whereabouts are you, mr curious? whats life like down there?
Why oh why are we forgetting the patients in all this?
Those who demand everything yet take no responsibility for their own health?
Those who have multiple avenues of complaint if they are not happy, yet the medical profession has none?
Those who insist on being seen immediately and make everyone's life difficult?
Those who insist they know better then you, because 'its my body..'?
Those who feel so entitled?
This is a significant reason as to why you cant do 8 sessions nowadays - I did 8 for the first 5 years of my life as a GP partner from training - and i have since dropped to 6 and am so much happier.
theres a gmc conference? why wasnt i invited?
i could shout at them directly then
I emailed the GMC about this and this was the reply I got a few days ago. I am glad I saw this article as it affirms my belief and those on resilentGP fb group that this is not for us to do. I am not prescribing at all.
Thank you for writing to the GMC. I understand that you are looking to clarify whether you have a duty to prescribe treatment for transgender patients, which you feel lies outside of your professional competence and whether failure to do so will be regarded as discriminatory.
First, you are not expected to prescribe particular medications or treatment to any patient if you are not satisfied that they meet the patient’s needs. In Good Medical Practice we say doctors must prescribe drugs or treatment, including repeat prescriptions, only when they have adequate knowledge of the patient’s health and are satisfied that the drugs or treatment serve the patient’s needs (see paragraph 16a).
We ask all doctors to balance duties to act within the limits of their competence with making the care of their patient their first concern (as well as providing effective treatments based on the best available evidence).
The advice that we have provided on our ethical hub regarding the treatment of transgender patients (which can be accessed here) aims to clarify how our guidance applies in these circumstances. It is intended to support doctors to provide effective care in the best interests of their transgender patients, signposting sources of information and setting out the ethical framework for decision making. When a transgender patient approaches their GP to discuss the options available to them, we don’t want that GP to feel that they can’t help because they’re not a specialist.
Our advice is not intended to force doctors down a specific route that they don’t feel is in the best interests of their patients, or to suggest they provide treatment on demand. However, we have questioned the assumption that prescribing treatment for a transgender patient is automatically outside the limits of a GP’s competence. For example, the hormones prescribed to transgender patients are routinely prescribed and monitored in primary care (albeit to patients assigned the opposite sex at birth). We are clear that prescribing off-licence is acceptable where there is no suitably licensed medicine available that would meet the patient’s needs (see paragraphs 67-69 of Good Practice in Prescribing).
On our hub page we are also clear that GPs must co-operate with GICs and experienced gender specialists, as they would with other specialists, collaborating to provide effective and timely treatment for transgender people. This may well include prescribing medicines on the recommendation of an experienced gender specialist for and following recommendations for safety and treatment monitoring (for more information see the hub page here).
Our ethical hub doesn’t have the same status as our formal ethical guidance. Rather, it is intended to show how the guidance might apply in practice, in specific situations doctors commonly face. We recognise that this is a source of some confusion and are currently considering how we might make this clearer.
It is also worth remembering that even the formal guidance is guidance, not a rule book. There may be some circumstances that justify a departure from it. As long as a doctor makes the care of their patient their first concern, acts in good faith, and records their reasoning, they will be able to justify their decisions and actions if their fitness to practise is called into question.
I hope this response is useful to you.
General Medical Council
well its this simple - no money= no service. he does this we all need to cut back on the service we provide.
and before the cardies come out 'what about the patient in all this' - this is the attitude that has led us to where we are - a weak, spineless profession that this government knows can do what it wants to at will - the patients voted for these idiots, they need to feel the full force of this 'democratic' decision.
the reason there is no impetus from those in the BMA or RCGP is because most of them are on the older scheme and have nothing to lose - there is no will amongst our leaders (who dont represent coal-face young GPs at the beginning of their careers) who are also too london-centric.
Now we work til we are 68 (probably 70) and get taxed double on what we pay in, and get a fraction of it back. i am only 34 and thinking of pulling out already.
The bigger thing is that we are not represented properly - it is a shame that most of those doing the talking are closer to retirement then not - and are often screwing the rest of us into submission.
when are we going to stand up and grow a pair and actually do something that hmg will listen to?
what a load of tosh.
rotten to the core. run by white middle aged men to the detriment of all but themselves.
headcount? how about WTE?
well of course closing practices reduces cancer incidence because you dont detect it if the patients are not seen...didnt we all know that?
complete eejits. the lot of them.
what a Hunt
well if the BMA had any shame things might be better now - our representatives (who dont represent by the way) scurry around trying to make a difference with their heads so far up their rectums that they just dont see it.
but does this mean we cant put money away into a private pension because of the cap, or can we still do this as an alternate to NHS pension and still get the tax relief?
or just pull out entirely, and invest in properties..
so...we are still screwed over..just get to wait for it rather then having it now.
BMA should hang their heads in shame.
..and also in all the pies of wherever the money is going.
This comment has been deleted
it has not gone to primary care at all - it has gone to the sycophants that are running the 5YfV and expecting the minions to do more for less.
there is no innovation, no retention of staff, and no goodwill left.
even the indemnity thing hasnt been fully ironed out yet.
so no, they are not ahead of anything - squandering money wherever mr *unt or *cock want it to - not in frontline care just paying a load of manager types to talk blue sky thinking who dont work more then 2 sessions/wk.
..and we thought agent *unt was bad.
this is ridiculous.
well lets just keep our reflections light.
go to conferences and say you learnt loads.
dont put in anything patient-centered at all.
do the bare minimum as im sure all of us are doing far more but not recording it.
The NHS complaints service has made this situation.
If you underfund us and under-resource the surgery and then ask us to do more work from secondary care, of course the punters will be unhappy. The problem is the individual is being blamed for this, when it is a systemic issue.
The second issue is the demands that are placed on GP-land are excessive and inappropriate - this demand and the blame/complaints culture has led to this, and certainly has been a factor in many people leaving the country (i too am intending to)