Mandate graduate doctors do 5 years in Ireland post qualification?

jon1981

Triggered by this article:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/shortage-of-doctors-to-blame-for-irelands-breach-of-law-over-hours-imo-31079523.html

A SHORTAGE of junior doctors is a key issue in preventing Ireland from complying with maximum working hours under EU law, it has been claimed

With medicine probably being the most prestigious and expensive course (to the state) available to students , should we mandate that medical graduates do 5 yrs ( insert another figure) here in Ireland in a hospital before they can move and prevent brain drain. Given that students pay the same as any other student doing a less costly course I think this is pretty reasonable move.

thoughts?

ScumLord

Last time I was in a public hospital you could barely move for the Amount of medical staff in the place.

They have medical staff coming out their ears and they still can't get anything done, adding more bodies doesn't seem like it would be any benefit to the patient.

K4t

If they don't want to stay, let them go. The EU was designed to improve labour mobility, not restrict it. The jobs will be filled by willing migrant workers.

jon1981

Ok so from most peoples replies so far, you're not buying the shortage excuse? Are we saying is a scheduling issue? Bad management? I have friends doing courses in the UK (teaching) and part of the conditions of the contract involves them having to do a number of years in a school there, what's the problem with applying this to the medical profession?

Musefan

Yup. Clinical psychologists are mandated to complete 2 years in the HSE post qualification. As payback for their funded training.

Guy:Incognito

jon1981 wrote: »

With medicine probably being the most prestigious and expensive course (to the state) available to students , should we mandate that medical graduates do 5 yrs ( insert another figure) here in Ireland in a hospital before they can move and prevent brain drain. Given that students pay the same as any other student doing a less costly course I think this is pretty reasonable move.

thoughts?

How will you enforce this? Confiscate their passports?

Knasher

If it were down to me, I'd charge everyone for college, but pay off a part of their costs for every year they spend working in Ireland. For each year here 20% of it will be paid off, run off to America right after qualifying, fine, but you now have to pay back what it cost to educate you.

Luckily, I guess, it isn't down to me.

BoJack Horseman

OSI wrote: »

Apart from being illegal in the EU.

It isn't necessarily.

- Make medicine a full fee course.
- provide interest free loans.

If a graduate commits to working for a set term for the HSE, then waive the loan....

If the graduate skedaddles abroad, they have a loan to repay, the tax payer doesn't lose out.

Quid pro quo's like that would be legal.

jon1981

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How will you enforce this? Confiscate their passports?

Seriously? What is wrong with expecting payback for what is a highly lucrative career funded at a pittance by the student?

seamus

On the face of it, yes, perhaps. But then you run the risk of a lot of other problems - hospitals full of junior doctors who have their head somewhere else and are going through the motions. Junior doctors who are incompetent and want to leave the profession completely but have this 5 years hanging over their heads.

Rather than having the desired effect of keeping good doctors in Ireland, you just make the quality of staff worse and effectively prevent good doctors from immigrating to Ireland.

Perhaps the aim should be to address the reasons why so many doctors leave or want to leave. Primarily criminally long working hours with no overtime and chronic understaffing of junior doctors in hospitals.

Most don't leave because they want to specialise in some obscure medicine or do the latest high-tech research. Most leave because they can go somewhere that they work 50 hour weeks for good pay and get treated like a human being.

Guy:Incognito

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It isn't necessarily.

- Make medicine a full fee course.
- provide interest free loans.

If a graduate commits to working for a set term for the HSE, then waive the loan....

If the graduate skedaddles abroad, they have a loan to repay, the tax payer doesn't lose out.

Quid pro quo's like that would be legal.

How long does it take to be qualified, 7 years?You're basically making medicine a 12 year course then.

anncoates

ScumLord wrote: »

Last time I was in a public hospital you could barely move for the Amount of medical staff in the place.

They have medical staff coming out their ears and they still can't get anything done, adding more bodies doesn't seem like it would be any benefit to the patient.

That's not exactly a scientific overview of the problem, is it.

