Skip to main content

Main menu

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

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
THE REVIEW

Good enough care?

Helen Lester
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (586): 351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp11X572526
Helen Lester
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Embedded Image

One wintry Sunday afternoon in the bad old days, I was part of the interview panel for prospective new partners in my husband's practice. We had just moved into the area and had no one we trusted to look after our 10-month old son, so he came with us. As I sat there in the consulting room, with number one son dibbling around behind me, the (eventually successful) candidate asked me if I minded that he was sucking the KY Jelly tube on the trolley. Not for the first time, the notion of the ‘good enough mother’ popped into my head.

Donald Winnicott's ideas of being ‘good enough’ were my constant companion in the 1990s, kept the working-mother guilt at bay (just), and occasionally helped me during difficult consultations. Then a new song started to be sung in my academic world, one of gold standards, of centres of excellence, of being the brightest and the best. There are now echoes of this on the frontline in talk of 150 quality standards, of beacons, of pathfinders. So this got me thinking, what are we aiming for — in our brave new commissioning world — are we to be this good or will good enough do?

Aneurin Bevan stated very clearly that we need to aim for the best:

‘Society becomes more wholesome more serene, and spiritually healthier, if it knows that its citizens have at the back of their consciousness the knowledge that not only themselves, but all their fellows, have access, when ill, to the best that medical skill can provide.’1

Ah, you'll say, but that was 60 years ago and we've moved on you know. We've spent so much on health, the infrastructure is there, we have excellent NHS staff, and our social medicine model is the envy of the world. Good enough is fine now isn't it?

There was a paper in the BMJ in February this year that found that since 1965, the English north-south health divide in terms of premature mortality has continued to widen.2 The toll of excess death has now exceeded 1.5 million people, with the north ‘being decimated at the rate of a major city every decade’.3 The underlying causes are both social and economic and to help address these heart-stopping statistics, primary care consortia need to be a lot more than good enough. We need to make sure our links with local authorities are not afterthoughts but central to discussions, the presence of individuals and ideas from that sector seen as a marker of high quality commissioning groups. Public health needs to be centre stage in all commissioning consortia, north, south, east, and west. Marmot's seminal work last year on health inequalities talked about ‘proportionate universalism’ — that is, actions must be proportionate to the degree of disadvantage, and hence applied in some degree to all people, and not just the most disadvantaged.4

And a final thought on why ‘good enough’ can no longer do. Friedrich Engels, pacing the streets of Manchester and Liverpool in the mid-19th century made an observation that ought to feature in each new commissioning group's meeting room:

‘When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another, such injury that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death … knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised malicious murder.’5

Let us be good, not good enough.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, May 2011

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Bevan A
    (1952) In place of Fear (Simon and Schuster, New York, NY), p 79.
  2. ↵
    1. Hacking JM,
    2. Muller S,
    3. Buchan I
    (2011) Trends in mortality from 1965–2008 across the English north-south divide: comparative observational study. BMJ 342:d508.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Whitehead M,
    2. Doran T
    (2011) The north-south divide. The NHS must do more than pick up the pieces. BMJ 342:d584.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. The Marmot Review
    (2010) Strategic review of health inequalities in England post-2010, Fair society, healthy lives (The Marmot Review, London).
  5. ↵
    1. Engels F
    (2007) The condition of the working class in England in 1844 (Bibliobazaar, Charleston, SC).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 61 (586)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 61, Issue 586
May 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
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.
Good enough care?
(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
Good enough care?
Helen Lester
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (586): 351. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp11X572526

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Good enough care?
Helen Lester
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (586): 351. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp11X572526
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

THE REVIEW

  • Tick. Tick. Tick ....
  • Made to measure?
  • Shared humanity: a Jane Austen bicentenary
Show more THE REVIEW

Essay

  • Tick. Tick. Tick ....
  • Made to measure?
  • Shared humanity: a Jane Austen bicentenary
Show more Essay

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

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

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 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

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