Hi Sharif – Firstly, fair play for you to come on to the forum and try and defend the piece.
The discussion has perhaps moved on from your original article – but I think it is still on the same theme, essentially a criticism of the high expectations placed upon NHS practitioners by ungrateful patients – or to phrase it another way a judgment of undeserving poor who cannot afford the luxury of private provision (that enables you to keep up your luxury lifestyle).
(The title of your article was ‘give the mouse a cookie’, perhaps a good return piece would be called ‘let them eat cake’)
Yes the article was tongue in cheek, and yes there is a legitimate frustration at the payment system in the NHS. These points are not disputed.
Do the criticisms not apply in private practice though? Are all private patients grateful? Do all private patients completely understand the payment options, process and guarantee for work done? I have a sneaking suspicion that private patients can be equally as ungrateful (more so perhaps as they are paying more money). Is it just the amount you earn which changes your definition from being a “difficult” patient to acting with “contempt”?
I don’t doubt that many people have congratulated you on the piece… (I remember reading that Field Marshal Haig had some 10,000 people cheer him when he returned from World War I, does that mean he was a good commander?) but what does that really mean? It may serve to soothe your ego and stroke your vanity but it does not mean the points you make are valid. The reason I mention the possibility of it being an issue of ego is that in spite of claiming to be happy at any criticism you immediately try an nullify it without giving it due care and attention. Any umbrage being a reflection on those offended rather than the article… this smacks of deflection to be honest. The people who agree with you count, but those that don’t agree with you don’t? It makes little sense I’m afraid.
As for free speech, do you remember the comedy In Sickness and in Health? If an article was published by an Alf Garnett type saying how there are too many Asian dentists – and it played “comically” on Asian stereotypes in an attempt to entertain – I am sure there would be some people (who lean to the right politically) who would read it and agree with the comments – that doesn’t mean the conclusion it reaches is right. Equally there is an argument to be made that the piece should not be published since the potential damage it could do is far greater than any benefit that could come from the discussion it raises. Freedom of speech is all well and good so long as people have the intelligence to use that freedom responsibly. . Abusive language, racism, homophobia… these could all be justified by your interpretation of free speech – I’m not so sure you actually do believe these things are OK. I hope you understand that I am not “shooting the messenger” here. I am replying to the points you have made and hoping to show you that they are not valid.
George Bernard Shaw: “Beware of false knowledge, it is more dangerous than false ignorance.”
Herbert Hoover: “Every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech.”