You are here

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Research report
Political views of doctors in the UK: a cross-sectional study
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 15 August 2018
    Response to Question on Charging for NHS care
    • Neal Russell, Paediatric Registrar St George's University
    • Other Contributors:
      • Rob Verrecchia, Public Health Registrar
      • Jessica Potter, Respiratory Registrar

    We congratulate the authors on this timely and interesting study: ‘Political views of doctors in the UK: a cross-sectional study’ [1]. We address Question 12, asking whether doctors agree that ‘Patients should be charged for non-urgent care if they are not eligible for free NHS treatment’.
    The authors correctly state that agreement does not mean support for current NHS charging regulations, not least because the most recent amendments in England were introduced after this questionnaire (October 2017 [2]), however we remain concerned about potential misinterpretation, and suggest aspects of charging regulations where doctors’ opinions could be further explored.
    Firstly, the question, which understandably echoes government policy language on charging, is similar to asking ‘Should people have to pay for things that are not free?’ without addressing complexity of eligibility, and the fact that some people living in the UK have lost their eligibility with recent regulations. An assessment of opinions would require measuring knowledge of charging and its relationship with immigration enforcement, as well as evaluating acceptance of the immigration system itself, as this now determines eligibility. Windrush patients being denied NHS treatment highlighted the complexity of this issue [3].
    Secondly, doctors’ opinions on measures which penalise and threaten patients if they seek care, such as linking unpaid NHS debt to immigration enforcement [4], and NHS data shar...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.