Petition for a Military Hospital
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Petition for a Military Hospital
see the link below:
Petition to: Create a dedicated Military & Veterans Hospital within the UK.
Not convinced that it will have much effect; however there are over 40,000 signatures. Apologies if this has already been posted - I didn't see it.
Duncs
Petition to: Create a dedicated Military & Veterans Hospital within the UK.
Not convinced that it will have much effect; however there are over 40,000 signatures. Apologies if this has already been posted - I didn't see it.
Duncs
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The snag with this is, while I'm sure EVERYONE reading your post will agree to the sentiment, they will also ask, like me, why the hell does this have to be a charity effort, and why aren't the governments ( all flavours, who've let this happen ) being lined up & shot ?
I live in a fairly large town - Horsham which has a small hospital just about able to cope with an ingrowing toenail.
The nearby larger town, Crawley, had it's large hospital cut back savagely & the A&E moved to Redhill - a long and busy ride away - so it's now out of the question to get to an A & E within the 'golden hour' of survival we are all told about.
Meanwhile Aldershot had a good, large military hospital - let me guess, has it been sold off for profitable development by now ? - and Haslar teeters on the brink, though I admit the traffic problems are terrible there - helicopters for bad cases - and why are THEY charity funded too ??!!! would be an answer in that case.
We're constantly told we have an ageing population, yet hospitals are being closed down right left & centre - the latest local casualty being the excellent St.Richards in Chichester, virtually stripped of it's A&E among other things, which leaves people living in West Sussex in big trouble if they have something nasty happen.
One would have thought there'd be money to be made by someone building MORE hospitals, and I totally agree on one for injured veterans being among the first, right now, don't care which budget it comes out of, MOD or NHS, it's all our money.
It may be informative for me to tell you that my ex-wife was P.A.to a head of accountancy for an NHS trust; she was told by her 'high ranking' female boss, " the NHS IS being privatised, but don't quote me on that ".
My ex was given one sole job on her first day; go through a brochure and choose whichever chair she fancied; she ended up going for a £400 job, that was in 1993...
I live in a fairly large town - Horsham which has a small hospital just about able to cope with an ingrowing toenail.
The nearby larger town, Crawley, had it's large hospital cut back savagely & the A&E moved to Redhill - a long and busy ride away - so it's now out of the question to get to an A & E within the 'golden hour' of survival we are all told about.
Meanwhile Aldershot had a good, large military hospital - let me guess, has it been sold off for profitable development by now ? - and Haslar teeters on the brink, though I admit the traffic problems are terrible there - helicopters for bad cases - and why are THEY charity funded too ??!!! would be an answer in that case.
We're constantly told we have an ageing population, yet hospitals are being closed down right left & centre - the latest local casualty being the excellent St.Richards in Chichester, virtually stripped of it's A&E among other things, which leaves people living in West Sussex in big trouble if they have something nasty happen.
One would have thought there'd be money to be made by someone building MORE hospitals, and I totally agree on one for injured veterans being among the first, right now, don't care which budget it comes out of, MOD or NHS, it's all our money.
It may be informative for me to tell you that my ex-wife was P.A.to a head of accountancy for an NHS trust; she was told by her 'high ranking' female boss, " the NHS IS being privatised, but don't quote me on that ".
My ex was given one sole job on her first day; go through a brochure and choose whichever chair she fancied; she ended up going for a £400 job, that was in 1993...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr C Hineap,
please explain how you make that one out, compared to the inadequate treatment at the moment ?
Archiebald McIndoe did rather well with the 'Guinea Pigs' at East Grinstead in WW2, they formed a close bond from what I've read & heard.
Or is it that one's terrified officers might have to mix with real soldiers ?
please explain how you make that one out, compared to the inadequate treatment at the moment ?
Archiebald McIndoe did rather well with the 'Guinea Pigs' at East Grinstead in WW2, they formed a close bond from what I've read & heard.
Or is it that one's terrified officers might have to mix with real soldiers ?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Signed.
