Only 45% of doctors are female?
Considering this article mostly builds upon the concept of unequal outcomes proving discrimination is baked into the system, I’m going to propose that the NHS is fundamentally mysandric to its Covid patients as more men die of it than women. This is your rules, your logic, not mine.
As a further aside, and this is something of a rant, I’ve visited a GP once in the last 25 years. I was pretty much fobbed off and told there was nothing wrong with me. This is some quite fantastic customer service considering that approximately 50% of my earnings (consider this economic output) ends up in one form of taxes or another and of that, 25% goes to the NHS. Thus, 12.5% of everything I do is a contribution to the NHS. That’s more than I spend on food and clothing combined and about the same as my mortgage minimum payments. What do I get for this? Stuck in the same 4 walls, doing a job that does nothing but allows me to pay for the continued largesse of the NHS.
This is a macrocosm of an economy that exists with a singular purpose of supporting the NHS (notwithstanding the fact that crumbling supply chains will ultimately damage the NHS as costs skyrocket and certain resources become unobtainable). Tell me Amy, when the externalities of a collapsing economy see an increase in homeless (85% male) will you decry the policy as sexist as a consequence of that outcome? Or will you, as I suspect, ignore it?
Personally, I won’t be doing that, but that’s because viewing the world through the lens of identity politics is lazy, inaccurate and tends to reveal nothing that our biases and prejudices won’t countenance.
…despite recruitment drives, fewer than 30% of surgeons are women, while two-thirds of consultants are male. No doubt that goes some way to explaining why male doctors earn 20% more than their female counterparts.
Is she comparing consultant surgeons based on sex or surgeons and consultants based on sex? Is she expecting this to be a valid comparison?
Gender pay gaps involving identical employment positions would suggest discrimination – all other variables being equal. But is not pay discrimination in employment unlawful?
I’m not sure, but almost every time I encounter the pay gap argument, it ends up being a bait and switch. Pay is conflated with earnings and apples and oranges are in the same basket..
In a few years that ratio might become 55-60% female.
And I am sure this breed of enlightened women would not find THAT sexist, or that the majority of the safe, risk free NHS jobs are already female, or that NHS spending over women most probably exceeds that on men (simply due to pregnancy and higher longevity, perfectly valid I should add) – all of which is paid for by taxes, which are contributed much more by men grinding away at high risk, high pressure, private sector jobs or businesses.
I would like to think I am fairly supportive and nice to my wife, daughter, female colleagues, and would always help them in their careers any way I can.
But I am reaching a stage where I am just disgusted by the concept of women’s “equality”
And also, the majority of those women doctors would either go part time, or quit, enjoying time with their family while expecting their husbands (often doctors as well) to do the long, hard shifts to pay for the mortgage.
And when those men end up earning more, that would be more evidence if “sexism” and women’s inequality.
Indeed by this warped logic the whole NHS should be defunded as institutionally misandrist as men die earlier than women. Male lives matter might be the cry as men and supportive women march through the capital with placards decrying this monstrous injustice clearly exhibited in the statistics.
I have to say Amy, that while you have written previous articles that I’ve been in complete agreement with, this one is a bit off. The statement “While women make up 76.7% of the NHS’s 1.3 million employees, only 45% of doctors are female; despite recruitment drives, fewer than 30% of surgeons are women, while two-thirds of consultants are male.” lacks context, and I’m sure Amy that you are more than smart enough to know the reasons for these differences and that they have nothing to do with sexism or discrimination. (1) Medical schools in the UK have been 50:50 male to female students now for 30 years plus. (2) This year, my alma mater UCLMS actually had more female students than male students in the incoming class (I think they were boasting 60:40 which makes one wonder where all the smart males have gone and what they’re doing instead). (3) It is hardly surprising that there are more male consultants than females because many females want to go into primary care. Many males do as well, just that more females do. Not surprising because one has to work very hard with long hours and poor pay to eventually reach consultant status which may not even be in an area of the country that one would like to live in. (4) There is no question that males and females have different interests, and it is therefore hardly surprising to find that more males than females gravitate towards surgery, while more females than males gravitate towards pediatrics.
The bottom line is that continually complaining about outcomes that have nothing to do with sexism is just counterproductive, as should be rather evident from so many of the comments here.
Excellent analysis. And Jordan Peterson would be proud.
Like you I have found Amy has previously submitted sensible articles but when it comes to claiming sexism a lot of women seem to abandon all of their usual rationality.