'I went down to Tallaght hospital. Seemed to be a lot of doctors walking around.'

Guy:Incognito

jon1981 wrote: »

Seriously? What is wrong with expecting payback for what is a highly lucrative career funded at a pittance by the student?

Nothing, as long as you do it for all courses. Why single out medicine?

I've no problem with people paying for their college education, I was questioning the practicalities of the 5 year idea. As in, how do you physically stop them just leaving and not doing the 5 years.

jonasjones

IMHO college costs should be subsidized but should be repaid by the student if they leave the country within X amount of time. It isn't servitude, it's making sure that the tax payer isn't burdened by those who use the nation's resources and then leave without paying back. Further, the student receives what they paid for, they just don't get it for free. I feel like there is something similar in Australia but could be mistaken.

As an aside, I emigrated not long after finishing my degree so I have a good vantage point from which to make this comment.

jon1981

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Nothing, as long as you do it for all courses. Why single out medicine?

I've no problem with people paying for their college education, I was questioning the practicalities of the 5 year idea. As in, how do you physically stop them just leaving and not doing the 5 years.

This:

medicine probably being the most prestigious and expensive course (to the state) available to students

not to mention it is a critical service to the public with a very tight supply of graduates!

BoJack Horseman

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How long does it take to be qualified, 7 years?You're basically making medicine a 12 year course then.

No, they would enjoy free 3rd level education.
A job for 5 years....

And a golden ticket in life thereafter.

My hypothetical would still be a great deal for graduates.

Guy:Incognito

jon1981 wrote: »

This:

So we're singling out just the (probably) most expensive course from the governments perspective. Whats the 2nd most expensive and how close is the gap. Wheres the fairness in forcing a doctor to spend 5 years here over the guy in the 2nd most expensive course? Why not everyone over a certain cost?

Instead of addressing why they leave they want to make it compulsory to stay in a job they hate
Atlas shrugged anyone

Guy:Incognito

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, they would enjoy free 3rd level education.
A job for 5 years....

And a golden ticket in life thereafter.

My hypothetical would still be a great deal for graduates.

They already get the free 3rd level education and the job seeing as we're crying out for doctors. All you're doing is removing their freedom to work where they like.

seamus

ScumLord wrote: »

Last time I was in a public hospital you could barely move for the Amount of medical staff in the place.

They have medical staff coming out their ears and they still can't get anything done, adding more bodies doesn't seem like it would be any benefit to the patient.

They have more administrative staff and nurses than the OECD average, and too few doctors. Nurses and admins are cheaper, but they can't get patients in and out as quickly as doctors can.

The issue here is of course, cost. We have too many large hospitals. But they still have to be staffed. So you bulk up on the cheaper admin & nursing staff to keep the numbers up and make it look like your hospitals are fully staffed.
But you don't have enough doctors.

So despite the place being swamped with staff, you can't get people through the system because everyone is waiting for a doctor to become available.

Technically, fixing the Irish health system is easy:
Close all of the smaller regional hospitals and concentrate major services in a small number of hospitals located in strategic positions.

Yes, it means that some people in remote parts of the country will be 30 minutes further away from the nearest hospital. And it means that someone who chooses to live rurally will die, whereas previously they would have lived. But nationally the quality of service will improve drastically. And that's the statistic that matters.

The only barriers to this are political.

denhaagenite

seamus wrote: »

Technically, fixing the Irish health system is easy:
Close all of the smaller regional hospitals and concentrate major services in a small number of hospitals located in strategic positions.

Yes, it means that some people in remote parts of the country will be 30 minutes further away from the nearest hospital. And it means that someone who chooses to live rurally will die, whereas previously they would have lived. But nationally the quality of service will improve drastically. And that's the statistic that matters.

The only barriers to this are political.

This is exactly what the government are doing at the moment.

ScumLord

seamus wrote: »

They have more administrative staff and nurses than the OECD average, and too few doctors. Nurses and admins are cheaper, but they can't get patients in and out as quickly as doctors can.

