It’s like they couldn’t decide whether to go for serif or sans, so went for a bit of both.

Five reasons why this video (whilst it makes an important and valid wider point) irritates me:
1. It doesn’t acknowledge that both A (on the left) and B (on the right) are both, ultimately, working for profit rather than purely for the benefit of patients.
2. It doesn’t acknowledge that A likely employs salaried doctors like B, with similar issues.
3. It doesn’t acknowledge that since A opted out of providing out-of-hours care, B has stepped in to provide it. In fact, it’s B who’s illustrated at walking out at the end, just when B’s colleagues are kicking into action.
4. It suggests that non-partner doctors hold less professionalism, and are less concerned with patient welfare. Such doctors include many GPs, as well as virtually all secondary and tertiary care physicians and surgeons.
5. It doesn’t acknowledge a single advantage of the corporate model. A’s approach may well be preferable as a whole, but B’s approach is not without merit, and it’s idiotic to suggest that it is.

This ad has been here for years, and always bemuses me. Why advertise a Leeds newspaper in Newcastle? Why would a newspaper report on private individuals’ nefarious activities?

I’m sure there’s some (probably football related) subtext that completely passes me by.

A Pod Delusion report about Norwegian Prisons from a little over a year ago. Not quite sure what made me think of this today specifically, but thought I’d share it nonetheless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAn8KWJ26M4

I believe this is a BBC film from 1965 about the effects of nuclear war that was suppressed from broadcast. It’s powerful stuff.

I found it fascinating, as I used to be really interested in American Cold War public information films, and the contrast between this and the whole ‘Duck & Cover’ malarky is stark to say the least. I can certainly appreciate why its broadcast was suppressed at the time!

This #nhsreform mythbuster from DH is overtly party political (“we will never, ever privatise the NHS”).

I’m not comfortable with statements which are so clearly partisan being ascribed to DH, and I’m surprised the Civil Service didn’t prevent it. Such bodies shouldn’t be political puppets.

Also, some of the “myths” are blatantly not “myths” – e.g. “You are introducing competition in the NHS”

This has really got me riled – and I’m not the only one.

Time to dig out the umbrella…

Re: this article.

A mother chooses to disclose the contents of a private letter telling her that her son that he’s on the 98th centile for BMI. She does this by calling him “fat”. This upsets him. So she has a picture of him printed in a national newspaper with a report explaining that he’s reportedly “fat”. And then blames the NHS. Exasperating!

Perhaps the letter she received needs refining. Perhaps a letter isn’t the appropriate way to communicate this info.

But the bare choice is between:
a) Not monitoring children’s health
b) Monitoring but not disclosing the results
c) Monitoring and giving advice to parents of children with a high BMI

I can only ever see “c” being the ethical option.

Would this mother really have preferred not to know that her child is at statistically increased risk of a variety of diseases? Would she really rather not have been given advice on how to help? Was it really ethical of the Daily Mail to cash in on her unhappiness rather than pointing her in the direction of her GP?

I suspect the answer to all three is “no”.

Rant over.

This awesome oil painting from above our fireplace was by the excellent Gary Funston. He’s started to sell some stuff on eBay recently, which is well worth a look if you’re into that kind of thing.