Debbie Hayton is one of the few writers here that actually responds to comments below the article. It would probably be a good policy that would encourage readership if writers of articles published here were required to undertake to respond to criticism that challenges factual or logical elements of their arguments.
It might improve the quality if articles if the author could no longer make claims based on dubious and superficial assertions without having to take on criticism. I know I benefit when someone challenges some too sweeping assertion on my part.
Obviously some limit on the amount of time the author had to devote to this would be required but I think it could prove a popular policy among readers at least.
Deleted original comment as I obviously did not express myself very well.
I did not have in mind that authors would have to respond to the sort of comment you mention but more substantive comment such as that provided by Johann Strauss. I wouldn’t mind knowing why she thinks an organisation so well staffed by women should perpetuate anti-women sexism.
My point was just that! There is very little constructive criticism in the comments section. No balanced discussion. I might say something along the lines of the level of female staffing in the NHS being a fairly recent demographic shift that has yet to address long standing attitudes ingrained in medical practice. Take for example infertility. The problem is assumed to be female, because of long standing attitudes and investigations begin there, often more costly and invasive, before male health issues are looked at. Quite right to suggest that at what point does a female led organisation address such imbalances. However, I can’t be bothered to comment anymore because instead of reasoned debate there is nothing but gender based mud slinging. The men on here are as guilty of it as the women they complain about. It was the only point I was trying to make.
Perhaps I didn’t express it well.
I simply don’t understand why anyone would take the quote you refer to seriously. It’s a joke, a little bit true, take it or leave it. Water off a duck’s back as far as I’m concerned.
Because certain groups of people would hunt, desperately and ferociously – for any hint, any comment, any fact, to prove that they are victims. Whether those facts are accurate or comments are meant seriously or their context, doesn’t matter.
Now you know how many of us feel reading your comments.
Hopefully you now feel sufficiently “offended” to claim the coveted status of “victim” – your default mindset.
institutionalised stereotypes about women being oversensitive or over dramatic
Like this article then.
Read the Unity report referenced and then look at how it is being overhyped here (sexual harassment includes banter and derogatory comments about appearance). Report level was 8% – bumped up in the report as 1 in 10. But 19% of these were male. So actually 6%. Serious sexual offences uncovered in the survey were much lower.
The ‘birth rape’ article comes from The Sun – yes that highly credible non-sexist publication and seems to refer to restraint procedures and examination by mid-wives and other medical specialists during difficult labour that the mother finds distressing. The phrase ‘birth rape’ is classic Sun-like over dramatisation to boost a story.
Then it uses a single self-published substack site by a female doctor who holds a reasonably rationalist view as evidence of the NHS ‘belittling’ concern about vaccination and menstruation. It ignores the systematic ‘Yellow Card’ scheme that does include adverse event reports including on menstruation, which shows limited effects.
Finally, the vaccine hesitancy mentioned (pre-vaccine roll out – from Dec 2020) – was ‘slightly higher’ among women and young people (not necessarily young women) based on a self-report survey. Unfortunately the study doesn’t report data tabulations, only a regression-based association so you can’t check for ‘young women’.
The NHS is staffed by women, has mostly female patients, caters strongly to female issues and health needs, and yet the conclusion of the author is to complain of “the continuing willingness of the NHS to disregard women”.
Pull the other one.
I imagine if men complained about sexual harassment every time a colleague cheerily said “look at the state of you, you big fat [email protected]”, the incidence among males would rocket.
The thing is, when men get together they insult each other and don’t mean it, and women get together they pay each other compliments and don’t mean it.
Boys typically get a much deeper education in “bantering” while at school.
Achieving the ability to lightly mock someone in a way (and a moment) that makes the “victim” laugh is an invaluable skill for later life.
Those people that didn’t learn how to do this are never likely to understand that.
Personally I try and avoid hospitals and doctors as much as possible. I have friends who are doctors, nurses and midwives, they mean well, some of them are exactly who you would want by your side in an extreme situation, others not so much.
As a nurse myself I witnessed behaviour and attitudes amongst a few nurses – women – that horrified me. In all walks of life some men and women are emotionally intelligent as well as clever, but not as many as we would all like. Doctors and nurses are trained to see patients first and foremost as bodies, anatomy and physiology. Many of them work on that level efficiently throughout their careers without ever understanding their patients emotionally. Empathy cannot be taught.
I don’t know what the answer is but it definitely is not viewing the problem as Sexism and Misogyny.
As usual you express sensible views.