The issue here is of course, cost. We have too many large hospitals. But they still have to be staffed. So you bulk up on the cheaper admin & nursing staff to keep the numbers up and make it look like your hospitals are fully staffed.
But you don't have enough doctors.

I've had the pleasure of going public and private for the same condition. There seemed to be as many of the blue shirts as patients, I assume the ones in blue clothing are all doctors of some sort. 4 of them were in and out to me in A&E, in the ward there were 3 nurses. They had me on 3 different antibiotics. then of course there's the roving gang of doctors that come in and talk over you as if you were some sort of a plant in the corner.

Privately I had one doctor throughout, one nurse managed the ward and I was on one antibiotic. The upshot of it all was that a week in a fancy private hospital was substantially cheaper than a week in a public hospital. I think public hospitals have become over concerned with bringing in more money to the point they do pointless extra work so they can increase the bill to private health insurers. Public hospitals have way more staff than they need because they're taking money off the foreign doctors. They have terrible efficiency and giving them more money and staff will only make this worse.

Public hospitals seem to treat health insurers like a cash cow, private hospitals treat them like customers.

Egginacup

jon1981 wrote: »

Seriously? What is wrong with expecting payback for what is a highly lucrative career funded at a pittance by the student?

And what of engineers or lawyers or music students who go off and make millions? What about the medical students who graduate but decide that being a doctor is not for them?

Fat Christy

If the hours and pay weren't so sh*tty for newly qualified doctors, maybe they might stick around!

shruikan2553

Maybe they should look at why so many are leaving.

Maybe some of them come back after awhile bringing new skills?

Electric Sheep

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Maybe they should look at why so many are leaving.

Maybe some of them come back after awhile bringing new skills?

Not if they have any sense.

Capercaillie

K4t wrote: »

If they don't want to stay, let them go. The EU was designed to improve labour mobility, not restrict it. The jobs will be filled by willing migrant workers.

Willing migrant workers who are of inferior quality.

Berserker

jon1981 wrote: »

should we mandate that medical graduates do 5 yrs ( insert another figure) here in Ireland in a hospital before they can move and prevent brain drain.

Sounds like people want to kick the can down the road to me. How about we give them to power to make decisions, instead of tying them in red tape, pay them properly and give them a better work life balance? They might consider staying for longer then.

Iwasfrozen

jon1981 wrote: »

Triggered by this article:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/shortage-of-doctors-to-blame-for-irelands-breach-of-law-over-hours-imo-31079523.html




With medicine probably being the most prestigious and expensive course (to the state) available to students , should we mandate that medical graduates do 5 yrs ( insert another figure) here in Ireland in a hospital before they can move and prevent brain drain. Given that students pay the same as any other student doing a less costly course I think this is pretty reasonable move.

thoughts?

No. That's the kind of thinking that led to the Berlin wall. This won't encourage doctors to stay it will just force the ones who do leave to stay abroad forever. Stupid idea tbf.

Lucas Castroman

ScumLord wrote: »

I've had the pleasure of going public and private for the same condition. There seemed to be as many of the blue shirts as patients, I assume the ones in blue clothing are all doctors of some sort. 4 of them were in and out to me in A&E, in the ward there were 3 nurses. They had me on 3 different antibiotics. then of course there's the roving gang of doctors that come in and talk over you as if you were some sort of a plant in the corner.

Privately I had one doctor throughout, one nurse managed the ward and I was on one antibiotic. The upshot of it all was that a week in a fancy private hospital was substantially cheaper than a week in a public hospital. I think public hospitals have become over concerned with bringing in more money to the point they do pointless extra work so they can increase the bill to private health insurers. Public hospitals have way more staff than they need because they're taking money off the foreign doctors. They have terrible efficiency and giving them more money and staff will only make this worse.

Public hospitals seem to treat health insurers like a cash cow, private hospitals treat them like customers.

There seemed to be as many of the blue shirts as patients, I assume the ones in blue clothing are all doctors of some sort.

Before offering your considered opinion on a topic perhaps you should be sure of your facts. Everybody in A+E wears scrubs so they could have been doctors, nurses, porters etc.

