Option 1 can be done quickly and that if it is closed, it enables it to be sold which thereby brings in £25m for the Authority. General Gordon Community Hospital is also quite old so it would require major costly maintenance works in the near future. However as the hospital is the only one in the northern part of the district, patients would have to travel significantly further to get outpatient, x-rays and physiotherapy treatment that is currently provided by the hospital along with a 24-bed ward. Current patients will also have to be transferred to the new, larger but far Seaview Hospital and this will cause civil unrest and a political opposition regarding the sale of the site for development, both in which will lead to protests on behalf of the elderly and local community. Health Service unions might also object to this as closure of the hospital will lead to job losses and it is not guaranteed that all staff are redeployed elsewhere in the District.
Option 2 is a more flexible option as it possible that the closed wards can be reopened in the future. This however will have a negative impact in the short term due to waiting lists increasing due to the number of available wards and prioritisation of operations (Emergency operations first delaying ‘less urgent’ operations such as hip and varicose vein operations). Closure of wards will also lead to a large number of job losses which would make unions to be hostile towards the situation.
Option 3 involves either closing or privatising one of its dialysis wards. The savings in running costs alone is adequate to cover the deficit and that any proceeds from the sale of the equipment would be a bonus. The good thing about this option is that it can still be there except you have to pay for the services. By privatising one of the wards it shows an unbalance of equity as whoever is willing to pay gets the treatment (consumer sovereignty) and those who don’t, would have to wait which could possibly by fatal.
The option I would chose if I was in John Runcorn’s position is the Option 1, the closing down of General Gordon Community Hospital. Due to the age of the hospital it would in the near future require major maintenance works and this would be very costly and selling of it can give a much needed £25m in times where harsh decisions and cuts are being made where such a spike in expenditure would have to have a strong justification. The biggest downside to closing this hospital is the fact that the hospital is the only one in the northern part of the district and so the key services it offers such as x-rays, physiotherapy and outpatient treatment would be far away from many patients however most people would also be able to travel to an alternative clinic due to the increased use of cars and incentive that is free use of public transport for the elderly. There are still available at other hospitals and centres/clinics in Loamshire therefore should not be the sole reason for objection to this option. In the long term this option is more beneficial as it saves money not only now by in the future years.
I didn’t choose option 2 as it has the largest number of potential job cuts than any other scheme which due to this will lead to the union being hostile. It also brings a delay to the treatments for the patients of Loamshire District in the short term. Option 3 was rejected as it actually affects people’s lives and ‘you can’t put a price on a person’s life’, the unbalance of equity could potentially lead to more medical complications for those who continue to use the NHS ward. Morally it isn’t right to let one person who is willing to pay for the treatments have it and a person who really needs it, not have it due to high costs which results in a longer waiting time.
by
vutantruong (student)
