Does anyone else feel that Mary Harney should resign immediately?

Mr.Micro

Moriarty wrote: »

Do you know that or are you assuming?

The health service wouldn't exist if it was run as a business. A business wouldn't be facing the challenges that the HSE/DoH&C face at the moment. Attempting to run it purely or primarily as a business after the decades of neglect and mismanagement it has suffered would be absurd.

I am assuming since one would expect budget managers in the HSE and since the money has run out then it has to be the money managers etc.who messed up.

As regards the Health service as a business ,I fear it is already going down that route with private hospitals on the cards .In theory when the HSE has a limit to its annual budget as we now know then there is no option but to manage the service along business lines .In reality health care costs are a bottomless pit.As the NHS in the UK struggles each year to do its work and often fails through lack of money .I think it will take some time for the HSE to get its act together on its limited budget.

Jackie laughlin

Where on earth is this line about the power of unions in the health sector coming from? Some unions are quite strong, others are spectacularly unsuccessful.

The HSE is not in the least incompetent. It is implementing policy in accordance with Mary Harney's ideology. That is precisely why it was instituted and why its managers were chosen.

It is particularly naive to think that this is not a political issue.

An election does not and should not end debate.

Moriarty

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

It is particularly naive to think that this is not a political issue.

An election does not and should not end debate.

Indeed, but her overarching policy for health isn't in question in this thread.

Jackie laughlin

A good point. The question here is should she resign over the failure in the cancer screening system. No she should not. However, I take the view that much of the outrage, while focussed on the current scandal or error, results from a real objection to health policy and I'm making the point that the policy is based on Mary Harney's neo-liberal ideology which sees the US as a better model for health care than its Eoropean rival.

I made the point that an election does not and should not end debate in response to the well worn argument that we must all shut up and let majority rule. That is not an arrangement that I recognise as democratic.

Lennoxschips

Mary Harney and the FF side of the govt. very recently faced election. They made their neo-liberal approach to health care plain and they won.

In fairness, the Irish electorate wiped the floor with the PDs and their neo-liberal approach to health care.

Fianna Fail were visibly distancing themselves from things like co-location during the election.

But after election day all Bertie and his party of power could care about was getting a solid majority and they gave the PDs their usual carte blanche.

It was the usual case of the politicians shafting the people in favour of big business. No change there.

tech77

Would her replacement do a better job?
Not necessarily praise of Harney, more a comment on the competence of the others TBH.

Harney does seem to be a principled politician with a genuine interest in reforming the HSE but the HSE is a basketcase with vested interests everywhere and it's by no means an easy job.

Mr.Micro

Lennoxschips wrote: »

In fairness, th

But after election day all Bertie and his party of power could care about was getting a solid majority and they gave the PDs their usual carte blanche.

It was the usual case of the politicians shafting the people in favour of big business. No change there.

Yes winning at any cost.To be cynical ,when the Politicians in the past needed serious medical treatment they went abroad as they could .The ordinary people had to go without .whether we like it or not we appear to be going down a type of American system of health insurance. The health system in Ireland was neglected for years .

El Stuntman

it was interesting listening to one of the women who had wrongly been given the all-clear in Portlaoise (Newstalk this morning, "Mary")

she was asked what she thought the solution was and she came down wholeheartedly in favour of centres of excellence for cancer treatment (as per the HSE strategy), never mind the travel inconvenience involved for patients

Jackie laughlin

Mary Harney's neo-liberalism is supported by FF. She wasn't even necessary to forming a govt. It is true that there was some scuffling of feet before the election but no disavowal of the the ideology or the policy outcome.

I don't subscribe to the cynicism displayed here. Most - perhaps all -elected politicians have principles and Mary Harney is one of them. Did the principles determine the ideology or vice versa? That's an interesting title for an essay.

The point is that there is a basic choice between going further down the road to a US style health system or taking the European road. Firing Mary Harney would just be a sacrificial gesture and would very likely deflect criticism of the policies which are inspired by the ideology which she clearly shares with a majority within the cabinet.

cavedave

The point is that there is a basic choice between going further down the road to a US style health system or taking the European road. Firing Mary Harney would just be a sacrificial gesture and would very likely deflect criticism of the policies which are inspired by the ideology which she clearly shares with a majority within the cabinet.

The problem in this case was that there was no testing of the testers. I will not go into how you do this as anyone who works in industry or science should have experience of how this is regulalry done.

