I should've posted this earlier, as it has been dragging on for too long. My town, High Wycombe, is a fairly big town. It houses approxiamately 164'000 people in the district. So why, I hear you ask, are they moving the emergency and midwifery wards to a town 20 miles away, accessible only by an average road which passes through several villages (and one small town), isn't even dual carriageway and is notorious for traffic build up? The answer it appears, is that they will save money by centralizing certain services in one hospital, and other in another. Meaning Wycombe loses the majority of it's emergency services (apparently they will leave a small unit*), and becomes a hospital for mainly surgical/medical cases. This, as you may have gathered, has left people a little angry and disillusioned. I have a request, if you agree with me and the majority of Wycombe, could you please fill in the form linked below (you need not put all of your details in if you wish). There are numerous messages of support up already, and I feel by doing so, you will save the lives of those whose condition cannot afford to wait an extra 40 minutes to be carted off to a different hospital. Thank you [u:415855e263]Add your voice[/u:415855e263] *In the case of midwifery, they will have a midwife led unit for normal births, but no back-up if something goes wrong. For those who don't know, there is no way to know that a delivery will be normal. A mother could have had two perfectly normal deliveries before, and have an abnormal on the third time. In this case, they would then need to be carted 20 miles to the next hospital.
You have my full support Electric_man. I don't know who put forward that suggestion, but he/she /they are too stupid for words. EDIT: Sorry [u:fef2ec4983]jou[/u:fef2ec4983] sould have been [u:fef2ec4983]you[/u:fef2ec4983].
also, while we're on the subject of 'too stupid for words', i don't approve of the way that NHS is being handled right now, but I recognize a few key things that need to be kept in mind when commenting on it: 1) I don't know anything that goes on 'behind the scenes' in the eschelons of government. I don't know what criteria they're using or what their priorities truely are. 2) NHS is in need of financial reform, or at least revitalization. similar to the american social security system, the program is hemoraging cash. reform is needed to save it (not to gut it, as some politicians would hope for) 3) I have no idea what the tax structure for the UK is like. I've got no idea where they can bring in more money for NHS without slash-and-burning their way across other vital parts of the budget. 4) There's enough wrong with NHS to make me fear the local hospital, and I've never been afraid of doctors in my life (except for avgi, but that's just because she beats me up and steals my milk money), but the NHS system is infinitely better than anything going on in the states right now. 5) In america, you not only see stuff like hostpital centralization, but the majority of hospitals are run by for profit companies and the majority of americans have to provide for their own insurance. hospitals, even public ones, charge extremely high amounts by any standard, a cost that is mitigated through private insurance. if you haven't got that insurance, you're utterly fucked. if you have got it, you're still not out of the woods. insurance companies are run for profit too, and they can and will fuck you over to make money for themselves. now, a lot of this is 'too stupid for words', but i also realize that a lot of this is more complicated than i possibly understand it. I hope that the NHS will keep a decent medical staff available to Greater Wycombe, but I'm also aware that NHS is urging a more 'natural' approach to child birth these days as well. They're encouraging women to give home births, with a midwife's supervision, as much as possible and not come into the hospital unless there's complications. midwives are trained to spot those complications and get the women to the hospitals when they need them. a lot of evidence suggests this is better on the mothers and the babies AND the hospital system itself. we're at a point in medical science where things are starting to be rexamined and a lot of doctors think 'gosh, inducing labor as a mater of procedure is too stupid for words' I think everyone should have swift access to competant health care. I realize this is not something that can be done for free, or in some cases done at all. Hopefully, no matter what changes are made to the NHS structure around Wycombe, they'll fix the fucking roads while they're at it. but you know, there may not be a budget for it. And I don't want to cast snap judgements at that without knowing anything about it, lets i appear too stupid for words.
Personally I'd feel a bit dishonest filling that in seeing as I don't live there and it's not my hospital, it wont be me they'd be handing it back to. What if a cruel twist of fate meant that my wrongly added opinion actually caused them to move it back and used up money that might have been spent on other NHS resources in my own town or area? Anyway, that aside, it must of benefit to some people surely; which town are they moving it to?
Would you be willing to pay more taxes to NHS so you can keep the hospital, and another hospital can be set up to serve the people who would have been helped by the move?
[quote:52d264454a="Garner"]I hope that the NHS will keep a decent medical staff available to Greater Wycombe, but I'm also aware that NHS is urging a more 'natural' approach to child birth these days as well. They're encouraging women to give home births, with a midwife's supervision, as much as possible and not come into the hospital unless there's complications. midwives are trained to spot those complications and get the women to the hospitals when they need them. [/quote:52d264454a] Ah, well we hit a complication there. I have a midwife in the family, and her and her entire unit are against the move. Midwives are trained to spot complications, but they can arise so quickly that a 40 minute journey to a qualified paedeatrician could be fatal to mother and/or child. I'd trust her opinion on that. [quote:52d264454a="Maljonic"]Anyway, that aside, it must of benefit to some people surely; which town are they moving it to?[/quote:52d264454a] Aylesbury. I fail to see the benefit to those in Aylesbury either. They'll get more traffic from ambulances and people visiting, and when they require a routine operation, they'll have to trek over to Wycombe. [quote:52d264454a="Marcia"]Would you be willing to pay more taxes to NHS so you can keep the hospital, and another hospital can be set up to serve the people who would have been helped by the move?[/quote:52d264454a] Again covered above. Aylesbury already have a Maternity and Emergency unit, so this doesn't make services closer to anyone. It keeps it the same distance from them, and further away for us (with certain services being same for us and further for them). Taxes wouldn't need to rise for a new hospital, because a new hospital wouldn't be needed. The savings for the NHS come purely from from having units all in one place. And of course it paves the way for other units round the country to do the same. Or possibly in 10-20 years time, Maternity and Emergency wards might be moved further away. I hear Oxford has a good hospital.
