PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Another Compensation Award
View Single Post
Old 6th May 2014, 08:35
  #39 (permalink)  
HTB
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Over the hill (and far away)
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With a rather pessimistic view, I thought that our military medical establishment had been greatly reduced; probably engengered by the media slant when reporting the treatment of badly injured service personnel returning from current operational theatres. Thus I wondered why the need for a relatively high number of starred officers for a reduced element (bearing in mind that historically when RAFH Nocton Hall was in full swing - 740 beds, with a commensurately large staff - the station commander and senior surgeon were Group Captains).

I guess part of the answer is that the medics always seemed to be in a higher rank than their corresponding operational and support colleagues - probably because they had to undergo 4-5 years specialised training in human plumbing, electrics structural science, etc, unlike aircrew, for instance, who require only a few weeks to reach their exalted status.

Anyway, back to the topic, discrimination of any type = reason for redress (compensation), something MoD and the services seem not to learn from experience. To sort of answer my first point, this from a uk.gov website:

The DMS has:
  • over 7,000 regular DMS personnel
  • 15 Regional Rehabilitation Units (RRUs) across the UK and Germany
  • 5 Ministry of Defence Hospital Units (MDHU) embedded into NHS acute trusts
  • the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine (RCDM) in Birmingham
  • 15 military run Departments of Community Mental Health (DCMH) in the UK with 5 DCMHs at the major permanent overseas bases
  • the DMS provides healthcare to about 258,000 people
It seems to be in good health, numbers-wise (although the site doesn't expand on whether the hospital units are wholly service, or if they are embedded in civilian hospitals). There is also mention of a number of dental support units across the operating sphere, again no mention of service/civilian provision.

So maybe some * officers are needed (but in common with other arms of the services, probaly at a disproportionately high ratio).

As to the requirement for the fitness test, I think the age for a reduced version is 45 (about the same time as biannual ECGs kick in for aircrew - might be a bit earlier, memory fails me). The last fitness test I did consisted of cycling on an exercise bike for a few minutes while connected to a heart rate monitor and a grip test where the combined left and right hand squeeze provided the required result (which was just about attainable with one hand - if you had largeish hands). So not a great challenge there for either sex.

Having shot themselves in the foot, I wonder if the instigators of the discrimination enjoyed treatment under the DMS, or if they had to use NHS/private treatment...

Mister B
HTB is offline