Questions of whether we need a "caring" health service or one that sucks all the change out of your pockets upon entering a hospital are interesting but not overly relevant in this case. The problem here is that there are no safegaurds set up to ensure tests are efficient.
Now Harney can be blamed for this if she discouraged setting up these safegaurds or the HSE if they did or the unions if they did. So the question boils down to "who stopped a system where the ability of screeners was not under continuous randomised assessment?"

Mr.Micro

I don't subscribe to the cynicism displayed here. Most - perhaps all -elected politicians have principles and Mary Harney is one of them. Did the principles determine the ideology or vice versa? That's an interesting title for an essay.Quote Jackie laughlin

I agree with you Jackie ,but some politicians can doggedly stick to their principles and become detached from reality . Its a very difficult brief with many huge egos of Doctors ,Consultants and Politicians and ever increasing costs and all concerned think they know best.Health care should come first in any country if possible and should be available to all.

LostinBlanch

Tristrame,

Thanks for the perjorative comments. Did I catch you on a bad day?

Tristrame wrote: »

Now tell me,how is Mary Harney or the HSE the cause of an individual doctors mistakes?

Nice try trying to limit the debate to individual mistakes. Unfortunately there are too many of the same mistakes with little or no evidence of remedial action being taken. People are dying as a result.

This is before we get onto other matters like PPARS etc. Seeing as this is going off topic I won't go there but will just point out that there are other reasons why she should resign.

Tristrame wrote: »

What do you mean by no political accountability.

Mary Harney is nominally responsible for the Health Service but passes the buck over to the HSE at every opportunity. It is my view, and the view of others, that the HSE is merely a lightning rod to deflect responsibility for the problems in the health system

Tristrame wrote: »

Ultimately the minister and the government can take any sanction on the health service executive should they see fit.

So you say.

Tristrame wrote: »

Read the thread title properly,the OP asked should she resign not would...

OK I hold my hands up there, it was a typo, much like "specefics" in your last post.

Tristrame wrote: »

As regards your mini little irrelevant rant there about house painting,I suggest it exposes the real reason for your angst here and thats the need to get across anti Harney soundbytes without actually discussing any substance behind them...

Actually, I personally know someone who has died as a result of misdiagnosis of breast cancer and have seen at first hand the anguish and pain it caused her family.

As for my statement about ministers not resigning until their position is totally untenable or they have crossed Bertie a la Ivor Callelly. I didn't write that as a rant more as a statement of fact. I can't remember any minister no matter how incompetent resigning other than for the reasons listed above. If there any that I have forgotten please enlighten me.


I have approached this in a good spirit, and in the same spirit, ask you to persuade me exactly why Mary Harney shouldn't resign? Please explain to me how good and efficient the HSE is at running the Health System?

I'm looking forward to hearing your positive comments.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote: »

Lol at the logic that a minister is responsible for the incompetence of an individual radiographer.

This is an example of a scapegoat.

In order for that to even begin to be the case we'd have to send Harney to med school for a few years and then have her stand over every operating table at every operation.

Rubbish. All she had to do was properly resource the health service. The mistakes were made because the Radiographers were using outdated equipment with no mechanism for verifying results. Experts had been calling for changes for years and Hearney ignored them.

Akrasia

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Mary Harney and the FF side of the govt. very recently faced election. They made their neo-liberal approach to health care plain and they won.

The public were and still are extremely opposed to the co-location plan. The PDs were decimated at the poll. Hearney barely kept her own seat.

However, the mistakes or incompetence (a verdict is awaited) in cancer screening has absolutely nothing to do with either Harney or Drumm.

It does if she was warned years before that old fashioned analogue screening devices were a 'ticking time bomb', that were a risk to patient safety

Akrasia

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I don't subscribe to the cynicism displayed here. Most - perhaps all -elected politicians have principles and Mary Harney is one of them. Did the principles determine the ideology or vice versa? That's an interesting title for an essay.Quote Jackie laughlin

I agree with you Jackie ,but some politicians can doggedly stick to their principles and become detached from reality . Its a very difficult brief with many huge egos of Doctors ,Consultants and Politicians and ever increasing costs and all concerned think they know best.Health care should come first in any country if possible and should be available to all.

The PD ideology of privatisation requires a 'starve the beast' strategy of under resourcing public services in order to manufacture a case for their own 'efficient' free market ideology.

