NHS Cuts Are Responsible for Death, Should They Be Revoked?


As the NHS cuts are responsible for death and untrained staff, should they be revoked? Everything has a knock-on effect, whether it be our choice in breakfast cereal (it may run out quicker and you may get fatter), or taking a different route home (you may get stuck in traffic or hit an oncoming cyclist). The problem with knock-on effects, is that they can never be predicted.

Cuts in the NHS, have resulted in death to patients that could have been avoided, and de-motivated, highly-stressed staff. Emergency calls are being missed because there are not enough staff on duty – either because they have been let go due to financial crisis or off sick due to stress from work. Nearly half of the hospital trusts in England are predicted to end the year in debt, and the remaining staff are either struggling to cope or are inadequately trained, resulting in inefficient care for patients.

NHSOne example of this is the case of Basil Hewins, who is reported to have spent a night from “hell” in Bridgend Hospital before his death. He was admitted with suspected shingles, however when he got there his son had to perform his dialysis himself (the clinical purification of blood as a substitute for the normal function of the kidney), because the nurse on the ward stated “she didn’t know what she was doing regarding dialysis.” This was one of the first major concerns.

Other brow-raising incidents included the leakage of waste water which nurses were trying to soak up with bed sheets. Although there was a horrible smell and Basil’s room was nearby, they did not move him until 9pm that evening. Clive was also forced to go back to the hospital several times a day when performing his father’s dialysis.

His family claims that the hospital was not able to provide the services needed, and said that cuts and under-trained staff were partly to blame. Although the family have won compensation, they express that the money doesn’t matter, because they believe if Basil had been treated properly and there had not been a breach of duty, then he would still be alive with them today.

With the cuts on NHS spending responsible for death and causing disruption in the quality of health care systems, surely they should be revoked? When patients now arrive at A&E, reports have shown that half a million will have to wait more than four hours to be admitted, transferred or discharged. Additionally, 16 percent are understaffed, so patients can not always get the required treatment.

As the NHS struggles to cope with these changes and attempts to reorganize itself, people are falling victim to its dwindling capability and capacity. Money should instead be injected into the scheme to help provide better services for the welfare of the general public, rather than stripping it of external aid.

It has become clear that NHS cuts are responsible for death that may not have taken place if the correct care was initiated, and has created a work-force struggling to cope; therefore should they be revoked? The government need to take action into improving the system, as it is paramount to the progression of society.

By Melissa McDonald


You must be logged in to post a comment Login