Naomi
Law
 |
What would Mary Seacole
and Florence Nightingale make of the modern NHS? Picture: Albert Charles Challen |
Perhaps a hospital admission will
always be nerve-racking. However, the fresh wave of NHS scandal that has hit
as a result of the Stafford
inquiry may leave patients choosing to take two paracetamol and hope for
the best, rather than seek treatment. Media reports combine harrowing
descriptions of the patients who suffered, with passionate calls for
accountability. Much of the focus has been on the difficulties staff had in
reporting incidents and the failure of an effective whistle-blowing system. What
is missing from this account is a convincing explanation of how such
incidents occur in the first place.
It is undoubtedly true that pressure
on the NHS to cut costs can sometimes lead to a drop in standards
of care. It’s striking, though, that much of the inquiry describes staff
neglecting to attend to things as basic as putting a glass of water within a
patient's reach, or responding to cries of pain. Such things are not easily
justified by budget cuts. The only explanations given for such incidents are that staff are either bad people, indifferent to the suffering of others, or
that they require training
in ‘compassion’.
I wonder, though, if this is
convincing. What if we assume instead that the vast majority of people
who go into caring professions actually have genuine motivations and
understand the importance of basic human needs? Can we understand why a good
person, with adequate knowledge and skills, might fail to provide a basic
level of patient care?