They probably do believe that the market is the best way to provide services, but their 'ends justify the means' method is grossely dishonest and fundamentally immoral.

DublinWriter

Everyone should go listen to the interview on the PK show today with Dr.John Crown. That guy should be made president.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

This is an example of a scapegoat.

Rubbish Incompetent doctors do their incompetent things from time to time without telling the minister that they are incompetent first.
It's when they do the incompetent things that they are found to be incompetent not before.

Rubbish. All she had to do was properly resource the health service. The mistakes were made because the Radiographers were using outdated equipment with no mechanism for verifying results. Experts had been calling for changes for years and Harney ignored them.

Tell that to the unions whose strangle hold on a bloated management structure eats up too much of the funding.
While you are at it,try and persuade the electorate that they will have to pay higher taxes to properly fund a less bloated service.
We've pretty much as relatively bad a health system as in the UK tbh with some remarkable exceptions and don't tell me Harney controls there.
This country is at the pin of it's collar to play catch up in terms of infrastructure as it's only really been rich in the last 10 years or so.The UK on the other hand has been one of the top five biggest economies in the world already during that time and they are struggling with their service.
I do appreciate of course that this is a difficult concept for you to accept given your own world view .
Thats understandable.

LostinBlanch

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I have approached this in a good spirit, and in the same spirit, ask you to persuade me exactly why Mary Harney shouldn't resign? Please explain to me how good and efficient the HSE is at running the Health System?

I'm looking forward to hearing your positive comments.

You've given up on answering my question about your lack of substance on that first have you?
You want me to do the work for you?
I never said the HSE is at present effecient by the way just as I'm sure you are going to present me with evidence that the politically controlled old area health boards were effecient and evidentially capable of change...

Actually, I personally know someone who has died as a result of misdiagnosis of breast cancer and have seen at first hand the anguish and pain it caused her family.

Yes my mum died from an MRSA related condition whilst in hospital just last january-would you like to debate or trade personal examples further ? We could do that all night and sneer away but I won't thank you. I'm not a fan of hospitals public or otherwise.
Incidently my Father also died of an MRSA complication whilst in hospital.In actual fact he also fell out of bed during the night and his wounds were not dressed untill the following day.
He only saw a doctor at lunchtime when I was there because the doctor was worried that I would sue...

As for my statement about ministers not resigning until their position is totally untenable or they have crossed Bertie a la Ivor Callelly. I didn't write that as a rant more as a statement of fact. I can't remember any minister no matter how incompetent resigning other than for the reasons listed above. If there any that I have forgotten please enlighten me.

No you threw that in there as you usually like to do,I know how you post I do after all read your posts on this board.It had no relevance to the issue I raised with you and that is how a minister could know in advance that a doctor is going to be incompetent.

Jackie laughlin

If it can be shown that Mary Harney was warned that the equipment was dated and that this presented a serious risk of misdiagnosis, then she must go.

Anyone who advances the view that we need a universal health care system is making the kind of socialist statement most opposed by Mary Harney and those of a like mind.

A vote for FF or the PDs at the last election was an endorsement of their health policy.

Jackie laughlin

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

If it can be shown that Mary Harney was warned that the equipment was dated and that this presented a serious risk of misdiagnosis, then she must go.

I understand that hospital radiographers were looking for digital equipment to be installed to improve accuracy.
The HSE probably wanting to spend its funding elsewhere said that the equipment operated within normal quality standards.
There is an inquiry into the portlaoise incident , the outcome of which will be known in a month.
A consultant at the hospital has been placed on "administrative leave" pending the result of the inquiry.

It does strike me though that it's fair comment to compare and contrast the record of different consultants if they are using the same equipment.
It's not satisfactory in my opinion for example for one consultant to blame the equipment if it's been checked and shown to be in good working order and for another consultant at a different hospital to have had no problems and be using the same equipment.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1106/cancer.html

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote: »

I understand that hospital radiographers were looking for digital equipment to be installed to improve accuracy.
The HSE probably wanting to spend its funding elsewhere said that the equipment operated within normal quality standards.
There is an inquiry into the portlaoise incident , the outcome of which will be known in a month.
A consultant at the hospital has been placed on "administrative leave" pending the result of the inquiry.