Mr C Hinecap non specialist treatment cases can also be catered for locally. The idea of such a hospital would have many beneficial advantages, specialists in war wounds and injuries just to mention two. The atmospher would also be more conducive to survivor recovery.
Mr C Hinecap non specialist treatment cases can also be catered for locally. The idea of such a hospital would have many beneficial advantages, specialists in war wounds and injuries just to mention two. The atmospher would also be more conducive to survivor recovery.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The atmosphere may well be more 'convivial' and splendid for 'the poor blighters' recovering.
However, a single hospital would not serve the needs of most, being geographically remote from most of those needing to use it. No matter where it could be sited, a single source for treatment would be far too far from most to be useful.
We need dispersed capability so the follow up needs of those injured are closer to travel to and from. I'm not saying the current system works in any way, and does need further investment. We can't divorce the mil medical needs from the rest of the NHS - there would never be the resources and the continuity wouldn't be there.
I've seen the trouble it created to get lads to Haslar from Lincolnshire just for a single appointment with a specialist. The troubles to go through even getting families to Selly Oak to see patients and be with them is bad enough just from here!
We have gone too far away from Service Hospitals and a single establishment is not the answer. partly for the points above. My view is that of need and practicality and has nothing to do with rank, status or any other bizarre perceptions some people here have.
However, a single hospital would not serve the needs of most, being geographically remote from most of those needing to use it. No matter where it could be sited, a single source for treatment would be far too far from most to be useful.
We need dispersed capability so the follow up needs of those injured are closer to travel to and from. I'm not saying the current system works in any way, and does need further investment. We can't divorce the mil medical needs from the rest of the NHS - there would never be the resources and the continuity wouldn't be there.
I've seen the trouble it created to get lads to Haslar from Lincolnshire just for a single appointment with a specialist. The troubles to go through even getting families to Selly Oak to see patients and be with them is bad enough just from here!
We have gone too far away from Service Hospitals and a single establishment is not the answer. partly for the points above. My view is that of need and practicality and has nothing to do with rank, status or any other bizarre perceptions some people here have.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr C Hinecap
No arguing about the needs of most, you are right on that but for the more severe patients a dedicated hospital would be better than none -- Further, no one would like to see people having to travel unnecessarily which is why most likely could still be treated locally under current schemes. The hospital would be additional not in replace off --otherwise you are right to object.
T.
No arguing about the needs of most, you are right on that but for the more severe patients a dedicated hospital would be better than none -- Further, no one would like to see people having to travel unnecessarily which is why most likely could still be treated locally under current schemes. The hospital would be additional not in replace off --otherwise you are right to object.
T.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Mr C,
A curious response.
First, your argument concerning geographic circumstances does not hold water - returned and injured personnel under your scheme would not necessarily be accommodated in their relative's area of choice, and travel could still be an issue. Aside from that, we live in a small country, and I think that visiting 'problems' are very far outweighed against the value of care for our troops in a singularly Service environment, where they are treated amongst, and by, kith and kin. Selly Oak or Edinburgh - so what. But Wroughton would be better!
Second, the now defunct and excellent Service hospital organisation was not predicated, in any way, with rank or status: it was based on need, regardless of any social 'perception'. I was a Wing Commander, and had the experience of in-hospital treatments, orientated towards my return to a specific miitary duty, many miles from home, among all other ranks and sexes. What is your point?
The real point is that the Labour Government (started by the Con) has raped its Armed Forces of proper care and attention, and I suspect that it did so without too much protestation from those that should have done so from within the 'ranks'.
Some may say that it's now too late to reverse things. I, and judging by many thousands of others that are contributing to the Downing Street Petition think otherwise. Our Armed Forces deserve dedicated hospitalised medical care in a military environment. The NHS, by my own recent experiences, is excellent: but it cannot cater for the Military's treatment, care and rehabilitation. A fundamental established since the Boer War.
