Dr. Helen Evans: Who cares for the NHS?
Helen is a friend as well as a 20+ year veteran of Britain’s nationalized health service. She’s also the director of Nurses for Reform, and has now published a book that covers her study of what leading opinion-formers in the UK really think of the NHS. You can download the book here, and I will be doing so, as it looks like she’s nailed all the various problems with the NHS. A snippet:
One of the most telling responses to the survey was to the question about statutory restrictions on advertising. From the beginning, an important aspect of the NHS has been the use of restrictive practices to reduce information flows to consumers of healthcare – ostensibly for their own protection. It is clear that opinion formers simply do not believe that justification. An overwhelming majority of the sample – 81% - regarded Treasury Ministers as having the most to gain from the statutory restrictions on advertising medicines because they promoted consumer ignorance about the possible range of available treatments. In other words, the banning of advertising of pharmaceutical products is perceived as a measure designed to keep patients in the dark so that they do not demand expensive drugs. In the light of the current controversy about NHS patients not being allowed to purchase additional drugs, this finding is very significant indeed.
People in the US rarely believe me when I tell them that the British government censors and bans information about medicine and healthcare. “What kind of government doesn’t let people make up their own minds about such things?” they ask. Well, if you need me to spell it out for you…
Filed under: Life
Very interesting and I have a great deal of sympathy with that viewpoint, despite the source which I find surprising. I think your friend Helen could do with your wise counsel as in terms of transparency ‘Nurses for Reform’ doesn’t look very transparent and I’m fairly sure you would have better advice for her.
It would be far better if it was honest about what it is. I might have got totally the wrong impression, because I have to ‘read between the lines’. It gives the impression of being an offshoot of the Centre for the New Europe, which is a right-wing think tank that wants to privatise the NHS. It might not be, but it would be better if it was transparent.
Stuart, what accusation are you making? How is Dr. Evans (do you know her? I assume that, as you address refer to her by her first name and not her title, you do.) not being transparent? Because she has been published by the Centre for the New Europe - as is made clear in her bio on the NFR site - the organization she founded and runs is somehow an “offshoot”? Please, be clear and specific about the charges you are making.
Also, please define “right-wing”? Do you mean that the Centre for the New Europe is a free market think-tank? It is indeed, but surely the fact that free enterprise is a good thing has also finally been accepted even by elements of the radical socialist fringe. Why is human freedom a concern you attribute exclusively to the right?
Jackie, sorry I’ve probably not been clear enough here. I used Helen because that’s what you used and it would be confusing to use ‘Dr Evans’ as there was no reference in your post to her by that name. The main bit that I thought looked strange was the very small advisory board, (usually this type of group has more than three people) and the first name was from the Centre for the New Europe, which like it or not does have a reputation in health circles. It’s the advisory board that makes it appear it is an offshoot. I wasn’t even saying that would be a bad thing, just that it raised an obvious question and that it would be clearer (more transparent) to say one way or the other. I was trying to make a positive suggestion by saying that it gives a negative impression at the moment, but doesn’t need to. It’s the question mark that feels wrong, not the answer.
The reason I’d tagged the Centre for the New Europe as ‘rightwing’ is because I know of it (can’t remember how) through its association with Lord Harris (who was close to Margaret Thatcher). I’ve just checked now and he is indeed on its academic advisory board.
I really wasn’t trying to offend but simply saying that this looks an interesing book, but the way Nurses for Reform is presented raises questions and this distracts from judging it on its merits. I’ve now shown the site to several people who like me hadn’t heard of Nurses for Reform before and all think the way it is presented doesn’t help its cause. It looks like a ‘front’ for something else (the guesses ranged from political parties, to think tanks to drug companies), so if it isn’t it would be much better if it clearly said that. Why create smoke if there is no fire?
Once again apologies if I came across as ‘attacking’ I wasn’t making an ‘accusation’ just trying to provide constructive criticism that you could pass on to your friend.
I used Helen because that’s what you used and it would be confusing to use ‘Dr Evans’ as there was no reference in your post to her by that name.
Stuart, did you read the title of my post? [insert smiley here]
You said: Helen could do with your wise counsel as in terms of transparency ‘Nurses for Reform’ doesn’t look very transparent and It would be far better if it was honest about what it is and it would be better if it was transparent. On what planet is calling someone dishonest and lacking in transparency not an accusation? I know you’re a spinmeister by trade but, really, pull the other one.
I think NFR is pretty transparent. It is an independent - stand alone - think tank. I don’t read it as being right wing. Instead, it seems to be pretty libertarian and is therefore probably hated by most UK Conservatives.
Dr. Helen Evans is a Health Fellow with the Adam Smith Institute. Her recent book has been published by the Institute of Economic Affairs. Last year she attended a Libertarian Alliance conference. Up until 2005 she did do some work with CNE. And, oh yes, she says she worked in the National Health Service for some 20 years.
Therefore, we really should “read between the lines”!!! Clearly, NFR is an ASI, IEA, LA, CNE and NHS conspiracy.
Well done Stuart - Bravo!
You got me Jackie - I didn’t read the title of the post! I think it kust just have scrolled out of sight when I started typing in the comment box, so I read the first line and hence my confusion. My dad, sorry (insert smiley here).
I am really sorry if it came across as an accusation (which is why I keep the conversation going as I am genuinely sorry). But I still think that the Who We Are and Advisory Board pages beg more questions than they give answers. For example it refers to a “growing pan-European network of nurses”, but then mentions just one person. You’re left wondering who else is there, who funds it, who resources it etc.
And Dr Tim Evans that’s why I “read between the lines” because there are so many different organisations mentioned, but nothing about how NFR is resourced. That is literally all I meant by transparency. And Jackie the reason I made the comment is because I know it is something that you’re good at.