Re: Helen Salisbury: Putting the care into healthcare
Dear Editor
Helen Salisbury makes a very good point. The word “care” is in danger of losing its meaning. It comes from the Old English “cearian”: - “to be anxious or solicitous; to grieve; feel concern or interest”.
The fundamental purposes of a health service are: a. to assist us to nurture our good health; b. to prevent us becoming unwell, and c. to catch us when we do become unwell and return us to the best health possible. That is “care”. In that regard, it is not simply a “public service”, like roads or buses. Good health is a fundamental necessity for humankind. Without it, we cannot contribute effectively to our society, our communities or our families. If we cannot work, we are unable to increase productivity; indeed, we are very likely to lessen it by requiring financial support and medical care. (More of that “care”). Furthermore, it is ethical, moral and compassionate to help protect us from poor health. If a Government chooses not to do so - if a Government does not care - it will fail us at a time we are most vulnerable.
Investing in our health is precisely that - an investment. Without that investment, it is not just our health that will suffer. It is our society; our communities; our families. As our health fails, so will the economy. Productivity is already declining. Long term sickness is at a record high, increasing the welfare bill exponentially.
It is extremely difficult to maintain the intense level of caring doctors must have when those in power proclaim very publicly that what you offer is “broken”. That you are therefore not anxious or solicitous. That you therefore do not feel concern or interest.
In order for doctors to care to the best of their ability, a Government must care for its doctors to the best of its ability. Loyalty is a two way process. The George Medal and an eternal debt of gratitude do not a health service make.
Rapid Response:
Re: Helen Salisbury: Putting the care into healthcare
Dear Editor
Helen Salisbury makes a very good point. The word “care” is in danger of losing its meaning. It comes from the Old English “cearian”: - “to be anxious or solicitous; to grieve; feel concern or interest”.
The fundamental purposes of a health service are: a. to assist us to nurture our good health; b. to prevent us becoming unwell, and c. to catch us when we do become unwell and return us to the best health possible. That is “care”. In that regard, it is not simply a “public service”, like roads or buses. Good health is a fundamental necessity for humankind. Without it, we cannot contribute effectively to our society, our communities or our families. If we cannot work, we are unable to increase productivity; indeed, we are very likely to lessen it by requiring financial support and medical care. (More of that “care”). Furthermore, it is ethical, moral and compassionate to help protect us from poor health. If a Government chooses not to do so - if a Government does not care - it will fail us at a time we are most vulnerable.
Investing in our health is precisely that - an investment. Without that investment, it is not just our health that will suffer. It is our society; our communities; our families. As our health fails, so will the economy. Productivity is already declining. Long term sickness is at a record high, increasing the welfare bill exponentially.
It is extremely difficult to maintain the intense level of caring doctors must have when those in power proclaim very publicly that what you offer is “broken”. That you are therefore not anxious or solicitous. That you therefore do not feel concern or interest.
In order for doctors to care to the best of their ability, a Government must care for its doctors to the best of its ability. Loyalty is a two way process. The George Medal and an eternal debt of gratitude do not a health service make.
Competing interests: No competing interests