They had me on 3 different antibiotics.

Obviously they felt it was clinically indicated. Are you suggesting a public hospital makes money by putting a person on more drugs? If anything it costs them money.

I think public hospitals have become over concerned with bringing in more money to the point they do pointless extra work so they can increase the bill to private health insurers.

You've offered no evidence to support this.

Public hospitals have way more staff than they need because they're taking money off the foreign doctors.

Read the news, public hospitals have serious shortages of doctors. Also please explain the delusional workings of your mind - how do public hospitals make money off foreign doctors?

then of course there's the roving gang of doctors that come in and talk over you as if you were some sort of a plant in the corner.

Large public hospitals are teaching centres. Besides, I'm not surprised they ignored you given the waffle you spout.

K4t

Capercaillie wrote: »

Willing migrant workers who are of inferior quality.

And superior quality.

Capercaillie

K4t wrote: »

And superior quality.

The majority inferior.

Iwasfrozen

Capercaillie wrote: »

The majority inferior.

Anything to back that up or is it just a feeling you have?

Mint Aero

Hi Leo. No it's a bad idea.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

They have more administrative staff and nurses than the OECD average, and too few doctors. Nurses and admins are cheaper, but they can't get patients in and out as quickly as doctors can.

The issue here is of course, cost. We have too many large hospitals. But they still have to be staffed. So you bulk up on the cheaper admin & nursing staff to keep the numbers up and make it look like your hospitals are fully staffed.
But you don't have enough doctors.

So despite the place being swamped with staff, you can't get people through the system because everyone is waiting for a doctor to become available.

Technically, fixing the Irish health system is easy:
Close all of the smaller regional hospitals and concentrate major services in a small number of hospitals located in strategic positions.

Yes, it means that some people in remote parts of the country will be 30 minutes further away from the nearest hospital. And it means that someone who chooses to live rurally will die, whereas previously they would have lived. But nationally the quality of service will improve drastically. And that's the statistic that matters.

The only barriers to this are political.

How small a number of large hospitals?

K4t

Capercaillie wrote: »

The majority inferior.

Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps superior. Probably equal.

Dilly.

seamus wrote: »

Technically, fixing the Irish health system is easy:
Close all of the smaller regional hospitals and concentrate major services in a small number of hospitals located in strategic positions.

Yes, it means that some people in remote parts of the country will be 30 minutes further away from the nearest hospital. And it means that someone who chooses to live rurally will die, whereas previously they would have lived. But nationally the quality of service will improve drastically. And that's the statistic that matters.

The only barriers to this are political.

So who cares about a man, woman or child dying or having to suffer because they live In a rural location aslong as the statistics improve? Do you know or have you heard of anyone using the Donegal cancer bus to Galway?

ProfessorPlum

Capercaillie wrote: »

Willing migrant workers who are of inferior quality.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Anything to back that up or is it just a feeling you have?

The HSE are on record saying they can not source sufficient numbers of adequately qualified doctors to meet the manpower crisis in our health service. Many NCHD and consultant posts remain unfilled. Some of those doctors who were employed (having been deemed adequate) were unable to pass the exams that the HSE set as the minimum standard. Irish graduates by definition have achieved that standard.

The unfortunate truth is that the health service is woefully understaffed by doctors (regardless of how many people may be wearing blue scrubs), foreign nationals have been propping up the service for years, with little benefit to themselves (due to many of the posts they fill being unrecognised for training) and at a great disadvantage to their home countries in many circumstances.

RDM_83 again

Long term here's what I would do, initially lock in doctors too X years working in Ireland or they owe X sum (to make this fairer not to penalise those that actually drop out, put it on UK student loan style system so if they have actually moved abroad to earn american mega salaries they will have to pay it back)
Long term, train a lot more doctors expand the amount of places, drop the hours drop the wages let being a doctor be something that allows people to have a life and attract the people that want to do the job for the love of it not the money.

