Mr C,
My apologies re-rank issue - I completely misread your comment regarding this point.
No, I am not suggesting that a military hospital should be dedicated solely to those returning with injuries from overseas, but given that our present commitments are likely to be long-term, I would suggest that this would be a significant purpose. The re-establishment of a military facility would also need to have provision for all service personnel whose needs would be better met within a military environment, including those veterans still deserving treatment for service-related conditions. To date, some 57000 petitioners share this view - arguably a very significant number considering the start and deadline dates. That said, I would accept that it is sometimes difficult for those with no service background to understand the ethos of being necessarily cared for in the miltary environment - including, unfortunately, most of our politicians and civil servants.
As for dispersed care, I reiterate my point that attendance issues would be outweighed by the advantages of ethos and focussed care. Headley Court is a useful yardstick. With regards to NHS integration, I have been hospitalised at length on two occasions in the past two years and received excellent treatment and adequate care; but my experiences helped me to remain convinced that the NHS ethos is, in many respects, not suitable for the purpose of caring for the military. And the inadequacy of the Selly Oak model reinforces just a few of my convictions. All of this is not to say that a military hospital, as previously, should not provide treatment for NHS patients - a sensible and practical quid pro quo, which acknowledges that the reverse is not feasible. I agree that there should be more social integration with the armed forces and the community - a return to how it was, not vice versa, would help.
More funding, as you imply, is fought for on many fronts. In my view, we are talking here about a significant moral exception. I may be wrong, but if a new military hospital was established with a degree of concomitant treatment for civilians (ie the reverse of the Selly Oak model), affordability might be less of an issue. Sadly, it will probably remain a political difficulty.
Regards
Last edited by jindabyne; 6th Aug 2008 at 08:15.