My predominant experience of my local hospital has been through visiting my mother-in-law on various occasions with my wife when she had to go in for various problems connected with old age. On most of the visits the standard of care from the nursing staff was pretty deplorable and the institutional feeding system and general ignorance of the needs of demented insulin diabetics was particularly upsetting for my wife.
While it may not be typical the worst behaviour was experienced from the British staff whereas the Philippina and Philippino nursing staff were much more empathetic. Indeed my wife removed her mother from the hospital and cared for at home with the part time help of a Philippina nurse she met at the hospital.
You seem to suggest that there is something in the British nursing training that actively discourages empathy whereas in our experience the Philippine system seems not to have such a bias, or did we just experience an untypical cross section?
I was’nt suggesting that, though it might well be the case. The problem may lie with the elevation of nurse training to university level. I wonder if the Philippine nurses are trained in that way, or are they trained as we use to be, on the wards, from the b*ttom up as it were, bedpans and bed baths first.
Essentially I was just saying that empathy is far from universal, you either have it or you don’t. But I think there are a lot of empathic working class young British women who are now shut out of nursing because it is degree level only, which is a pity.
“Doctors and nurses are trained to see patients first and foremost as bodies, anatomy and physiology” It was this sentence that made me wonder if there was something in the training that actually militated against empathy.
I do think that promoting nursing as degree level only is a mistake because it must direct the attention from the caring aspect of the work.
My mother-in-law’s personal hygiene was neglected so that her false teeth were left uncleaned or lost from time to time, no proper monitoring of what she ate took place nor were efforts taken to ensure she drank enough water. We saw cross infection risks neglected so that she caught hospital acquired infections several times. None of these problems needed a university education to correct.
When she stayed in hospital her insulin regime always collapsed and my wife frequently saw as soon as she came in to visit that her mother’s blood sugars were too low but was consistently told that she was OK until my wife tested her blood herself to establish the truth of what she said and nurses would only respond by sticking rigidly to protocols that did not work here and in relation to pain reduction. Arrogant, ignorant and uncaring was often the impression gained from too many nurses.
The worst ward she was ever on was one described as a “nurse lead” post operative ward although elderly wards were often pretty grim. On the whole the standard of care seemed to be best on emergency wards.
My wife has many friends who are nurses so this shouldn’t be read as a criticism of nurses asa whole or the outcome of any anti-nurse sentiment.
Sorry, my Nos sounded a bit severe, I’ve got rid of them + I was’nt very clear.
That sentence of mine meant that that way of looking at patients is what is most important. An empathic doctor or nurse is not much good if they can’t assess how dangerous a situation might be. It could be a question of someone having hurt feelings but surviving, or bleeding to death while the doctor tenderly explains what he is going to do next. That does’nt mean kindness should be absent though.
I am sorry to hear about your mother-in-law’s experience, that must have been painful for all of you. I have heard other stories like that. Perhaps it is also that there are too many people to be looked after, with not enough staff, in the way we would like. I think 12 hour shifts for nurses are a terrible idea as well.
Amy usually writes interesting articles so it is depressing when she starts writing the usual women’s complaint article.
I would like to ask her why, in an organisation that is predominantly staffed by women and, while there might be a small minority of qualified doctors they represent a significant proportion, she can then go on to describe the organisation as Sexist? Why in a predominantly female organisation does she think female values are not represented? Why are women apparently incapable of affecting things so that their interests are taken into account? Why do all these women fail to ensure things are different?
Does she not think that a male doctor (or any doctor not blighted by bias) might be able to pick out issues where male health seems to be neglected compared to female health, given that men still die earlier than women?
Why are women apparently such pathetic wusses that in an organisation predominantly staffed by women they allegedly discriminate against their own sex so routinely? What proportion of women in an organisation does she think will end this alleged sexist bias when a nearly 80% staffed organisation cannot achieve it? Will 90% be enough?
Why when women spend more time with children in their early formative years than men are they incapable of ensuring that both men and women have a balanced view of the interest of both sexes? Allegedly. What is wrong with women?
Clearly the ‘answer’ is to sack enough male doctors to open up vacancies for women doctors…. but also sack enough female nurses to open up vacancies for male nurses.
Surely the resultant chaos would be worth it for the sake of an arbitrary 50/50 balance between sexes (don’t mention gender or ethnicity, I think I’ve got away with it).
It appears that the complaints of women are endless. When will society be able to adequately hear them?
There seems to a certain class of females that see everything in the light of victimhood. Its is getting very boring. The NHS staffing is probably 85% female, the majority of which get on and do their jobs to help make health care available to the population subject to financial constraints.
I used to think it was socialisation, but it seems that victimhood as currency is a genetic, biological imperative built into women.
Or actually have a discussion if these issue are reasonable to complain about? It is not as if all men never suffer or die? When you objectively compare statistics, men on average are worse off in almost any statistic, it is just the top dogs only that are better off but these top dogs are compared against the average woman.
Imho the primary problem is that media (including this one) all hire a significant number of female reporters to make the case for whatever females are supposed to suffer from. However, there are not reporters doing this for men, so we get an asymmetric information flow. To make matters worse, any feedback that s not in line with the dogmas is sabled down violently. Remember Damore, Strumia? The #metoo debacle was not a discussion, it was a monologue among women.
Imho the primary problem is that media (including this one) all hire a significant number of female reporters to make the case for whatever females are supposed to suffer from. However, there are not reporters doing this for men, so we get an asymmetric information flow.
Because men don’t organise (politically/Politically) around the identity group ‘men’, nor around ‘male victimhood’. It’s a distinctly female trait, imperative.
Can you imagine a Million Man March of screeching middle class guys in p***s hats, stamping their feet about their wholly imagined, manufactured ‘oppression’?
Careful. I made a similarly inoffensive comment a few days ago in response to yet another article by yet another UnHerd female contributor mercilessly excoriating that bane of modern woke society, ie. men.
It was, needless to say, peremptorily removed, allegedly because it was flagged by readers – despite the 20 or “likes” it also garnered.
I’m afraid UnHerd now subscribes to the Guardian’s intolerant and binary approach to sexual politics, namely men = all bad, and women = all good.
I no longer wish to finance such misandrist hectoring.
I now see what you mean.
I just had a comment on another thread criticising feminism censored. Thus proving the point of my comment, of course.
Sorry Amy, but I think you have got this wrong. Undoubtedly the NHS attitude of “be jabbed or leave” is going to cause further staffing shortages, from porters to consultants, but it has nothing to do with misogyny. Don’t confuse incompetence with sexism.
If the author thinks that the NHS is sexist she should work outside the umbrella of government organisations for a while.
These extreme ideas of feminism are driven by so-called ‘clever’ upper-class women who want to train other women that nurture comes before nature –
‘if you have a natural urge to behave in a certain way, suppress it and and learn from me. Complain about everything.’
I would like to remind the author that the only people not on some sort of protected class list are white heterosexual men. In fact, I would suggest that discrimination against them is actively encouraged: “Get to the back of the line, you oppressor! Better yet, just off yourself already.” Somehow they manage to bear up and do their jobs, despite the poisonous misandry visited on them by their female colleagues. Thanks, guys! I, for one, am grateful to you.
It is so disappointing that Amy Jones, who often makes some good points about the NHS and healthcare, should now wander into a completely uncritical, overstated and emotive branch of the grievance industry. She erects a huge superstructure balancing on very flimsy foundations.
“Women possess an already precarious grip on their own bodily autonomy, and for many, their relationship with the NHS, both as patients and as employees, is beset with mistrust and coercion”
This sounds like something from a 4th wave feminist studies course at some woke academic institution, not even written in words that most women would begin to identify with, and almost complete garbage.
Her comments don’t pass the ‘smell’ test. Nursing staff are overwhelmingly women. There is a higher proportion of male doctors, but not by very much, and representing an enormous change over the decades.
• Registered doctors by gender and specialty in the UK 2020 | Statista
Medical research – yes, obviously this should include women. If it does not include and address the specific needs of half the population, that is indeed scandalous as well as being completely unscientific
Compulsory vaccination is not a women’s issue – it is an issue of the balance of individual rights versus risk of transmission of disease in a workplace setting, for all workers. As it happens, it seems that covid vaccines don’t achieve very much against transmission. If however they did make a significant difference would it be unreasonable to expect nurses and doctors of both (should I say every?) gender to be vaccinated, as they do in any case for other diseases? It is an arguable point, and yes, we need to take into account the effect on staffing levels, but it isn’t evidence of some appalling tyrannical patriarchy at play.
Refusing to have face to face consultations? Yes, a bad thing that has affected the whole population, not women alone.
Maybe there’s not a 50/50 male to female representation in every branch of medicine because proportionately less women than man want to be surgeons and consultants? Why assume it’s sexism? After decades of supposedly paradisiacal equality in Scandinavia, for instance, 70% of nurses are still female.
Wasn’t there an issue raised a number of years back regarding female doctors retiring far earlier than their male counterparts, often after choosing to have children? This was causing an issue because women were the majority of med school students and graduates and thus absorbing the majority of the training resources.
It is a while since I read the article, so I may be wrong, but I have the feeling there is some truth to this dilema.
Sweden is interest case, as the Swedish paradox hits my field (engineering) as it’s beacon of egalitarian policy is creating even greater inequality of numbers in that field.
I believe it’s a problem in veterinary medicine also, there’s a national shortage of vets, especially farm vets.. Women like the idea of working with animals but leave to have children. As they are often quite maternal women, they want to bring them up too (not just give birth and go back to work).
Yes, this is a common problem. In the Netherlands, they need now 3x the training resources as they used to have for dentists because so many women will work part time, leave the workforce for children, and retire early. In an US study from the government, they also found men work on average 2.5 hours more per week for the same full time job.
I guess it is the same for other areas where women dominate the educational resources.
Similar situation for GPs, who are now mostly women. More time off, more likely to be part-time, time off to become mothers, sick leave, retire early.
Imagine it’s also similar for hospital doctors.
No wonder folk are finding it harder and harder to get appointments.
It is kind of staggering if you realize how complex it is today when our doctor 60 years ago visited us day and nights when the need arose. But misogyny …
97% of speech therapists are female. Presumably they’re all wannabe surgeons who’ve been told by the patriarchy that they’re not wanted in theatre
So the NHS is exactly what you’d expect a mostly-female statist organisation to look like, then?
No mention of the number of worthless female adminstrators and bureaucrats employed by the NHS then?!
Without the NHS what would worthless women do with their lives?
“Women possess an already precarious grip on their own bodily autonomy”. Once I’ve worked out what that means I’d like to see the evidence for it.
‘… nearly 1 in 10 of Unison’s NHS members reported rape, sexual abuse or harassment at work… ‘
Why not expand the category even further? If you say ‘rape, sexual abuse, harassment or a bad-hair day you could get the numbers up to 1 in 3.
Articles like this make me regret subscribing.
Utter feminist dross.
Gads, you should see my book club. The choices are execrable. One member actually proffered Stacey Abrams’ latest juvenile smut that makes “50 Shades of Grey” read like Jacqueline Susann. Me? I’m all for Old Flashy, Elspeth, Otto Von B, Lola Montez, a randy little pre-Albert Victoria, and all the marvelous and devious criminals throughout the 19th Century, written with gusto, humor and genuine scholarship by a member of the non-whining sex.
“Utter feminist dross.”
But the staple of Unherd’s output nowadays.
I’ve decided not to renew my subscription and allow the target readership, ie women, to finance this relentless barrage of misandrist generalisations and groundless accusations themselves.
There is something about this article that does not ring true. My wife is a GP and a very good one. You visit her practice and you will for the most part not meet a man – if you do he will be maintaining the building.
Go to hospital and almost everyone you meet in a clinical context will be femaie.
For the last 25 years 60% of people training to be medics are female. When i considered transferring from my biological sciences degree I was told (by women) not to bother because I was a man.
The only place where this has not happened is surgery – because it is basically butchery. Have a hip replacement done – do you want a slip of a girl to pull you apart or a big muscular bloke.
I have come across huge predjudice in may working life. The worst is the misandrogy in the NHS
Like a lot of men I’ve paid in all my life as a PAYE type slogging through 45 years of work. Being lucky genetically, avoiding accidents and pretty fit I’ve got to 66 having seen a doctor on a handful of occasions. Never used a hospital. The guys in my family mostly likewise and the couple of batchelors have paid in and got almost nothing back. Women need to.be very careful with this line of attack- men might realise they’re propping up others’ care and then we’re down the privatisation and ‘hands off my healthcare’ route. Then the wailing would really start.
The winner would still be whoever could shout the loudest…….
Reminder to this feminist chump:
Men pay 80% of tax. Women take out 80% of expenditures.
Square that inequality first by depriving women of healthcare until their life expectancies are the same as men, Fair’s fair,
The writer of this piece appears to have a serious psychological problem. I won’t describe her as crazy because that would only trivialise her condition. I sincerely hope she doesn’t have any male patients.
Menstrual difficulties post vaccine were not discussed. Fair enough, but neither were deaths, paralysis or heart attacks so I don’t think wimmin can claim any special status there.
