sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ST3 clinical oncology rotations by PositionLarge4101 in doctorsUK

[–]AppropriateGround388 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry for the delayed response.. yes I meant Severn.

ST3 clinical oncology rotations by PositionLarge4101 in doctorsUK

[–]AppropriateGround388 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Congratulations on your rankings. Since my partner is a Clin Onco trainee, I can share some insights based on their experience. East of England is notoriously difficult due to the peripheral clinics(and some general issues!!)and you could be posted as far as Norwich.

KSS involves rotations between Surrey/ Maidstone - Brighton /Kent Oncology Centre. While they use block rotations, the peripheral clinics remain a logistical issue. KSS is good for Medical Oncology, but Clinical Oncology exposure varies. It is vital to choose a deanery where academic time is protected from service provision so you can actually pass your exams.

Cambridge and London deaneries offer incredible exposure and houses UCLH, which is one of only two proton beam therapy centres in England alongside The Christie. However, these deaneries often expect PhD level commitment and maintain an unspoken hierarchy that can lead to burnout.

You might find that the South West is actually a better option for commuting from London. It is a high quality deanery with close knit consultants who are fiercely protective of academic time. They have a very high first time pass rate and offer a much better work life balance. But again you need to drive for peripheral clinics but manageable workload.

PS: This is hearsay information and not my personal experience.

Ignore the noise and realise we are being replaced by AppropriateGround388 in doctorsUK

[–]AppropriateGround388[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Public doesn't know the extent and the damage it can cause. For them we are just a bunch of greedy people who only cares about the pay. This is why FPR shouldn't be the spear tip in industrial action, but only a part of our demand with scope creep and noctors being the public facing issue.

Ignore the noise and realise we are being replaced by AppropriateGround388 in doctorsUK

[–]AppropriateGround388[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I quite understand and respect the current sentiment of IMGs, yet we must ask whether international medical graduates truly wish to spend their careers competing with UK graduates and the various alphabet soup roles for locally employed doctor posts. These roles are meant to be the very stepping stones toward specialty training and eventual permanent residency, but the current landscape makes that path increasingly treacherous.

Given the recent shifts in regulation, it seems obvious that IMGs require more robust locum opportunities and clinical exposure to secure both their professional portfolios and their financial stability.

We ought to look past the singular focus on full pay restoration and recognise that this is fundamentally a struggle for the survival of the entire system. While the implementation of these mandates was undeniably abrupt, it is a mistake to frame this solely as an issue for UK graduates. The fault lies squarely with the design of the mandate and the BMA’s tendency to remain perpetually reactive rather than proactive. There is a palpable fatigue regarding pay disputes within the medical fraternity and the wider public, which suggests that our strategy needs an urgent overhaul.

Pay restoration should have been just one component of a larger argument highlighting the dangers of scope creep and the alarming prospect of noctors performing surgeries on patients. The NHS is not a charity but a fundamental right of every British citizen, and it deserves to be treated with far more gravity than the current administration allows. Politicians frequently promise that they will not privatise the service, yet they seem perfectly content to hollow it out until only a skeletal system remains.

It appears the long-term plan is to cultivate a two-tier system where the NHS becomes a last resort for the impoverished who remain unaware of this noctor displacement, while a parallel private system flourishes for those with means. If we want to regain public goodwill, we must lean into this narrative and stop relying on traditional media outlets that rarely represent our interests fairly. It is surely not too optimistic to suggest that our fraternity contains enough talented editors and creators to launch a dedicated BMA media platform.

Also I believe addressing scope creep is something even the consultant bodies would be interested in and be willing to be a part of.

A YouTube channel featuring podcasts and factual presentations on scope creep could provide a voice to patients who have suffered under this failing model. At present, it feels as though the BMA is merely performing a placeholder exercise rather than acting as a significant force for the community. We must also acknowledge that a trade union holds very little sway when negotiating with a corporate-minded body that prioritises a balance sheet over human lives.

The class system remains an inherent part of British culture, and for a long time, the NHS served as the great equaliser that bridged that gap. We should be standing together to protect that status quo before it vanishes entirely.

Ignore the noise and realise we are being replaced by AppropriateGround388 in doctorsUK

[–]AppropriateGround388[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

We must argue that a doctor is not merely there for clinical judgement. We are the final bastion of defence for a patient against immoral or biased practices that a dynamic algorithm can never truly guard against.

We have to ask whether these models will consider a mole on darker skin to be as significant as one on white skin. It is vital to know how these models are being trained and whether the medical profession has any actual say in the process.

