The MTAS judicial review began today in the High Court, and the early word is encouraging; it seems the case has been put forward in a very clear and precise manner by the Remedy lawyer, hopefully in such a way that the government newspeak will have been blown out of the water. We should not get carried away yet, there is a long way to go. There are updates available on the Remedy site.
The BMA continues to peddle its own particular brand of apologetic nonsense:
"A judge is deciding whether to hear a legal challenge into the online application process, which was effectively abandoned by health secretary Patricia Hewitt earlier this week."
Errrr No. The challenge is to the unfairness of the process, whether online or not, at least get your facts right.
"During the hearing BMA leaders will counter claims that they were ‘hopelessly compromised’ in their response to the review group recommendations by being a member of the review group."
I wonder how they will do this, more lying?
"Junior doctors and consultants leaders have said criticisms of the BMA ’s response to the recruitment crisis were ‘wholly misconceived’."
Errrrrrr, where on earth have they plucked this one from? It is simply astonishing that the BMA assumes it can just speak for people without even asking or knowing what they think.
"Dr Hilborne said it would have been inconceivable to consult with the 32,000 affected doctors given the practicalities of such an exercise and, in particular, the urgency of the review.
She said the BMA was never consulted on the aspects of the MTAS system under scrutiny and so had no responsibility for its failure."
This is typical of the BMA. It is 'inconceivable' to consult their members, this should not be the case, especially in this electronic day and age. It is astonishing that they are claiming that they have no responsibility for MTAS' failure. They have been involved in MTAS and MMC from the early days, they must shoulder some of the blame. The most pathetic thing is that the BMA does not even contemplate that it could unilaterally withdraw from certain government schemes to best represent their members' views, it does not even cross their apologetic minds. There is an excellent exposeehere on the BMA's rank inconsitency that borders on treachery.
Meanwhile an official statement from the wonderful MMC team reveals what I suspected yesterday:
"If successful at interview, some candidates will receive more than one offer."
The indecision continues, the situation for applicants is currently as clear as mud, the system is still riddled with errors and inconsistencies. Nigel Hawkes in the Times outlines the 'sinister' nature of the MTAS process. There are also some mutterings over illegal access to MTAS; the incompetence of the MTAS security and the ridiculous way the government is trying to exploit the law are well explained here. Prof Morris Brown etal have published the very revealing results of their MTAS survey in the Lancet this week:
"Both MMC and MTAS (as currently conceived) are unnecessary and disastrous. Our evidence should steel consultants to stay out of interview chambers, and our paladins to earn their spurs by cutting their strings to the Department of Health. You, the chairmen of two Quangos, PMETB and the Review Body, can stop this madness tomorrow. On behalf of our profession and our patients, we ask you to heed the majority and say, “Enough!” "
Prof Morris Brown has assembled a group of medical heavyweights who have put forward a devastatingly powerful argument against MMC and MTAS. They are fighting for the majority of the medical profession and for the NHS' patients of the future. They argue that MMC is like a malignant cancer that is threatening to eat away at what remains of good medical training, the short sighted motive is the creation of an incompetent serf-like sub consultant grade. Indeed enough is enough.