Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
The Back Pages

Choice

Mike Fitzpatrick
British Journal of General Practice 2004; 54 (508): 879.
Mike Fitzpatrick
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

‘Users should be provided with an improved range of choice in service provision. The expression of that choice needs to be equitable, informed and to provide genuine options in who delivers care, and where and when it is delivered.’1

Under the Labour government the rhetoric of modernisation and reform has disguised a return to the past: first to voluntary (‘foundation’) hospitals, and now to fund-holding (‘practice-based commissioning’). Next stop — the workhouse? The proclamations of choice that now accompany every ministerial speech or policy statement signal the further intrusion of consumerism into health care. But it was the inadequacy of market relations in medicine that led to emergence of a medical profession tied to an ethos of public service.2 The mantra of choice now accompanies measures that threaten to return medical practice to the 19th century.

Choice is inimical to equity. Many of our patients are incapable, because of immaturity, or mental or physical impairment, of exercising choice. The capacity of many more is limited by the simple fact that they are ill, either acutely or chronically, physically or psychologically. Choice in matters of health is restricted to those who are well, well educated and well off — that is to say, those whose need for health care is least, but whose influence weighs most heavily in the concerns of this government.

The choices made by those articulate consumers whose votes the government most covets are as likely to be misinformed as informed. When I summoned an ambulance last week for a young professional with a high fever, who had just returned from West Africa, his partner told me that, after consulting the Internet about the risks of malaria prophylaxis and the disease itself, ‘it was his choice’ not to take the tablets. Another patient recently told me that, on the authority of an almost unbelievably asinine newspaper article — widely available on the Internet — she had decided against giving her baby the new ‘five-in-one’ immunisation.3 The cost of encouraging such choices, in human lives as well as financial terms, is likely to be considerable. But, as we must now acknowledge, ‘the customer is always right’.

We are now supposed to offer our patients the choice of several local hospitals. But we know that at each of them they are likely to be kept waiting for hours, they are unlikely to see the same doctor twice, their notes are equally likely to get lost, and the toilets will be filthy. We can offer them the option of the private sector, where the staff may be more civil and the facilities more congenial, but the quality of clinical care may be less reliable.

For the government, patient choice is ‘a driver for quality and empowerment’.4 But this is nonsense. As the patients of the former GP Harold Shipman, who protested in disbelief at his suspension, can testify, patients are often ill-equipped to judge the quality of their doctors. One definition of a quack is a practitioner who tries to please his/her patients rather than satisfy colleagues' authoritative judgement of his/her professional standards.5 The simple truth is that, in every area of medical practice, the quest for quality has been driven by doctors, not by patients, and least of all by politicians.6

Contrary to the prejudice assiduously promoted by the government, it is not doctors who ‘disempower’ patients, but disease itself. It is the increasingly successful treatment of disease by doctors that restores patients' powers, and enables them to continue to make unhealthy choices, should they choose to do so. This is why patients willingly surrender a degree of autonomy to their doctors as a precondition for recovery from illness. This relationship, well understood and appreciated by generations of doctors and patients, is now jeopardised by the philistine dogma of the market.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2004.

References

  1. ↵
    (2004) The future of access to general practice-based primary medical care — informing the debate. A review paper prepared for the Royal College of General Practitioners and the NHS Alliance (Royal College of General Practitioners, London).
  2. ↵
    1. Marquand D
    (2004) Decline of the public (Polity, Cambridge).
  3. ↵
    1. Reid C
    (August 15, 2004) Be truthful about vaccines or keep away from my children. Scotland on Sunday, http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=941292004 (accessed 12 Oct 2004).
  4. ↵
    1. Department of Health
    (2004) Practice based commissioning: engaging practices in commissioning (Department of Health, London).
  5. ↵
    1. Starr P
    (1982) The social transformation of American medicine (Basic Books, New York).
  6. ↵
    1. Tallis R
    (2004) Hippocratic oaths: medicine and its discontents (Atlantic, London).
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 54 (508)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 54, Issue 508
November 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Choice
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Choice
Mike Fitzpatrick
British Journal of General Practice 2004; 54 (508): 879.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Choice
Mike Fitzpatrick
British Journal of General Practice 2004; 54 (508): 879.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • References
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Who Is My Patient?
  • Working with vulnerable families in deprived areas
  • What is the collective noun for a group of patients?
Show more The Back Pages

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242