GPs are the very personification of the description ‘jack of all trades, master of none’. Following so-called ‘specialist’ training, they emerge as the ultimate generalists, requiring additional input to manage any kind of medical complication, lacking the in-depth knowledge and experience required to manage comprehensively many of the common medical conditions. And they’re a drain on the public purse thanks to their six-figure salaries.
They barely spend more than a few minutes with each patient, don’t usually work nights or weekends and then complain when those patients express dissatisfaction with said service. They are also responsible for a glut of hospital referrals – particularly to cancer services where they divert resources from those that need them to the ‘worried well’, thus driving up waiting lists.
Not content with causing all this trouble, they then take early retirement or emigrate to sunnier climes.
In an age where knowledge is exploding and accessible to all online, with increasing sub- and super-subspecialisation, why do we need to waste resources on pure generalists who will simply refer patients on? Why not save the money wasted on their education and health budgets and remove the middle man, thus giving patients more choice and eradicating an extraneous layer of non-essential medical management?
That got your attention, didn’t it?
The fact of the matter is that, in a publicly funded healthcare system, GPs are akin to the Finder on a Mac or Windows Explorer on a PC.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in