Letter: Doctors' dilemmas FOREIGN Edition
This contract was not rejected because of greed. The pay rise was real (even if delayed) and the new working arrangements would have had little real impact on private practice. It would not have increased consultant availability for NHS work; it would have diminished it. It could potentially have ha...
Saved in:
| Published in | Independent (London, England : 1986) |
|---|---|
| Main Author | |
| Format | Newspaper Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
London (UK)
Independent Digital News & Media
08.11.2002
|
| Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
| Summary: | This contract was not rejected because of greed. The pay rise was real (even if delayed) and the new working arrangements would have had little real impact on private practice. It would not have increased consultant availability for NHS work; it would have diminished it. It could potentially have had a detrimental effect on patient care. It could have been extremely detrimental to the family lives of a group already at high risk of family breakdown as a result of competing pressures from work. In short, it was rejected because it was a bad contract. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0951-9467 |