It does strike me though that it's fair comment to compare and contrast the record of different consultants if they are using the same equipment.
It's not satisfactory in my opinion for example for one consultant to blame the equipment if it's been checked and shown to be in good working order and for another consultant at a different hospital to have had no problems and be using the same equipment.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1106/cancer.html

It seems that the problem was much more widespread than initially thought. According to newstalk, there are investigations underway into mis diagnosis in Cork university hospital as well. It seems that the scapegoat 'one incompetent employee' excuse is rapidly falling apart.

It is at this point that we should ask, what exactly is the minister responsible for? What failures under her watch should she get the blame for?
They're certainly mounting, Her baby. the HSE is a complete disaster, if she's not responsible for that, then who is? The current cut backs in the health service as a result in a hugely overbloated administrative staff, exasperated by the formation of the aforementioned HSE, aren't they also Hearney's fault?

Rock Climber

I've given lostinblanch an infraction in this thread for a deliberate breach of the charter.
The next time I see anything like that it will be a one month ban.

akrasia,I'm assuming that you have a vast knowledge of the health system and the old health board system in Ireland for to be making your last statement.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't there disgracefull incidences of incompetence by medical staff in the old health board regime at times too?(I'm thinking the North East hysterectomy scandal) This is nothing new.The issue is how to deal with it.

Secondly how do you come to the conclusion at the start of a reform process with so much union opposition (It's hard not to wonder why) that the amalgamation of bodies (the health boards) which were prone to making decisions based on nimbyisms to suit their local political agenda's (being controlled by councillors as they were) is a disaster in comparison ?

I'm with moriarty too on this one,there seems to be a lot of "political" points being made on this thread by the usual posters without reference to everything and just reference to one or two things.

Akrasia

Rock Climber wrote: »

I've given lostinblanch an infraction in this thread for a deliberate breach of the charter.
The next time I see anything like that it will be a one month ban.

akrasia,I'm assuming that you have a vast knowledge of the health system and the old health board system in Ireland for to be making your last statement.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't there disgracefull incidences of incompetence by medical staff in the old health board regime at times too?(I'm thinking the North East hysterectomy scandal) This is nothing new.

Isn't that the point?

The HSE cost a fortune to set up, and it didn't solve any of the fundamental problems that plagued the old health board system.

(that said, the hysterectomy scandal genuinely was one guy on a rampage, he was allowed away with it too long, but things like that probably happen in every health service

The issue is how to deal with it.

Properly resourced public health service. The opposite of what Hearney is doing. She is withdrawing services without first providing the alternative. It's classic 'starve the beast'. She's trying to boost demand for private health care.

Secondly how do you come to the conclusion at the start of a reform process with so much union opposition (It's hard not to wonder why) that the amalgamation of bodies (the health boards) which were prone to making decisions based on nimbyisms to suit their local political agenda's (being controlled by councillors as they were) is a disaster in comparison ?

Hearney caved to some interests and stood hard against others. There is a reason why hospital administrators and senior managers have never gone on strike. They have been given preferential treatment while the front line staff are still waiting for previous agreements on working conditions to be implemented.
Any sensible person would give preferential treatment to the front line service providers, and try to make savings on administration. Instead, FF wasted Billions on the PPARS system to accommodate the hundreds of different pay grades (most of which are administrative grades) rather than streamline the human resources.

I'm with moriarty too on this one,there seems to be a lot of "political" points being made on this thread by the usual posters without reference to everything and just reference to one or two things.

Which one is it, reference to nothing, or reference to one or two things?

The Health service is highly political. We have Hearney and Bertie blaming these misdiagnosis on individuals when the evidence is pointing towards systemic failures. They are trying to use these problems as a way to promote their 'centres of excellence' and the privatisation of our health service. You can't get much more political than that.

Health privatisation has failed everywhere it has tried (failed by the measure of providing a quality health service for an economic price that covers all the citizens of the state)

sovtek

Akrasia wrote: »

Health privatisation has failed everywhere it has tried (failed by the measure of providing a quality health service for an economic price that covers all the citizens of the state)

Jesus hasn't anyone seen Sicko yet?

bonkey

Akrasia wrote: »

Health privatisation has failed everywhere it has tried

What, exactly, do you mean by 'health privatisation'?

I'm asking because from what I can see, the Irish are heading in the direction of the Swiss model in terms of privatisation (i.e. some resources remain public, but most are private). I certainly wouldn't call the Swiss model a failure.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Isn't that the point?

The HSE cost a fortune to set up, and it didn't solve any of the fundamental problems that plagued the old health board system.

I think it's going to take a long time to solve them,when you have people with vested interests in the status quo going wah wah wah every time you try.

