Birch Ward

But, seeing as I’m back, here’s my thoughts on the recent announcement that one of the wards at St Cross Hospital is about to close:

Birch Ward’s shut down at the end of the month is appalling for the town. There hasn’t been any real consultation. It seems that some people heard about it before others – Jerry Roodhouse and Mark Pawsey were quick to comment, but the local PCT – who commission medical procedures at St Cross for the people of the town were not (so I am told) asked for their opinion.

The Tories will blame the last government, and their pals in the Lib Dems will play the same card. However, the pressures on hospital trusts are being imposed by this government despite promises to ‘ringfence’ the NHS. On top of taking a hard line on budgets – causing one hospital to have been transferred to the private sector where the company itself has suggested that care may suffer – they are pressing ahead with the plan to impose a massive restructure. even though the Health Bill has not been passed yet, they have closed agencies and started to spend some of the £3billion that the reorganisation will cost.

Still, the local Tories and Lib Dems can do something. They can work with the Rugby Labour councillors who have called for UHCW to reconsider the decision, and they can join the calls for a Judicial Review.

Mark Pawsey replies – but doesn’t respond

Ok, so in my last post I mentioned that Rugby MP Mark Pawsey voted in favour of Nadine Dorries’ move to introduce ‘abstinence’ sex education aimed solely at girls. As well as my post, I wrote him an email directly. Here it is:

Sunday 22 May 2011

Dear Mark Pawsey,

I was disappointed to see from Hansard that you voted in 
favour of the Private Members' Bill introduced by Nadine
Dorries MP to change sex education.

During the debate, she made various statements that have been
found to be false. For example, she claimed to be citing Joan
Bakewell when producing statistics on prime-time
television. However, the statistics come from a US study from
about 10 years ago. The US definition of prime-time is later
than the UK one, and includes post-watershed programming. So
the statistics were irrelevant to a UK debate.

She also made misleading statements about what was taught to
young children in schools under the current system. 7 year
olds are not shown how to put a condom on a cucumber/banana - 
contraception is not part of the curriculum at anything like
that young an age.

Several of the incorrect statements made have been addressed 
here: http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2011/05/10/dorries-abstinence-speech-the-fact-check/

The principle of changing the message to concentrate on girls
abstaining while not dealing with boys seems to be utterly
short-sighted. It will not address the issue of peer-pressure
from boys, and has the danger of increasing the propensity to
blame girls alone for under age sex. 

Additionally, while it seems at a superficial level a good
idea to encourage abstinence, it has unintended consequences.
An over-reliance on abstinence may mean that young people are 
ill equipped to use contraception. This may lead to more
underage pregnancies, STDs and other problems. 

In the light of this, do you still support the proposed Bill,
and can you explain your reasoning?

I would also like to ask if you are in agreement with the
comments that Nadine Dorries made recently suggesting that 
her Bill would reduce sexual abuse. This seems to be
dangerously close to suggesting that young female victims of
sexual abuse are to blame. 

Please note, this correspondence and the reply will be shared.

Yours sincerely,

Owen Richards

A reply came by post, and here is what it said:

Thank you for contacting me about Nadine Dorries' proposed
changes to sex education.

I am pleased that Nadine has raised this particular issue, as
it is one which is very important to the overall debate about 
educating pupils about sex. All maintained secondary schools
are required to provide sex education as part of the national
curriculum.

Additionally, schools are encouraged to provide a broader
programme of sex and relationships education (SRE) as part of
non-statutory personal, social, health and economic (PSHE)
education. This provides opportunities for all young people 
to develop the skills, knowledge and confidence they need to 
resist pressure to have sex and support them to delay sexual 
activity.

An ongoing issue has been the quality of the sex education
that pupils receive. I am pleased, therefore, that the
Department for Education has announced an internal review of
PSHE education to look at how schools can be supported to
improve the quality of PSHE teaching, including SRE.

It is encouraging that the Government wants to see a change
in emphasis in the delivery of SRE, with a stronger focus on
relationships. I understand that this does mean the inclusion
of issues such as: sexual consent; respect; building young
people's capacity to say "no" to things that don't feel right;
and recognising the negative and positive portrayals of sex
and relationships that they are exposed to in the media

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Pawsey MP

So, did he answer my questions?

Nope. Not directly at least.

