ONE important factor in the difficulty of recruiting NHS consultants to the Highlands ("Remote hospital struggling to recruit staff ‘lacks imagination’", The Herald, July 19) is not usually mentioned, notably because it is considered in bad taste to discuss it. This is the role of private practice. In short, all the city consultants have plenty private practice income to add to their NHS salary, but in the Highlands and Islands there is no such added extra. Surgeons and physicians, who might enjoy working and living outside the city, instead cling to city practice for financial reasons.
It might be thought that this differential in earnings is inevitable, but it was not always the case. For the first 50 years of the NHS, if a city consultant wished to do private practice, then a smaller salary had to be accepted – to level things up. Most of the consultants did not take this private practice option and worked full-time for the NHS. Consultant salaries, for instance in Oban or Glasgow, were therefore the same. This worked well, and recruiting staff to the north or Borders was not difficult; there were enough applicants who preferred rural work to a city life-style.
When the Thatcher governments changed the salary structure to allow all consultants to do private work, without any cut in salary, then the situation changed radically. To seek a rural post lacking in private practice meant a serious lowering of financial prospects.
The earlier system suited Scotland admirably and in the vote on the Conservative Government's new contract, the Scottish consultants nobly voted against it, aware of the likely problems posed to rural hospitals (and academic medicine). But the national doctors' libertarian vote prevailed, and the meek Scottish BMA gave in. The damage commenced slowly and the present arrangements for private practice, seldom discussed, largely explain the crisis.
David Hamilton FRCS,
Retired consultant surgeon,
142 North Street, St Andrews.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel