Excuse me for my cynicism, but I can’t help but notice a timely press release sent out by the Department for Health this morning which reads:

NHS inpatient and outpatient waiting times figures, 31 December 2009

The key points from the latest release are:

Inpatient Waiting times

• The number of patients, for whom English commissioners are responsible, waiting over the 26 weeks standard for inpatient admission at the end of December 2009 was 18 (compared to the total of 625,100).

• The number of patients, for whom English commissioners are responsible, waiting over 13 weeks at the end of December 2009 was 57,600, an increase of 12,300 (27.3%) from November 2009, and a rise of 18,000 (45.3%) from December 2008.

Outpatient Waiting times

• The number of patients, for whom English commissioners are responsible, waiting over the 13 weeks standard for a first outpatient appointment following GP referral at the end of December 2009 was 93 (compared to the total of 926,800).

• The number of patients, for whom English commissioners are responsible, waiting over 8 weeks at the end of December 2009 was 74,100, an increase of 11,700 (18.8%) from November 2009, but a rise of 26,900 (57.0%) from December 2008.

It’s not rocket science to see that Labour’s claim to have reduced waiting lists and drastically improved the NHS are now completely flawed. Just under a 30% increase last month alone and a 45% increase during 2009. That is a massive jump, a jumpt that cannot be underestimated, yet because of other events going on today, it will receive nil coverage.

Now then, I wonder what other news there is today, perhaps a little inquiry and a certain witness who may have been around at the time of Iraq war. Yes, you’ve got it, the Labour government have done it again, in their usual typical style they’ve pushed out bad news on a day when the media’s attentions are focussed elsewhere. It’s the style we’ve come to expect, so it’s not really that surprising. Iain Dale picked up on the story first and rightly pointed out that on a day when there’s a big political event happening, it’s always worth checking the press rooms of government departments.

On the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 yesterday, there was a discussion about a couple in Dundee who have 8 children with two being taken into care. The background is that the two taken away are obese which the local social services is classifying as abuse.

Now, as you are well aware, I am not an advocate of state interference, however, there are cases where the harm caused to society is such that the state has to step in for the greater good of society. In this case we have two parents who do not work and are on benefits. Clearly they are not looking after their children properly and so the state has a duty to step in. They don’t have a right to step in, but they have a duty because of the potential harm to society at large that obese children will have.

It was a good discussion with arguments made from both perspectives. I won’t repeat my arguments, instead below is the email I sent to the programme setting out my position on the case:

In principle, individuals should be left to run their own lives as they see fit as it is the individual who is knows themselves best and is therefore best placed to know how to run their lives. The state on the other hand does not know the individual and is therefore not best placed in general to run that person’s life.

Where the state should step in is if the actions of the individual are such that a harm is caused to society.

In this case, we seem to have a family who doesn’t work and are living off the state. Clearly, given the size of the children the parents are incapable of bringing up their children properly. This is causing a harm to society because if children are brought up unhealthily, they are more likely to develop health problems later and thus need more services such as the NHS.

I do not like the amount of control that the state is having on our lives, but in this case it seems the state is acting in a reasonable manner.

The question to answer is if they are living off benefits why on earth have they got so many children? Yes, many people want children but it is no good having children and not bring them up properly because you don’t have enough money to do so. That is unfair on the children and they would be better off not being created in the first place.

Congratulations to the social services in question.

My position on this case is clear, however it is important that every case is taken on a case by case basis so that the individual circumstances are looked into properly.
We need to be careful to not take children away when unnecessary, but we also need to make sure that children are protected from harm for the good of themselves and society.

This afternoon I had my first physiotherapy appointment since my hip operation last week. Whilst there I noticed that what I though was a temporary measure seems t have become a permanent measure.

What you can see from the pictures is that the tissue used to protect the treatment beds is being held onto the wall with the use of a walking stick and cable ties. When I first saw this about a year ago I laughed it off and thought it was a temporary measure taken by someone with a bit of practical know-how. However, a year on and I begin to think that it is more of a permanent measure.

It is unbelievable to think that with all the extra investment that the NHS is apparently getting, the physiotherapy deparmnt doesn’t seem able to get proper tissue dipensers. Plenty of middle managers to find but no tissue dispensers! It’s good to see that our taxes are being put to good use!

As i said on Tuesday morning, I underwent surgery on my hip on Tuesday. The  procedure itself was a success and my consultant seemed pleased with what he had done. I’ll have to wait 6-8 months before i know whether it has been a complete success or not.

My brain was not really functioning whilst in hospital due to the painkillers i was being fed, but nevertheless I did make a few observations. First, the way the NHS seems to be dealing with infections is by sending you home as quickly as possible. If you develop an infection once home it isn’t the hospital’s problem and presumably ore importantly won’t appear in their statistics.

The care i received cannot be faulted and the staff were pleasant and very caring. The condition of the hospital was a bit dated and clearly needs to renovations, which I’m told are in the pipeline.

I do have some concerns about this ‘chucking ut’ policy. The problem is that before you would spend several days in hospital after an operation. There is evidence that says people recover quicker if they are home as they are in more comfortable and a familiar surroundings and that cannot be ignored, but I cannot  help but see the real reason they don’t want you hanging around in hospital is partly to do with infection control and partly to do with waiting lists.

labour will trumpet declining waiting lists. Whether the stats prove it or not, you have to look at it from the patient’ perspective. Surely it is better to wait a little longr for treatment, but then get treated properly in the end rather than being sent home in a semi conscious state where you are barely able to move. Apart from trips to the bathroom I have not left my bed since returning home on Wednesday evening and that will probably main the case for several more days.

In light of recent headlines about the NHS, misunderstood or not it is important to not forget that we are fortunate to have a health system that treats all regardless of the income. I am not pretending that the NHS is a perfect system as it is far from it, but a system which cares for the population is essential. The only problem is that over the last decade, funding in the health service has doubled, but we aren’t getting double as good service. Clearly money is being wasted somewhere.

Anyway, at least for now my hip appears to be fixed a bit. Here’s hoping the pain ceases soon and I can then get back to a normal life.