We can never compete with the USA or to some extent Aus for cash and thats a problem because as far as I can see the earning potential is a big motivator, this will be denied by the medics here but if its about hours the UK would be a far bigger destination (they have eu working time rules actually followed)

ps google the junior doctor overtime bill =-O

ProfessorPlum

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Long term here's what I would do, initially lock in doctors too X years working in Ireland or they owe X sum (to make this fairer not to penalise those that actually drop out, put it on UK student loan style system so if they have actually moved abroad to earn american mega salaries they will have to pay it back)

And what about other graduates that have benefited from 'free' third level education? Law graduates - barristers and solicitors can earn multiples of what doctors earn. Buisness and Finance grads - huge potential earnings, especially in the UK or USA. Teaching graduates - sure don't most of them end up on huge TD salaries and pensions:rolleyes:

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Long term, train a lot more doctors expand the amount of places, drop the hours drop the wages let being a doctor be something that allows people to have a life and attract the people that want to do the job for the love of it not the money.

If we could retain, or more likely encourage the return of the doctors we are already training we would be a long way to adequately staffing the service. But 'drop the wages' will only make the situation worse, if that's possible. An intern salary is just over E30,000. For that you have attained the best exam results in the country leaving school, slogged it out in college for 6 years, and often work on average between 65 and 100 hours per week, in breach of the EWTD. There is overtime paid, usually at time and a half and often not at all. The system simply couldn't afford to employ enough doctors to work a standard, or even EWTD compliant week. The consultant salary starts at E116,000 (I know it's under review atm, not sure if the increase (to E127,000 I think) has been agreed). While that might seem like a nice package, if you have the smarts and the ambition to make it in medicine, you have the ability to earn much more than that in other areas. So, no, money is not the driving force for the vast majority of doctors.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

We can never compete with the USA or to some extent Aus for cash and thats a problem because as far as I can see the earning potential is a big motivator, this will be denied by the medics here but if its about hours the UK would be a far bigger destination (they have eu working time rules actually followed)

ps google the junior doctor overtime bill =-O

Many Irish graduates do end up in the UK, but the NHS is not without its problems. Australia and NZ seem to have a good work-life balance and is proving very popular with graduates. AFAIK, salaries in OZ/NZ are similar to here, but hours are far less and training is far more structured. Many who have gone in the past for training with the intention of coming home have decided to stay.



The idea of forcing people to work in our broken system is flawed on so many levels. It also must be noted that it is not possible to fully train in Ireland in many specialties - graduates must go abroad to gain experience in areas where there is no expertise here. Previously most doctors left Ireland towards the end of their training. Now they seem to be going earlier due to the excessive working hours, poor conditions, lack of training structure and clarity and generally poor morale. Irish graduates have to do at least 1 year here or in the UK post graduation if they want their qualification to be recognised. The hours of graft during even that year sees them 'paying their way' IMO.

FalconGirl

When my uncle was dying, one of my cousins friends was a doctor in the ICU. She came into the rest room area and was chatting away to us and told us she was moving onto her 26th hr of duty and said its quite regular. Insane:eek:

Letree

OSI wrote: »

Apart from being illegal in the EU. You're making a job that's already not looking particularly attractive given all the news about long hours and **** conditions, and making it look even less attractive by forcing people into 5 years of servitude. If numbers are crap now, they'll be even worse with such a restriction in place.

I would support the mandatory 5 years but there should be a fair contract drawn up with a max working week of about 40 hrs and a decent salary.

Iwasfrozen

Letree wrote: »

I would support the mandatory 5 years but there should be a fair contract drawn up with a max working week of about 40 hrs and a decent salary.

You support taking away other people's rights? Generous. Thankfully It would be illegal in the EU so a total non starter.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

How small a number of large hospitals?

Dunno, you'd have to do the maths on it. I'm sure there's an optimal calculation of size per capita cross-referenced with distance. I did some rough sum before on another thread a long time ago, but it escapes me now.

Dilly. wrote: »

So who cares about a man, woman or child dying or having to suffer because they live In a rural location aslong as the statistics improve? Do you know or have you heard of anyone using the Donegal cancer bus to Galway?

This is the emotive argument, but unfortunately it all comes down to bare numbers at the end of the day.