A dedicated hospital environment for miltary personnel was, until recently, a cornernstone of Governnment policy for the last 70 years: in my view, other than a needful slimming down of assets, there was no cause for a shift in this direction. It is a traversty that, given the present commitment of our troops to active srvice on several fronts, our dedication to their welfare should be so diluted. Shame on us all.
A curious response.
First, your argument concerning geographic circumstances does not hold water - returned and injured personnel under your scheme would not necessarily be accommodated in their relative's area of choice, and travel could still be an issue. Aside from that, we live in a small country, and I think that visiting 'problems' are very far outweighed against the value of care for our troops in a singularly Service environment, where they are treated amongst, and by, kith and kin. Selly Oak or Edinburgh - so what. But Wroughton would be better!
Second, the now defunct and excellent Service hospital organisation was not predicated, in any way, with rank or status: it was based on need, regardless of any social 'perception'. I was a Wing Commander, and had the experience of in-hospital treatments, orientated towards my return to a specific miitary duty, many miles from home, among all other ranks and sexes. What is your point?
The real point is that the Labour Government (started by the Con) has raped its Armed Forces of proper care and attention, and I suspect that it did so without too much protestation from those that should have done so from within the 'ranks'.
Some may say that it's now too late to reverse things. I, and judging by many thousands of others that are contributing to the Downing Street Petition think otherwise. Our Armed Forces deserve dedicated hospitalised medical care in a military environment. The NHS, by my own recent experiences, is excellent: but it cannot cater for the Military's treatment, care and rehabilitation. A fundamental established since the Boer War.
A dedicated hospital environment for miltary personnel was, until recently, a cornernstone of Governnment policy for the last 70 years: in my view, other than a needful slimming down of assets, there was no cause for a shift in this direction. It is a traversty that, given the present commitment of our troops to active srvice on several fronts, our dedication to their welfare should be so diluted. Shame on us all.
Last edited by jindabyne; 4th Aug 2008 at 23:28.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curious? I don't think so - practical, perhaps.
Are you suggesting that this hospital is only for those returning injured from overseas? Your response appears to be leaning towards this and this alone. I don't see that a dedicated hospital could exist without other elements of medical care being included. This would make it a centre of gravity for the longer term medical services and exacerbate the problems I see with a single hospital. The repeat appointments and long term needs are best met in a more dispersed fashion. The sheer frustration of taking someone from Coningsby to Haslar for a 20 min appointment with a consultant is an exercise in futility, especially for the patient - 5 hrs each way is not smart. (personal example)
The money is not there for such new builds. I'm being practical - the NHS don't have it, the MoD doesn't. I'd love to see hospitals, better housing, better everything, but I'm putting us in context. It is also far more about getting the Armed Forces more integrated with society, not going back to shutting ourselves off. That social change is far more needed.
Your issue you seem to think I have with rank:
Doesn't that cover it for you? 
Are you suggesting that this hospital is only for those returning injured from overseas? Your response appears to be leaning towards this and this alone. I don't see that a dedicated hospital could exist without other elements of medical care being included. This would make it a centre of gravity for the longer term medical services and exacerbate the problems I see with a single hospital. The repeat appointments and long term needs are best met in a more dispersed fashion. The sheer frustration of taking someone from Coningsby to Haslar for a 20 min appointment with a consultant is an exercise in futility, especially for the patient - 5 hrs each way is not smart. (personal example)
The money is not there for such new builds. I'm being practical - the NHS don't have it, the MoD doesn't. I'd love to see hospitals, better housing, better everything, but I'm putting us in context. It is also far more about getting the Armed Forces more integrated with society, not going back to shutting ourselves off. That social change is far more needed.
Your issue you seem to think I have with rank:
My view is that of need and practicality and has nothing to do with rank, status or any other bizarre perceptions some people here have.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to appear ignorant.
Can you please tease out the main points for me? (I'm Knowledgeable about health care systems, ignorant to military health care needs.)
What are the arguments for and against integration with NHS provision?
Are you talking about acute or chronic problems?
