More pics - hope you like
Monday, February 20, 2006
Trip to London
Just started work again after a lovely trip to London last week. Went on the train Tuesday lunchtime - first time E&C had been inter-city so great excitement - and got into Euston about 2 pm. Got a taxi, and asked the driver to go past Nelson's column and Buckingham Palace so the kids could see it. We explained that the flag being up meant the Queen was at home. Every flag Caitlin saw for the rest of the trip came with the refrain, "Queen's at home".
Got to the hotel and found our apartment. Very nice. Hotel was on Queen's Gate just near the Albert Hall. The apartment had a kitchen, lounge. two bedrooms and a bathroom. Great for the kids and we were able to eat there on Weds night as E&C were so tired.
Went to the London Eye on the tube that evening and it was fantastic. Photos will be uploaded soon I hope. Beautiful experience. Had Pizza Express on the way back, much to the delight of two tired and hungry children, and then tubed back to South Ken where we bumped into Liz Hyde, Nic Hyde's daughter, who is at Imperial at the moment. Back to the hotel and bed. E&C loved being in teh same room so much that they didn't get to sleep until 10.30.
Breakfast in the hotel was not particularly good, but the concept was enjoyed by E&C so much that it made up for the poor sausages. Then went to the Natural History Museum. Met Rob, after his delay in the huge queue we had luckily just missed. Went to Human Biology section where Ed had his first true insight into where babies come from, and was a little overwhelmed I think. Also saw the Blue Whale and the diplodocus. Ed and Caitlin were explorers for the day. By 3 pm they were both flagging, so we baled out. S went to Sainsbury's and we had a cheese feast for tea in the Hotel room. Before tea, though, (and after an hour of TV relaxation) we went for a lovely walk in Hyde Park. Were disappointed the Princess Diana playground was closed, but the Elven Tree was lovely and the walk did everyone good.
Thursday saw breakfast in the room - cheese on toasted baguettes - and then checked out of hotel. Went to the Science Museum where the kids loved the Launch Pad and the 3-6 yo area. They were less excited by the aeroplane section and the medical history section, though, and we baled out to get back to the hotel to pick up the bags and get a taxi to Euston. we got there at about 1.45 and had lunch (Harry Ramsden's Fish and Chips for three of us, M&S healthy sarnie for S) and then got the train home. Dreadful traffic on the way back from the station, due to lorry spilling petrol over the roads. Eventually got home.
Really enjoyed the trip and would do the same again.
Got to the hotel and found our apartment. Very nice. Hotel was on Queen's Gate just near the Albert Hall. The apartment had a kitchen, lounge. two bedrooms and a bathroom. Great for the kids and we were able to eat there on Weds night as E&C were so tired.
Went to the London Eye on the tube that evening and it was fantastic. Photos will be uploaded soon I hope. Beautiful experience. Had Pizza Express on the way back, much to the delight of two tired and hungry children, and then tubed back to South Ken where we bumped into Liz Hyde, Nic Hyde's daughter, who is at Imperial at the moment. Back to the hotel and bed. E&C loved being in teh same room so much that they didn't get to sleep until 10.30.
Breakfast in the hotel was not particularly good, but the concept was enjoyed by E&C so much that it made up for the poor sausages. Then went to the Natural History Museum. Met Rob, after his delay in the huge queue we had luckily just missed. Went to Human Biology section where Ed had his first true insight into where babies come from, and was a little overwhelmed I think. Also saw the Blue Whale and the diplodocus. Ed and Caitlin were explorers for the day. By 3 pm they were both flagging, so we baled out. S went to Sainsbury's and we had a cheese feast for tea in the Hotel room. Before tea, though, (and after an hour of TV relaxation) we went for a lovely walk in Hyde Park. Were disappointed the Princess Diana playground was closed, but the Elven Tree was lovely and the walk did everyone good.
Thursday saw breakfast in the room - cheese on toasted baguettes - and then checked out of hotel. Went to the Science Museum where the kids loved the Launch Pad and the 3-6 yo area. They were less excited by the aeroplane section and the medical history section, though, and we baled out to get back to the hotel to pick up the bags and get a taxi to Euston. we got there at about 1.45 and had lunch (Harry Ramsden's Fish and Chips for three of us, M&S healthy sarnie for S) and then got the train home. Dreadful traffic on the way back from the station, due to lorry spilling petrol over the roads. Eventually got home.
Really enjoyed the trip and would do the same again.