As a nation we want to be able to live in any ****hole backwater and still have hospital services on our doorstep. But we don't want to pay for it. These things are not compatible, one of them has to go. So we can either increase the average household's tax bill by €4,000 a year so that the HSE's budget is bumped by 50%.
Or we can make our hospital system more effective at the current cost by reducing the immediate availability of services to remote rural areas.

I'm pretty sure I know which option most people will go for.

ScumLord

Capercaillie wrote: »

Willing migrant workers who are of inferior quality.

I didn't find any of the foreign doctors which was all the doctors I dealt with bar one, to be any way inferior.

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

Before offering your considered opinion on a topic perhaps you should be sure of your facts. Everybody in A+E wears scrubs so they could have been doctors, nurses, porters etc.

Are the nurses not in a lighter blue? Either way there were 15 of them at the main station in AE and that was just the collection at the station. It was hard to even make your way through the crowd of them.

Obviously they felt it was clinically indicated. Are you suggesting a public hospital makes money by putting a person on more drugs? If anything it costs them money.

Like I said, I went to two different hospitals with the same condition, if the public hospital thought I needed three antibiotics they were clearly wrong. Because one was enough. If they make a profit on each drug then yes they are putting people on more drugs to pull in more money.

how do public hospitals make money off foreign doctors?

They don't teach them for free do they?


You can shout and throw insults around all you like, but that was my experience of the two hospitals. It was clear the private hospital was doing more with less and saving money doing it. The public hospital was like a war zone where they work twice as hard and get nowhere, while charging the state and insurance companies through the teeth for a sub standard service. It's clear mismanagement or a lack of management. The public hospital is over run and that's a massive part of the problem but there doesn't seem to be any sign of them even trying to do anything about it.

steddyeddy

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

There seemed to be as many of the blue shirts as patients, I assume the ones in blue clothing are all doctors of some sort.

Before offering your considered opinion on a topic perhaps you should be sure of your facts. Everybody in A+E wears scrubs so they could have been doctors, nurses, porters etc.

They had me on 3 different antibiotics.

Obviously they felt it was clinically indicated. Are you suggesting a public hospital makes money by putting a person on more drugs? If anything it costs them money.

I think public hospitals have become over concerned with bringing in more money to the point they do pointless extra work so they can increase the bill to private health insurers.

You've offered no evidence to support this.

Public hospitals have way more staff than they need because they're taking money off the foreign doctors.

Read the news, public hospitals have serious shortages of doctors. Also please explain the delusional workings of your mind - how do public hospitals make money off foreign doctors?

then of course there's the roving gang of doctors that come in and talk over you as if you were some sort of a plant in the corner.

Large public hospitals are teaching centres. Besides, I'm not surprised they ignored you given the waffle you spout.

On a separate issue three antibiotics is far too much. No wonder antibiotic resistance is on the rise.

steddyeddy

Capercaillie wrote: »

The majority inferior.

You must be joking.

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

They have more administrative staff and nurses than the OECD average, and too few doctors. Nurses and admins are cheaper, but they can't get patients in and out as quickly as doctors can.

The issue here is of course, cost. We have too many large hospitals. But they still have to be staffed. So you bulk up on the cheaper admin & nursing staff to keep the numbers up and make it look like your hospitals are fully staffed.
But you don't have enough doctors.

So despite the place being swamped with staff, you can't get people through the system because everyone is waiting for a doctor to become available.

Technically, fixing the Irish health system is easy:
Close all of the smaller regional hospitals and concentrate major services in a small number of hospitals located in strategic positions.

Yes, it means that some people in remote parts of the country will be 30 minutes further away from the nearest hospital. And it means that someone who chooses to live rurally will die, whereas previously they would have lived. But nationally the quality of service will improve drastically. And that's the statistic that matters.

The only barriers to this are political.

A lot of people don't choose to end up where they end up Seamus. A lot of people are born into socio economic circumstances enabling benefits over another through school systems ect. This ultimately leads them to where they are in life. It's not as simple as people choosing to live and die in some area most of the time.