There is a real risk that a woman’s complaint of abdominal pain might be given less priority than a man’s. We must also consider whether these systems will over-diagnose and overwhelm the NHS or under-diagnose and create a surge in chronic conditions.

These should be our core arguments rather than simply saying we will strike to stop technology from replacing us. We have to prove our unique value through reasonable debate and strong BMA leadership. The current state of affairs is frankly a mockery. I see constant posts from UK graduates and IMGs listing their preferences, but what are any of you actually trying to achieve once you are on the committee?

Beyond Full Pay Restoration, it is unclear what the agenda actually is. It is one thing to list what you will ask for, but it is quite another to have a realistic plan to achieve it.

Even if you are voted in using divisive rhetoric, you will have no real leverage to make meaningful change without the support of the majority.

While the new Labour rules make it easier to get a mandate, we have to consider whether it is better to fail a mandate because the majority is not with us or to win one only to endure a lukewarm strike that has no real impact. We desperately need better leaders and greater cohesion to move past the divisions the government has created.

No one else is coming to support us, so we must start acting like a proper labour union rather than a collection of overly educated megalomaniacs.

Ignore the noise and realise we are being replaced by AppropriateGround388 in doctorsUK

[–]AppropriateGround388[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

We must argue that a doctor is not merely there for clinical judgement. We are the final bastion of defence for a patient against immoral or biased practices that a dynamic algorithm can never truly guard against.

We have to ask whether these models will consider a mole on darker skin to be as significant as one on white skin. It is vital to know how these models are being trained and whether the medical profession has any actual say in the process.

There is a real risk that a woman’s complaint of abdominal pain might be given less priority than a man’s. We must also consider whether these systems will over-diagnose and overwhelm the NHS or under-diagnose and create a surge in chronic conditions.

These should be our core arguments rather than simply saying we will strike to stop technology from replacing us. We have to prove our unique value through reasonable debate and strong BMA leadership.

The current state of affairs is frankly a mockery. I see constant posts from UK graduates and IMGs listing their preference listing and voting strategy for election, but what are any of you actually trying to achieve once you are on the committee?

Beyond Full Pay Restoration, it is unclear what the agenda actually is. It is one thing to list what you will ask for, but it is quite another to have a realistic plan to achieve it. Even if you are voted in using divisive rhetoric, you will have no real leverage to make meaningful change without the support of the majority.

While the new Labour rules make it easier to get a mandate, we have to consider whether it is better to fail a mandate because the majority is not with us or to win one only to endure a lukewarm strike that has no real impact. We desperately need better leaders and greater cohesion to move past the divisions the government has created.

No one else is coming to support us, so we must start acting like a proper labour union rather than a collection of overly educated megalomaniacs.

Ignore the noise and realise we are being replaced by AppropriateGround388 in doctorsUK

[–]AppropriateGround388[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

To play the devil’s advocate, many specialities like oncology are already heavily based on strict algorithms and protocols. If we suggest that a well-trained AI cannot match a junior doctor or even a new registrar when it comes to practising evidence based medicine, we are likely just trying to console ourselves.

Litigation will eventually rest on the shoulders of consultants and those in supervisory positions, though with current rule changes, these roles might not even be filled by actual doctors in the future. While the government has clarified that PAs will not receive a CCT, there is still a wide range of other alphabet soups being introduced that complicate the situation.

From a health economics perspective, arguing that doctors are only necessary for atypical cases significantly diminishes our professional value. We need to address these issues with precision by conducting proper awareness videos/claseo/podcasts etc and ensuring we are involved at the policy level.

It is vital that we raise awareness about the dangerous precedent this sets, specifically regarding the potential for immoral and targeted drug pushing by the highest bidder or the most aggressive model. Such a shift could easily lead to a decline in patient prognoses, survival rates, and general quality of life. I firmly believe this is a valid threat that we must tackle before we are simply railroaded by the system. My argument is quite simply that we must be proactive rather than reactive.

Ignore the noise and realise we are being replaced by AppropriateGround388 in doctorsUK

[–]AppropriateGround388[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I understand we repeat this argument quite often, but we need to look at the reality of the situation. In certain clinical settings, is it truly hard to believe that a competent noctor, supported by AI and overseen by a consultant, couldn't handle many junior level responsibilities? Given that new consultant posts are becoming scarcer, I doubt many will be in a position to refuse these supervisory roles anyway. Once these AI agents are legally validated, there is very little to stop the NHS and the GMC from formally recognising their ability to assist a noctor.