Is intermediate, acute or ongoing care currently lacking. (And where are your figures/evidence).
What is the pressing need, and where are the gaps in current provision?
Is there any degree of "case management" and how effective is the current system?
Sorry, not trying to hijack this thread, or stir debate, just interested in the issues.
Can you please tease out the main points for me? (I'm Knowledgeable about health care systems, ignorant to military health care needs.)
What are the arguments for and against integration with NHS provision?
Are you talking about acute or chronic problems?
Is intermediate, acute or ongoing care currently lacking. (And where are your figures/evidence).
What is the pressing need, and where are the gaps in current provision?
Is there any degree of "case management" and how effective is the current system?
Sorry, not trying to hijack this thread, or stir debate, just interested in the issues.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
uklocations
I'm not qualified to answer your points in any detail (and with that, I know that I'm laying myself open to those who do not go along with my views above). However, a trawl through Google and other online sites will readily provide you with some more background on the topic.
Can't be more helpful, but I'm sure there'll be others here (of any persuasion) who might who care to enlighten us.
I'm not qualified to answer your points in any detail (and with that, I know that I'm laying myself open to those who do not go along with my views above). However, a trawl through Google and other online sites will readily provide you with some more background on the topic.
Can't be more helpful, but I'm sure there'll be others here (of any persuasion) who might who care to enlighten us.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I realise the issue with keeping soldiers in civilian wards, particularly with undesireables in city centre locations, military hospitals are an outdated concept for two main reasons:
- Far further location from home for most of the injured
- Medical specialisation that provides greater care through professionals dealing with particular issues daily, rather then generic all-in military hospitals with a lesser degree of specialisation than is typical in modern civilian hospitals.
I rather think this debate should be among medical professionals about how to provide the best degree of care than an emotive one among servicemen and officers on PPRuNe, harking back to days when the military had far more personnel than it now does.
- Far further location from home for most of the injured
- Medical specialisation that provides greater care through professionals dealing with particular issues daily, rather then generic all-in military hospitals with a lesser degree of specialisation than is typical in modern civilian hospitals.
I rather think this debate should be among medical professionals about how to provide the best degree of care than an emotive one among servicemen and officers on PPRuNe, harking back to days when the military had far more personnel than it now does.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re-heat,
As ukl has mentioned, among other issues, it depends on the need. Why do NATO countries such as, for example, the US, Canada, Germany and France still see a need and not ourselves?
I agree that our medical professionals' advice should be heeded, but I think you'll find that the present debate, very rightly emotional, is far from restricted to 'servicemen and officers on PPRuNe' (and some would query your apparent distinction between servicemen and officers).
Your point about 'when the military had far more personnel than it does now' doesn't hold water. With the Cold War at its height, sure the armed forces were far larger, but there was considerably more than the one military hospital to cater for that number. Now, we're 'simply' scaling things down: and in my humble view, and many thousands of others (eg the DS Petition), the fundamental 'need' remains unchanged. The UK (that's all of us, like it or not)is committed militarily in two areas (at present): look at the casualty rates, and then genuinely satisfy yourself that, domestically, we are coping with the sick, injuread and wounded in a proper manner.
Before I begin to be accused of being head-in-sand, I am not necessarily hard-over for a single military hospital at any cost, ignoring all practicalities. But I strongly believe that the present arrangements are letting our servicemen and servicewomen down badly, and that radically new measures should be put in place quickly, recognising above all else military need and military ethos; and as I said earlier, that word ethos is misunderstood by too many.
Yes it is now an emotive issue - and whose fault is that??
As ukl has mentioned, among other issues, it depends on the need. Why do NATO countries such as, for example, the US, Canada, Germany and France still see a need and not ourselves?
I agree that our medical professionals' advice should be heeded, but I think you'll find that the present debate, very rightly emotional, is far from restricted to 'servicemen and officers on PPRuNe' (and some would query your apparent distinction between servicemen and officers).