He did not address the distortions in Nadine Dorries’ speeches and other comments in support of her proposals. He did not address the fact that her Bill is specifically aimed giving one message to one gender and has no regard to the other. He didn’t address the shameful linking of sexual abuse of children to her idea, which by implication seems to be saying that if only girls said “no” they wouldn’t be victims of sexual predators.

He didn’t even say whether he still supports the Private Members’ Bill.

What I am not concerned about is that Mark Pawsey seems to think that Sex and Relationships education (SRE) doesn’t already include the issues of consent, respect, the capacity to say “no” and media portrayals. Perhaps he has bought the narrative being sold by Dorries and the media that it’s all about playing with condoms and empowering people to express their own sexuality.

In reality, sexual education at schools today already contains all of those, as well as the important issues such as what sex is, how to detect and protect against STDs, the reality of pregnancy, etc etc.

All of those things are important. An over-reliance on promoting abstinence can (as has been observed in the USA) lead to more problems of under-age pregnancy and STDs. I would rather that our MP was considering the issue based on evidence than, as it seems, based on the views of moral crusaders who distort the truth.

Bob nails it

One of my favourite Labour bloggers is Councillor Bob Piper. His patch in Bearwood, Sandwell, is just up the road from where my gf’s family are based. As a proper socialist within the Labour Party, and one who isn’t afraid to buck the party line in public, he seems to get a fair amount of notice and respect.

Today he posted probably the most comprehensive take-down of Cameron and the NHS reforms. I heartily recommend the following post:

Cameron’s NHS Myths

He outlines 6 key myths (or should we say ‘lies’) that the Tories are putting out to sell the NHS reforms. Each one is shown to be total hogwash. Yet Tory and Lib Dem MPs are soon going to troop through the Commons divisions to back these reforms.

Thanks for nothing, Pawsey

According to our MP, the proposals to reduce the Urgent Treatment services at St Cross Hospital is just a “tidying up exercise”. That’s what the Telegraph has quoted him as saying, anyway.

Yesterday I went to Coventry and saw the headline in the Coventry version of the Telegraph that should raise concerns for people in Rugby and Coventry: Coventry University Hospital facing record-breaking A&E figures. If more patients from Rugby are going to be going straight to University Hospital, won’t that put even more pressure on the A&E department there?

I was perhaps hoping that our main representative to the Government would be sticking up for the area, trying to retain important front line services, and would be trying to maintain the line he was taking before the election. As I noted some weeks ago, the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley came to Rugby to campaign for Mark Pawsey in the campaign, and said that there would be no service removals without a full review, and that he’d seen the plans that would retain emergency care at St Cross.

What proposals did Lansley see? Are they the ones we are seeing now? Because if they are, then he was being disingenuous, and so was our now MP. And if they aren’t, then does this not suggest that the Government are allowing front line service cuts even though they promised none, especially in the NHS?

Not that I expect answers. I had thought that Mark Pawsey had arranged a public meeting in order to represent his constituents. It seems he was more about promoting the views of the Trust.

Coventry University Hospital facing record-breaking A&E figures

Andy Burnham, then?

Last Friday night, Andy Burnham came to Rugby to speak at the first event being run by the new Warwickshire Fabians. He was much better than I thought he would be, and he’s got a lot of very good ideas. I’m just not sure if I can see him as a Leader though.

As he is currently Health spokesman and his last post in the Labour Government was as Health Secretary, a lot of what he talked about was related to the NHS. Of course, the Tories are making a lot of changes to the NHS while at the same time trying to impose budget restraint, and this means that there’s a lot to talk about. He also outlined his idea for a ‘National Care Service’, to provide free care for the elderly paid for with a 10% tax on your assets.

The tax part may alarm, but his other big idea is to introduce a Land Value Tax which would replace Council Tax, Stamp Duty and Inheritance Tax. If this happened first, then the 10% Care Tax, hypothecated to ensuring that people don’t end up selling their homes just to provide for their own care arrangements, could well be more popular than IHT.

Posted in Politics. Tags: , . 4 Comments »

Scrapping NHS Direct – more lunacy

No time to discuss the Andy Burnham meeting tonight, I need my kip. But at the end the news came through that Andrew Lansley had let slip that NHS Direct would be replaced by a cut-price service. Essentially, it seems that the decision to replace the NHS Direct number with the one currently being tested in parts of the North East.

The main difference will be that far less medical expertise will be available, which will make the service less useful. It will appear to save money, but if the new service is seen to be useless then the outcome will be more people turning up at GP’s surgeries and A&E departments who don’t need to be there. Read the rest of this entry »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 203 other followers