I have always said the NHS is a Political Organization forced to do Health Care to justify its Budget. This article has not changed my mind on that.
We all know Dr McCullough and Dr Malone as the great scientists explaining how the covid response was all to give power and vast wealth to the Pharma/medical Industry. I have posted many links to their talks – Breggins book is fun – “COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey”
and Robert Kennedy jr’s book ‘The Real Fauci’ is excellent – watch to see how the vax was all for corrupt reasons – here he is talking of Covid and Fauci and the corruption of the vax and the man… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNjr4WEY1ao
if you have an hour and half to get some good insight on the Covid-19 corruption to the core – and how the medical industry is NOT on your side. Kennedy (his uncle was the President, he is a power attorney who specializes in Eco things – and Vaccines.) gives a great talk…
The vaccine mandate is to protect patients. They already have to have hepatitis ‘b’ immunity in many healthcare settings. This is a made up complaint with no substance.
I don’t think there is any dispute about the fact that the vaccines do not stop medical staff contracting Covid or transmitting it, particularly with the Omicron variant. It may well be that it reduces the viral load and therefore offers some degree of protection to patients. However, surely the extent of that protection is currently unknown? Whereas we can be certain that losing up to 70,000 medical staff will have a definite adverse impact on patient care. These vaccines are clearly not equivalent to the hepatitis vaccine.
Where does the 70,000 medical staff figure come from? There are only around 200,000 doctors in the country. And while you are right that the vaccine does not prevent transmission, it does reduce it significantly.
Actually the vaccines do NOT reduce transmission at all as judged by the UKHSA data. The only thing the vaccines are purported to do, but it’s certainly not clear that they do so in the case of the Omicron variant which is the only variant that counts right now, is reduce the risk of hospitalization and death. Now the monoclonal antibodies directed against the spike protein have been shown to be completely useless against Omicron, so there would be absolutely no reason to suppose that antibodies generated against the original spike protein produced by translation of the mRNA vaccines would do any better than the best neutralizing antibodies selected when making the monoclonals.
Actually that complaint is the only one that Amy is justified in making. If the vaccine mandate protected patients from being infected by doctors fair enough. But as is now evident the vaccinated, including the boosted, are easily infected and transmit, especially now that the predominant variant, Omicron, evades the vaccine in any case, never mind to say that the effectiveness of the vaccines basically falls to negligible values after 6 months of the 2nd dose and after 6-10 weeks of the booster. Under those circumstances the vaccine mandate makes absolutely no logical or rational sense.
See my reply above.
The hepatitis B vaccine is to protect staff from patients as well (or mainly) as they are potentially exposed to bodily fluids as part of their job.
It’s also to protect the employer so that employees can’t seek damages if they get infected on the job.
Isn’t that what the covid vaccine is for too? Really!
Exactly the point with covid vaccinations.
With the NHS just described so awfully and sincerely, and all the other many terrible statistics and stories that we hear, I can only wonder when this huge bemouth will finally be broken up and reorganised, with the insight of so many other health systems models around the world. Not in my lifetime…
I think that reorganisation desperately needs to be done in order to make the NHS work properly again. But just who, politically, will do such a thing? NHS managers would not dream of suggesting it, as it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.
I consider that the closure of local hospitals, small, cottage or otherwise was when the rot started. Not all patients needed to be seen in bigger specialist centres.
Jean – I was there when this happened mainly because there were not enough senior medical/nursing staff to cover but also the rise of medical litigation if not enough professional help was available when an emergencies arose.
I ask the same question as I asked about Dr Steve James talking about going elsewhere to work. What if that somewhere else requires to have this or any other similar “vaccine”. If there is a chance of a ‘once-in-a-lifetime holiday but they need to have the vaccine – how many would be ruthlessly hypocritical. Not a few, I’m sure. How much of this noise is just political?
What? You mean the leftie progressive NHS isn’t an egalitarian utopia? Wow, colour me gobsmacked.
Amy Jones is writing some stinkers lately. This one is worthy of depositing directly in the round file.
Misogyny? Seriously? You have proof that women were targeted for poor care? My impression was that the NHS is just failing overall – for males, females, elderly, and the young. It’s an equal-opportunity fiasco.
It’s amazing how those with discrimination-coloured glasses will see it everywhere.
NHS is completed dominated by Females. Generally all wards are managed by Females.
Men’s only get the hard jobs.
If a Men wants to complain for discrimination, in a NHS Hospital, he s not allowed. There isn’t discrimination available for Mens.
It s a complete Subversion.