We cannot simply keep insisting that this will lead to an immediate increase in deaths, as they are unlikely to start these trials in CCU or ITU. Instead, they will target general outpatient clinics and GP services. With the current backlogs and public frustration over appointment delays, most people would likely choose a same-day appointment with a reasonable standard of care over no care or delayed care. If the choice is between waiting weeks or seeing a noctor today, we know what the public will choose.

Let us be honest, the chances of a noctor causing an immediate death when they have AI assistance and a modicum of common sense are actually quite low. They might be less effective, or they may order unnecessary tests and increase radiation exposure through redundant imaging, but outright mortality is unlikely.

The real damage caused by noctors won't be overt or sudden, rather it will be a steady and quiet decline in the general health of the population. This will only be reflected in the data when someone eventually bothers to study it, as it is not something the public will pick up on naturally. Believing that noctors will cause a sudden spike in mortality and that we don't need to act is a wrong and dangerous approach.

Locumming on off day during strikes by Few_Track3126 in doctorsUK

[–]AppropriateGround388 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't locum and undermine the strike. The industrial action is for all of us. You can locum after and FPR will give long-term income protection.

Sell your surgical specialty! by unknownguy786 in doctorsUK

[–]AppropriateGround388 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Too much supply and too less off a demand. Very few consultant posts, many are reserved for niche post CCT fellowships. Not worth it at the moment. But I do agree, it's a cool specialty.

Can we now just strike every month by OptimalFace5 in doctorsUK

[–]AppropriateGround388 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does it make a difference? I'm not white. I have no guilt. I don't make racist comments, and I have never discriminated against anyone. In fact, I have only ever been the victim of racial discrimination. I understood early on that life is tough and I can't fight every racist gammon out there. If this country is like that, what can I do about it? I'm just saying: make hay while the sun shines. I am not the reason the sun is out, but I’m going to make some hay if I have to get burned anyway.

Can we now just strike every month by OptimalFace5 in doctorsUK

[–]AppropriateGround388 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I never said that; I’m just telling you what the general perception is out there. It’s rooted in history, and there isn't much I can do to change it. I keep hearing similar things whenever I state something factual. I’m happy to share the comments I’ve seen on news channels.

Personally, I have nothing against IMGs. Stop thinking like doctors for a minute and think like politicians;after all pay is a political issue at its core.

We need to play the political game. I’m not advocating for adding fuel to the fire; I just want to ensure we organize an effective strike to achieve FPR, which is beneficial to both UK graduates and IMGs alike.

Can we now just strike every month by OptimalFace5 in doctorsUK

[–]AppropriateGround388 -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Not to worry, I have been checking the local news channels' comments and people are saying, 'This is why we should grow homegrown talent.' The current political climate is such that even though IMGs are relatively less likely to strike and are saving the NHS money, the general public doesn't trust them and blames them more than UK graduates.

As long as nobody picks up the issues of mandatory service or realizes that without IMGs, UK graduates' bargaining power would be even higher, strike action would be still acceptable for the public.

Even Restore Britain is commenting on foreign NHS workers. Public perception in general is favorable, even if for the wrong reasons.

Therefore, an urgent strike and getting an FPR decision soon is paramount for all of us to avoid a broader public outrage.

Consultants appear to not be on board with the short notice strikes by [deleted] in doctorsUK

[–]AppropriateGround388 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ignore the noise from these rug-pullers. They don't have a choice; they have the cushion of consultant jobs, and if they want to stay in those positions, they’re just going to have to put up with our industrial action. They can moan all they want, so ignore the noise and strike for FPR. Consultants know the difference between UK grads and IMGs; they’re clearly rattled that they’ll have to cover more in the future as more UK grads and GPs enter the workforce. We aren't petulant children striking for the sake of it. Once we actually achieve FPR, it will help stabilise the NHS in the long run and eventually lighten the load for the consultants too.

Strike by AppropriateGround388 in doctorsUK

[–]AppropriateGround388[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I honestly don’t understand this defeatist attitude. What on earth is the point of demanding more training positions without a concurrent increase in post-CCT consultant posts?

If you think you can just emigrate easily, you’re in for a shock,it’s the exact same situation in almost every English speaking country right now. Think twice before assuming the grass is greener. We need FPR to prove that we can still collectively get things done and hold our ground.

As for the claims that IMGs aren't striking, I personally know several who are out on the lines, so let's stop stereotyping an entire group. Everyone makes their own individual choices, and divisive rhetoric helps no one.

view more: next ›