If someone came into your home and threatened to harm your family, unless you gave them money, you would consider this a despicable crime deserving of exemplary punishment.
So what is the difference about a group of doctors threatening strike action, which according to the BMA, will lead to 'inevitable disruption', ie cancelled and delayed appointments which will cause pain, suffering and anxiety to many vulnerable people, and in some cases might even lead to their death. And not forgetting that such disruption is not merely a regrettable consequence of their action, it is what they are deliberately seeking to achieve.
But, of course, there is no moral equivalence here, as the doctors are far more to be reviled than the intruder. A doctor has sworn an oath to protect and care for the weak and vulnerable and he/she holds a responsibility to fulfill that promise which goes beyond personal interest.
And before you brush such responsibilities aside, just imagine for a moment that you arrive at A+E during a strike with a child or parent in distress. How do you think you would cope with their/your pain and anguish and the realisation that their/ your suffering must be prolonged and endured simply because the people who should be there to help them had chosen not to turn up.
It does not matter whether the doctors are being badly treated in the new contract discussions or not. It is not the justice of their case which is at issue, but the dreadful means by which the doctors have decided to pursue their case. Let them write to the press, parade in the street, sponsor political movements or candidates to oppose the government and have recourse to all the other tools available in a free society. Nobody would begrudge them their right to do such things, but I for one will despise those who use the weak and vulnerable as hostages for financial gain and be ever more convinced that the term 'public services' no longer has the connotations it once did.
No comments:
Post a Comment