Lucas Castroman

ScumLord wrote: »

I didn't find any of the foreign doctors which was all the doctors I dealt with bar one, to be any way inferior.

Are the nurses not in a lighter blue? Either way there were 15 of them at the main station in AE and that was just the collection at the station. It was hard to even make your way through the crowd of them.


Like I said, I went to two different hospitals with the same condition, if the public hospital thought I needed three antibiotics they were clearly wrong. Because one was enough. If they make a profit on each drug then yes they are putting people on more drugs to pull in more money.



They don't teach them for free do they?


You can shout and throw insults around all you like, but that was my experience of the two hospitals. It was clear the private hospital was doing more with less and saving money doing it. The public hospital was like a war zone where they work twice as hard and get nowhere, while charging the state and insurance companies through the teeth for a sub standard service. It's clear mismanagement or a lack of management. The public hospital is over run and that's a massive part of the problem but there doesn't seem to be any sign of them even trying to do anything about it.

If they make a profit on each drug then yes they are putting people on more drugs to pull in more money.

As already said public hospitals don't make a profit from prescribing more meds. If anything, reducing medications handed out would reduce costs. Not all antibiotics are the same. Being on three antibiotics rather than one does not necessarily constitute waste. Some have greater antibacterial coverage.

They don't teach them for free do they?

Universities make lots of money out of foreign medical students who pay massive tuition fees - this may be the source of your confusion.
Foreign doctors are employed workers just like Irish doctors, who don't pay "fees".

Perhaps the reason the private hospital seems more sedate/organised is because they can be more selective about the patients they accept. They perform elective procedures and manage patients who are generally stable.

You're severely misinformed but don't let that stop you from having your strong opinions. Anyways work tomorrow I'm sure :roll eyes:

steddyeddy

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

If they make a profit on each drug then yes they are putting people on more drugs to pull in more money.

As already said public hospitals don't make a profit from prescribing more meds. If anything, reducing medications handed out would reduce costs. Not all antibiotics are the same. Being on three antibiotics rather than one does not necessarily constitute waste. Some have greater antibacterial coverage.

They don't teach them for free do they?

Universities make lots of money out of foreign medical students who pay massive tuition fees - this may be the source of your confusion.
Foreign doctors are employed workers just like Irish doctors, who don't pay "fees".

Perhaps the reason the private hospital seems more sedate/organised is because they can be more selective about the patients they accept. They perform elective procedures and manage patients who are generally stable.

You're severely misinformed but don't let that stop you from having your strong opinions. Anyways work tomorrow I'm sure :roll eyes:

No offence to clinicians but they often know next to nothing about antibiotics. My girlfriend at the time was prescribed an antibiotic which didn't help her. I went to the clinician with her and asked what type of bacteria do these antibiotics target and what type of bacteria are causing the problem? He couldn't answer. It turns out the bacteria causing the infection weren't the type of bacteria targeted by this antibiotic. In fact the broad range antibiotic killed all the other bacteria and left these ones. Thereby reducing competition for the ones causing the problems.

ALWAYS ask the clinician what type of bacteria are targeted by antibiotics. If they can't answer change GPs.

ScumLord

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

As already said public hospitals don't make a profit from prescribing more meds.

So they don't charge insurers for medications used? They wouldn't do things like use up leftover budget before year end?

Universities make lots of money out of foreign medical students who pay massive tuition fees - this may be the source of your confusion.
Foreign doctors are employed workers just like Irish doctors, who don't pay "fees".

I talking specifically about foreign student doctors. Do they pay student doctors? Any time I've been in the public hospital doctors always had one or two in toe, so they're all paid for medical staff?

Perhaps the reason the private hospital seems more sedate/organised is because they can be more selective about the patients they accept. They perform elective procedures and manage patients who are generally stable.

I don't see how their more selective. They treat people who can pay but I don't think they cherry pick who they're going to treat. The private hospital I went to had an A&E, it just wasn't open 24/7.

You're severely misinformed

How can I be misinformed by what I experienced?