It would be interesting to know what was the diagnosis of the problem with your foot, and whether on your return to the UK you discussed the issue with a medical profession to find out why neither the NHS nor private medical professionals had been able to diagnose the problem and fix it.
I could, but detailing it would gross everyone out. Suffice to say it's a classic example of an issue that falls between too many stools / disciplines: too complex for a podiatrist, beyond the competence of a GP, not MRI-territory. The Thai system had a brilliant doctor, a capable surgeon who just happened to take first-instance appointments. So no referals, letters or things getting lost in translation.
What I'm trying to establish whether there's something wrong with the structure of medical training and development in the UK, for instance too much narrow specialisation at the consultant level. Have we something to learn, or were you just lucky to come across an exceptional surgeon?
The UK system is a gatekeeper/ rationing system. The GPs role is to spot serious illnesses and keep everyone who doesn't fall into that category away from experts, called consultants. Then you have consultants who have to weigh up whether treatment could have complications that might land them in hot water or a legal case. Your Thai guy had no such issues I guess, if it went wrong I doubt you could sue him or get him disbarred, in your case it worked out so you're happy, this isn't always the case
I suspect it’s case of people actually paying close attention & then getting on with treating it. Rather than miracle technologies. That’s what the UK system currently can’t provide.
I can understand that in respect for NHS treatment but surely a private medical practitioner would undertake additional tests to try to identify and resolve the problem. By washing his hands of the problem he would be loosing extra income.
This is a clue from your article: "they don’t seem to fragment it into specialities".
We in the UK spend so much of our income on endless regulation, compliance, world-class (but often excessive for what it delivers) university education, economic sanctions, enforcing highly generous legal rights and extremely strict occupational licensing.
Regulations like this may make the UK a more 'fair' country by some measures, and they very often even artificially increase GDP per capita (through 'compliance' employment, lawyers etc) but they do not improve standard of living.
Your pieices are superb, Fraser. I can't justify for reasioon of financial self discipline subscribing, but can I buy you a coffee somehow, please?
Loved your TV documentary on Reform BTW. Especially given you gave an honest, well rationalised view on the possibility of their DOLGE strategy in one of the local councils they run, actually working.
It would be interesting to know what was the diagnosis of the problem with your foot, and whether on your return to the UK you discussed the issue with a medical profession to find out why neither the NHS nor private medical professionals had been able to diagnose the problem and fix it.
I could, but detailing it would gross everyone out. Suffice to say it's a classic example of an issue that falls between too many stools / disciplines: too complex for a podiatrist, beyond the competence of a GP, not MRI-territory. The Thai system had a brilliant doctor, a capable surgeon who just happened to take first-instance appointments. So no referals, letters or things getting lost in translation.
What I'm trying to establish whether there's something wrong with the structure of medical training and development in the UK, for instance too much narrow specialisation at the consultant level. Have we something to learn, or were you just lucky to come across an exceptional surgeon?
The UK system is a gatekeeper/ rationing system. The GPs role is to spot serious illnesses and keep everyone who doesn't fall into that category away from experts, called consultants. Then you have consultants who have to weigh up whether treatment could have complications that might land them in hot water or a legal case. Your Thai guy had no such issues I guess, if it went wrong I doubt you could sue him or get him disbarred, in your case it worked out so you're happy, this isn't always the case
I suspect it’s case of people actually paying close attention & then getting on with treating it. Rather than miracle technologies. That’s what the UK system currently can’t provide.
I can understand that in respect for NHS treatment but surely a private medical practitioner would undertake additional tests to try to identify and resolve the problem. By washing his hands of the problem he would be loosing extra income.
There is no private system really, the consultants are NHS and often carry out the work on NHS premises with NHS staff, which they pay a fee for
This is a clue from your article: "they don’t seem to fragment it into specialities".
We in the UK spend so much of our income on endless regulation, compliance, world-class (but often excessive for what it delivers) university education, economic sanctions, enforcing highly generous legal rights and extremely strict occupational licensing.
Regulations like this may make the UK a more 'fair' country by some measures, and they very often even artificially increase GDP per capita (through 'compliance' employment, lawyers etc) but they do not improve standard of living.
Your pieices are superb, Fraser. I can't justify for reasioon of financial self discipline subscribing, but can I buy you a coffee somehow, please?
Loved your TV documentary on Reform BTW. Especially given you gave an honest, well rationalised view on the possibility of their DOLGE strategy in one of the local councils they run, actually working.
Your four points are probably true in most of SE Asia. And the point about growing Chinese influence applies to most of the world.