Your point about 'when the military had far more personnel than it does now' doesn't hold water. With the Cold War at its height, sure the armed forces were far larger, but there was considerably more than the one military hospital to cater for that number. Now, we're 'simply' scaling things down: and in my humble view, and many thousands of others (eg the DS Petition), the fundamental 'need' remains unchanged. The UK (that's all of us, like it or not)is committed militarily in two areas (at present): look at the casualty rates, and then genuinely satisfy yourself that, domestically, we are coping with the sick, injuread and wounded in a proper manner.
Before I begin to be accused of being head-in-sand, I am not necessarily hard-over for a single military hospital at any cost, ignoring all practicalities. But I strongly believe that the present arrangements are letting our servicemen and servicewomen down badly, and that radically new measures should be put in place quickly, recognising above all else military need and military ethos; and as I said earlier, that word ethos is misunderstood by too many.
Yes it is now an emotive issue - and whose fault is that??
Last edited by jindabyne; 6th Aug 2008 at 15:20.
My God !! my old Matron has had a face lift. On a more serious note, a military enclave within Selly Oak would be a better proposition. the Armed Forces do not have the specialists to deal with poly-trauma cases on a continuing basis. We do not have enough medical and nursing staff to fullfil current requirements, let alone man a full military hospital with al the specialities required from orthopaedics to chest and heart surgery, it is just not feasible.
A better answer is a dedicated secure establishment with the existing facility, secured closed off and FUNDED TOTALLY by the MoD. Staff could be recruited on a local service engagement including non-deployability if required. Services could be provided by the host hospital such as operating theatre time, ICU beds and lab services for instance.
When Frontier Medical are trying to recruit staff to work in Afghanistan for UK forces, to fill holes in the establishment a dedicated hospital is not going to happen. We have TOO FEW staff for present requirements.
I for one would work in such a unit, being now too OLD to rejoin !!!
Signed any way more in hope rather than expectation.
A better answer is a dedicated secure establishment with the existing facility, secured closed off and FUNDED TOTALLY by the MoD. Staff could be recruited on a local service engagement including non-deployability if required. Services could be provided by the host hospital such as operating theatre time, ICU beds and lab services for instance.
When Frontier Medical are trying to recruit staff to work in Afghanistan for UK forces, to fill holes in the establishment a dedicated hospital is not going to happen. We have TOO FEW staff for present requirements.
I for one would work in such a unit, being now too OLD to rejoin !!!
Signed any way more in hope rather than expectation.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
air pig,
For me, a reasoned input. Two questions. Why is Selly Oak seemimgly the favoured site? And why can we not staff it with military personnel? I know nothing of Selly Oak, and have no 'objection' in principle - presumably it is its centric location? Do we really not have the ability to staff such a unit as you propose with Service personnel - the 'retired' option like yourself seems a reasonable possibility? I think your suggestion has been put forward recently by Simon Weston - I only hope that if it gathers ground, it is not a civil-service/political remedy that is seen to be 'doing something' at least cost, rather than fulfilling a National and obligatory need.
It might appear that I'm trying to lead a cause on here or being obsessive. Neither is the case, I simply have a passion. If that's being emotive, out of touch, or blimpish, then I'm not sorry.
For me, a reasoned input. Two questions. Why is Selly Oak seemimgly the favoured site? And why can we not staff it with military personnel? I know nothing of Selly Oak, and have no 'objection' in principle - presumably it is its centric location? Do we really not have the ability to staff such a unit as you propose with Service personnel - the 'retired' option like yourself seems a reasonable possibility? I think your suggestion has been put forward recently by Simon Weston - I only hope that if it gathers ground, it is not a civil-service/political remedy that is seen to be 'doing something' at least cost, rather than fulfilling a National and obligatory need.
It might appear that I'm trying to lead a cause on here or being obsessive. Neither is the case, I simply have a passion. If that's being emotive, out of touch, or blimpish, then I'm not sorry.
Last edited by jindabyne; 6th Aug 2008 at 21:14.