HAH! Helicopter, well done Grace, you made me laugh. I think the budget allows for Ambulances, failing that - Royal Mail, 2nd class.
I don't see any logic in this move. It is, quite frankly, saving money instead of saving lives. I'm sorry, but this is plain stupid.
But then that is the NHS for you!! What more can I say, I have no faith in them at all for personal reasons but this just puts the icing on the cake for me! I will fill in the form for sure!
Hm, makes me think... Its fine to offer home births as an alternative for women who want to avoid hospital experiences. I know some who made very good experiences with that, but the initiative should come from themselves, i feel. And in most cases, if you [i:d7ebe05851]do [/i:d7ebe05851]have a car of your own, you have more than enought time to drive anywhere, too, although being folded up in a Mini or a Golf when already in labor is no nice experience... But 40 minutes from the next help in case of an emergency? That's too far away. I don't want to generalize, but home births are often said to work with those women who agreed to them and feel safe about them. For women, though, who either feel to nervous about it, or want to be able to get an anaesthesia (the one where you get an injection into your medulla) it is often out of question. Now a lot of people say, you do not really need those things in most cases, but usually those are the people who talk about [i:d7ebe05851]other [/i:d7ebe05851]people being in that situation. Also for women where soemthing went wrong through their first birth, home birthing often is not the first choice anymore. If I hadn't gotten a medical check up in a hospital, they wouldn't have discovered my HELLP-syndrome, because I was lacking a few typical syndroms. With my experiences with what came next, home birth for the next child would be out of question, and knowing the next hospital is 40 minutes away would be a little unsettling. (Also think of the family, father and possible siblings, who has to drive that distance more than once.) I see the necessities of economical planning, but there is such a thing as saving money in the wrong places. Emergency units might be one of them.
re: Ben's familymember midwife's opinion, I do agree on this. personally, my opinions have always been highly over-the-top in regards to pregnancy. When the Evil Fairy was hatching her podling, she and Buzzfloyd opened my mind up to a lot of new ways of thinking about childbirth and stuff. i do think that having a doctor at hand is not just a 'sensible precaution' but should probably be a requirement for safety's sake, but there's a lot to be said for the benefits of a calm, peaceful, non-induced homebirth where the woman's going to feel more safe and secure than a strange, alien hospital, possibly being run for profit rather than the care of the patients.
I feel for your town Ben, but this does seem to be something thats happening nationwide. Our local hospital closed it's A&E department a while back now meaning the nearest one is in Warrington which, not in rush hour, is about 15 - 20 minutes away by car. Instead it has a minor injuries department which is open between 10am and 10pm, I think, something like that anyway. So if you happen to injure yourself outside of these hours it's a nice long journey to think about the apain that your in. I cut the very tip of my finger off( I know Doors, I am a bufoon) on a Stainless Steal junction box a while back now, at about 8.15am and I had to be driven to Warrington to wait for 2 hour and then be seen for 20 minutes, which involved painful Iodine minutes, then to wait another half an hour to be picked up. I'm glad I decided to go private a year back.
It's not just the longer distance that can be a problem. Liskeard in Cornwall has a brand-new clean and pleasant hospital. The nearest other large hospital is the Derrieford, in Plymouth, which has a high rate of MRSA (or whatever the disease is that seems to be common in some hospitals), is old, apparently not very well run and is generally regarded as a place to avoid. When my mother finally went into hospital, her greatest fear was that even though she was going into Liskeard, she would then be transferred to Derrieford - it took her more than twenty four hours to decide that she felt bad enough to go in - luckily, the local Social Services managed to persuade Liskeard to hold the bed they had arranged open for her for that length of time* - mainly because of this fear. The Liskeard hospital has an A&E department largely equipped using money raised by the local churches, specifically so that Liskeard would have a good A&E service. The Liskeard A&E department is now going to be closed and everything transferred to Derrieford. This has annoyed everybody locally (except presumably the bean-counters - sorry, accountants) especially all the church members who feel that their contributions have been effectively stolen. *Social workers come in for a lot of stick at times, but I have nothing but praise for the Liskeard area team - they did everything they could to let my mother retain her pride in looking after my father, with only as much outside help as was absolutely necessary, for as long as possible - they had been married for 65 years, and it was only in the last year or so that she simply lacked the physical strength for some tasks (my father's mental state had been deteriorating for some time, so he needed a lot of attention) - and the head of the care team even took the time to come to the funeral.
if you're going to move any medical services from an area the emergency ones should be the last to go! that is ludicrous. Plus I'm not sure what the ambulance system is like over in England. I do know that having to wait for one in Ireland is one of my worst nightmares- people don't even pull over for them! Isn't that one of the most important rules of the road?
It is. Actually. A friend of mine used to work as an ambulance officer. One day they were transporting a small child that had lost a leg in an accident, sirens on, high speed and all. One car, though, did not only make no room, the driver slowed down on purpose ans started making rude gestures out of the car window. My friend told that when they had arrived in hospital, he had been so mad until then that some of the veins in his eyes had burst and the white in his eyes had gone dark red. As far as I remember the story, the child survived. They were probably not allowed to do anything to the driver. They should have pushed him off the road and leave him all by himself, but that was probably out of question...
