay new block paving only to dig it up a few months later on a whim for some reason or another, that could be a place to start.

MrAlex94 4y ago
Oddly enough, I’ve heard the same thing regarding doctors voting for a cap. Wonder where that’s from? It’s an awful excuse; I agree with you. If we were to be quite "cold" about this and think of it in a purely beneficial sense to the economy, surely the economic benefits of a healthy population far outweigh the costs, although I imagine it’s quite hard to "quantify" such a measurement?
a_c 4y ago
Depends on how you see it, medical degree is a supply chain problem, subjected to the same bullwhip effect. We can't predict demand of doctors 5 year down the road. The worst we could do is to treat today's demand as demand for 5 year in the future. If we double the supply today, in 5 years we will have double supply, hopefully without another pandemic. Many things could happen, if funding stays the same, benefits among all doctors will be affected, or we appropriate funding from other endeavours. If the demand doesn't sustain, funding get cut, less students find it attractive as a career, supply reduces. In reality many more factors get into play. So when Cleverly said "we can't flip a switch", there are some merits to it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect
brippalcharrid 4y ago
That's an interesting idea, but a lot of people in the profession would reject a move like that, as it would put downward pressure on their earnings (amongst other things): > BMA meeting: Doctors vote to limit number of medical students (Andrew Cole) > Delegates at the annual BMA conference voted by a narrow majority to restrict the number of places at medical schools to avoid “overproduction of doctors with limited career opportunities.” They also agreed on a complete ban on opening new medical schools. > David Sochart, from Manchester and Salford, warned that in the current job climate allowing too many new doctors into the market would risk devaluing the profession and make newly qualified doctors prey to “unscrupulous profiteers.” A glut of doctors would undermine competition and would therefore lower standards and ensure mediocrity, he claimed. He said, “Patients and health care should not be treated as mere commodities, and neither should medical students. We must not allow another lost tribe of doctors to be consigned to the wilderness.” > Grant Ingrams, representing GPs, said that doctors should not be trained if there was no job at the end. He warned that this could spark another “brain drain,” adding: “It is wrong and immoral and a waste of taxpayers’ and students’ money.” > But Paul Flynn from the consultants committee said that the root problem was a lack of effective workforce planning and warned members against a kneejerk response. “This is what blighted workforce planning. It would be hypocritical if we were to do it ourselves.” > The BMA’s chairman, Hamish Meldrum, said he sympathised with the sentiments of the motion but asked members to vote on evidence rather than “gut reactions.” “We want to see an expansion of [the numbers of] GPs and consultants,” he said, “and for that we need more students.” But the motion was passed by a small majority (58% versus 42%). > Members also agreed to a motion accepting that some specialties might need to raise the total number of years spent in training to accommodate the demands of the European Working Time Directive. > Stephen Austin, from the consultants committee, said that the time needed to acquire the necessary competences was likely to increase—especially in procedure based specialties—and that the only sensible solution was to increase the total amount of time in training. > Members also voted to press for an agreed minimum national level of funding for study leave to overcome the widespread national variation in the amounts that are currently available. https://www.proquest.com/openview/b0c6c69bed2854a96acfd2889d93c32a/1.pdf https://www.proquest.com/openview/b0c6c69bed2854a96acfd2889d... From 2008, but I haven't been able to find any publicly-available discussion from within the medical profession that's more recent.
- rcarr 4y ago
  It's honestly an absolute disgrace. Train them, and if there are no jobs, let them go overseas and work. The government constantly bangs on about Britain's 'reputation overseas' what on earth could do more good for it then literally exporting people who save lives. I honestly can't see any justification for this other than doctors profiteering and it makes me sick to my stomach.

by rcarr 4y ago

MrAlex94 4y ago

Oddly enough, I’ve heard the same thing regarding doctors voting for a cap. Wonder where that’s from? It’s an awful excuse; I agree with you. If we were to be quite "cold" about this and think of it in a purely beneficial sense to the economy, surely the economic benefits of a healthy population far outweigh the costs, although I imagine it’s quite hard to "quantify" such a measurement?

a_c 4y ago

Depends on how you see it, medical degree is a supply chain problem, subjected to the same bullwhip effect. We can't predict demand of doctors 5 year down the road. The worst we could do is to treat today's demand as demand for 5 year in the future. If we double the supply today, in 5 years we will have double supply, hopefully without another pandemic. Many things could happen, if funding stays the same, benefits among all doctors will be affected, or we appropriate funding from other endeavours. If the demand doesn't sustain, funding get cut, less students find it attractive as a career, supply reduces. In reality many more factors get into play. So when Cleverly said "we can't flip a switch", there are some merits to it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect

brippalcharrid 4y ago

That's an interesting idea, but a lot of people in the profession would reject a move like that, as it would put downward pressure on their earnings (amongst other things): > BMA meeting: Doctors vote to limit number of medical students (Andrew Cole) > Delegates at the annual BMA conference voted by a narrow majority to restrict the number of places at medical schools to avoid “overproduction of doctors with limited career opportunities.” They also agreed on a complete ban on opening new medical schools. > David Sochart, from Manchester and Salford, warned that in the current job climate allowing too many new doctors into the market would risk devaluing the profession and make newly qualified doctors prey to “unscrupulous profiteers.” A glut of doctors would undermine competition and would therefore lower standards and ensure mediocrity, he claimed. He said, “Patients and health care should not be treated as mere commodities, and neither should medical students. We must not allow another lost tribe of doctors to be consigned to the wilderness.” > Grant Ingrams, representing GPs, said that doctors should not be trained if there was no job at the end. He warned that this could spark another “brain drain,” adding: “It is wrong and immoral and a waste of taxpayers’ and students’ money.” > But Paul Flynn from the consultants committee said that the root problem was a lack of effective workforce planning and warned members against a kneejerk response. “This is what blighted workforce planning. It would be hypocritical if we were to do it ourselves.” > The BMA’s chairman, Hamish Meldrum, said he sympathised with the sentiments of the motion but asked members to vote on evidence rather than “gut reactions.” “We want to see an expansion of [the numbers of] GPs and consultants,” he said, “and for that we need more students.” But the motion was passed by a small majority (58% versus 42%). > Members also agreed to a motion accepting that some specialties might need to raise the total number of years spent in training to accommodate the demands of the European Working Time Directive. > Stephen Austin, from the consultants committee, said that the time needed to acquire the necessary competences was likely to increase—especially in procedure based specialties—and that the only sensible solution was to increase the total amount of time in training. > Members also voted to press for an agreed minimum national level of funding for study leave to overcome the widespread national variation in the amounts that are currently available. https://www.proquest.com/openview/b0c6c69bed2854a96acfd2889d93c32a/1.pdf https://www.proquest.com/openview/b0c6c69bed2854a96acfd2889d... From 2008, but I haven't been able to find any publicly-available discussion from within the medical profession that's more recent.

rcarr 4y ago
It's honestly an absolute disgrace. Train them, and if there are no jobs, let them go overseas and work. The government constantly bangs on about Britain's 'reputation overseas' what on earth could do more good for it then literally exporting people who save lives. I honestly can't see any justification for this other than doctors profiteering and it makes me sick to my stomach.