Friday, February 03, 2006
The media and medicine
On the radio this morning there was a story about the falling number of obstetricians and gynaecologists in this country. There were several factors recognised as potential causes of this shortage, and perhaps predictably increasing litigation rates was one of them. I was talking to a midwife colleague at lunchtime, and she was bemoaning the everincreasing caesarean section rate. In my surgery, I regularly have consultations with people who have read something or other in the press about a new treatment for this or that disease, or more usually creating anxiety about treatment that already exists. If I wasn't bald already, I would be tearing my hair out.
I have the perception that 50 years ago if a member of the public went in to see a new doctor, and was asked just before they went in how much they are expecting to trust that doctor on a scale of -10 to 10, an average answer would be about three to five. I have the feeling now when someone new comes to see me that the same would give an answer is about minus three. Why is this?
Perhaps the world is less trusting place. Perhaps the very fact that doctors are able to achieve more, means that people expect more. Despite that rising expectation, medicine is still a limited science and can't provide everything people want. I don't know. What I do know is that people I see are still looking for certainty. They just don't think they can find it from their doctor any more. So they look anywhere.
At the same time, the media, which I admit in this country is generally trustworthy, is filling them up with poorly researched medical stories, whose main aim seems to be to feed this mistrust and anxiety. A vicious circle develops, where people seek vindication of their anxiety by turning to the very media which has caused it in the first place. I believe we are now in a situation where people trust the media more than they trust their doctor. When they read something in the press, this is believed. If the doctor disagrees with it, it is the doctor who has to make the case.
I am more than happy to do this, but it takes time. At the moment I see people at 10 minute intervals. The government in the press seem to think that it should be possible for me to have a full discussion about choice of hospital, review every disease patient has, as well as deal with the presenting problem in that 10 minutes. Of course it takes longer than that. But if I try lengthen the appointments, there becomes fewer of them. When there are fewer of them, the people who have read that I should be available to see them within 48 hours turn to their newspaper editors with grateful thanks for pointing out the failures of the system with sickening accuracy. Those readers, when presented with the next ballot paper, firmly believe that they're not getting value for money for their taxes so vote for lower taxes next time. Funnily enough, this doesn't make the problem much better.
So what is the answer? I think the media need to renegotiate with themselves their role in society. I respect the media. I realise that they do a job which is vital in a democracy. It is right that the establishment is tested. It is right that non-specialists get the opportunity to question specialists. Journalists, with their questioning minds, play an important role in the pointing out of failure and weakness. But it seems they have not realised that they are taking the role of the establishment they are questioning. They are becoming the institution which is automatically trusted. They should learn from a member of the profession which has recently lost that privilege, that it should never be taken for granted, and certainly never abused.
I have the perception that 50 years ago if a member of the public went in to see a new doctor, and was asked just before they went in how much they are expecting to trust that doctor on a scale of -10 to 10, an average answer would be about three to five. I have the feeling now when someone new comes to see me that the same would give an answer is about minus three. Why is this?
Perhaps the world is less trusting place. Perhaps the very fact that doctors are able to achieve more, means that people expect more. Despite that rising expectation, medicine is still a limited science and can't provide everything people want. I don't know. What I do know is that people I see are still looking for certainty. They just don't think they can find it from their doctor any more. So they look anywhere.
At the same time, the media, which I admit in this country is generally trustworthy, is filling them up with poorly researched medical stories, whose main aim seems to be to feed this mistrust and anxiety. A vicious circle develops, where people seek vindication of their anxiety by turning to the very media which has caused it in the first place. I believe we are now in a situation where people trust the media more than they trust their doctor. When they read something in the press, this is believed. If the doctor disagrees with it, it is the doctor who has to make the case.
I am more than happy to do this, but it takes time. At the moment I see people at 10 minute intervals. The government in the press seem to think that it should be possible for me to have a full discussion about choice of hospital, review every disease patient has, as well as deal with the presenting problem in that 10 minutes. Of course it takes longer than that. But if I try lengthen the appointments, there becomes fewer of them. When there are fewer of them, the people who have read that I should be available to see them within 48 hours turn to their newspaper editors with grateful thanks for pointing out the failures of the system with sickening accuracy. Those readers, when presented with the next ballot paper, firmly believe that they're not getting value for money for their taxes so vote for lower taxes next time. Funnily enough, this doesn't make the problem much better.
So what is the answer? I think the media need to renegotiate with themselves their role in society. I respect the media. I realise that they do a job which is vital in a democracy. It is right that the establishment is tested. It is right that non-specialists get the opportunity to question specialists. Journalists, with their questioning minds, play an important role in the pointing out of failure and weakness. But it seems they have not realised that they are taking the role of the establishment they are questioning. They are becoming the institution which is automatically trusted. They should learn from a member of the profession which has recently lost that privilege, that it should never be taken for granted, and certainly never abused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