Properly resourced public health service. The opposite of what Hearney is doing. She is withdrawing services without first providing the alternative. It's classic 'starve the beast'. She's trying to boost demand for private health care.

50% or more of the country have private health care already.
You can't keep a never ending tap of funds going into a service without reforming it so it can work better.
Those against the centres of excelence idea seem to want a cancer specialist sitting in Bally ma gash treating ten people a year when 2 counties away he could be see'ing those ten and 100's more.
It's not rocket science.

Hearney caved to some interests and stood hard against others. There is a reason why hospital administrators and senior managers have never gone on strike. They have been given preferential treatment while the front line staff are still waiting for previous agreements on working conditions to be implemented.
Any sensible person would give preferential treatment to the front line service providers, and try to make savings on administration.

Oh I'd agree with you there.

Instead, FF wasted Billions on the PPARS system to accommodate the hundreds of different pay grades (most of which are administrative grades) rather than streamline the human resources.

The problem there is,you start down the road implimenting a system,you keep adding onto it and you have to decide when enough is enough and back to the drawing board with it or to carry on.
In fairness to Harney,she only became minister more than 2 years into ppars creation and it was under her watch that it was abandoned.

Which one is it, reference to nothing, or reference to one or two things?

The Health service is highly political. We have Hearney and Bertie blaming these misdiagnosis on individuals when the evidence is pointing towards systemic failures.

In the case of portlaoise,I'd await the report due in a month before concluding that.I'd also question where you are getting this "pointing to" conclusion given that the equipment though old was in perfect working order-perhaps you are suggesting that over the last decade these machines were useless as the technology of today didn't exist??
That seems to be what you are suggesting and is highly non sensical tbh.

They are trying to use these problems as a way to promote their 'centres of excellence' and the privatisation of our health service. You can't get much more political than that.

Again other than in the cuban health system could you explain why we should have specialists in every county as opposed to locating them in every third county or so?
Cuba probably manages to do this but it manifestly fails all other characteristics of democratic society in an effort to maintain that.
Perhaps we should order the army in and create a military dictatorship?

Health privatisation has failed everywhere it has tried (failed by the measure of providing a quality health service for an economic price that covers all the citizens of the state)

Public health services are failing for a variety of reasons stated already,I think someone with balls is required to grasp it's many nettles and I'll reserve judgement on Harneys job for another few years I think such is the mountain that has to be climbed.

Incidently,there are loads of people spending more on fags in a year than it would cost to fully cover them in private health care.
Mine costs me about €500 a year guarantee'ing me a bed.It's sad that I have to do this I'll agree but such is what happens when you get political involvement in providing services.T.D's when in power are literally often afraid to grasp the nettle in fixing things for fear of local or union campaigns to down their seat.Thats definitely a recipe for stagnation in my opinion.

John_C

Akrasia wrote: »

The Health service is highly political. We have Hearney and Bertie blaming these misdiagnosis on individuals when the evidence is pointing towards systemic failures. They are trying to use these problems as a way to promote their 'centres of excellence' and the privatisation of our health service. You can't get much more political than that.

Are the centres of excellence going to be private?

walshb

I could be way off base here and I certainly do not intend to offend anyone but I think Harney is the wrong person completely to be heading the Health department and this is because she herself is hardly a picture of health.
I am not saying she should be the perfect specimen, but she is chronically obese and IMO it sends out the wrong message. It's not a good idea to have the face of our health system looking IMO quite unhealthy and extremely overweight.....

oscarBravo

I find the constant carping about Harney's weight a little bizarre, frankly. I repeatedly hear about it sending out "the wrong message" - who exactly do we think is so susceptible as to think it's ok to be obese just because the minister for health is overweight?

I mean, I know some seriously stupid people, but I don't think I've ever met anyone quite that stupid.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

I find the constant carping about Harney's weight a little bizarre, frankly. I repeatedly hear about it sending out "the wrong message" - who exactly do we think is so susceptible as to think it's ok to be obese just because the minister for health is overweight?

I mean, I know some seriously stupid people, but I don't think I've ever met anyone quite that stupid.

Fair enough, but surely the person who is supposed to be setting IMO examples of good health should themselves at least try to look healthy and if not, then at least explain why they are not at all healthy. She is the head of the health department and obesity is a massive problem in our society and yet the head of the department is chronically obese and that's why I think she should explain her position. She is NOT sending out a good message...