How Women Doctors Destroyed Health Care in Britain
Dr Vernon Coleman
No other doctor in Britain will ever dare agree with the headline to this article but in their hearts both male and female doctors know that I am right.
All the current problems with the health service in the UK are a result of the deliberate increase in the number of women in medicine.
Inevitably, no one will debate this statement with me. But nor can they dispute what I am about to tell you.
First, a political decision was taken, half a century ago, to increase the number of female doctors. Medical schools were told to favour female applicants over male applicants when selecting potential medical students.
Second, many of the female doctors chose to go into general practice because it is easier to work part time as a GP than it is to work part time as a hospital consultant.
Third, female doctors didn’t want to do night calls or weekend ends or to work on bank holidays. They claimed that they had babies and children to care for and that they would not be safe if they had to make home visits at night.
Fourth, for the same reason of safety, female doctors wanted to stop doing home visits.
Fifth, with more female doctors in general practice (many of them working part time) there weren’t enough male doctors to do all the night calls and weekend calls. And so GPs stopped doing out of hours calls and started to work the same sort of hours as librarians. (Actually, these days the average GP works 24 hours a week – which is considerably less than most librarians.)
Sixth, the absence of GP cover at nights and weekends meant that patients who fell ill at night or at weekends had to call an ambulance, or take themselves to their local accident and emergency department. This dramatically overloaded the ambulance service and the local accident and emergency department.
Seventh, the refusal of GPs to visit patients at home meant that elderly patients had to be kept in hospital than longer than would have been necessary if GPs had still been available to do visits. And so this put pressure on hospital beds.
Eighth, doctors everywhere found that their job satisfaction dropped dramatically. One of the most satisfying parts of a GP’s job used to be visiting patients at night and at weekends – making a diagnosis and providing emergency treatment on the spot. Without this job satisfaction, GPs found themselves becoming little more than dispensers of prescriptions and writers of referral letters to hospitals. (In the same way that pharmacists had become little more than dispensers of packets of pills.) In hospitals, doctors found themselves having to do the jobs GPs used to do.
And thus my case is proved.
Women doctors have not done so deliberately or individually, but as a group they have destroyed health care in the United Kingdom.
And they have, I fear, destroyed it permanently.
For advice on staying alive, please read `Coleman’s Laws’ which is subtitled `Twelve essential medical secrets which could save your life’.
Very hard to make this generalization. My daughter is in med school. She has wanted to be a doctor since she was 8. She wants to help people and is fully aware that if she wants to accomplish this, big pharma cannot become her master. I just don't buy the premise that female doctors have ruined medicine. Big Pharma has ruined medicine and many doctors, both male and female are beholden to their masters.
Hospitals operate like gambling casinos. Gambling casinos make money from gullible people who think they can beat the odds and win. Hospitals make money from gullible people who think drugs, chemo, screening programs, unnecessary surgeries, etc., will save their lives. Gambling casinos let a few people win, hospitals save a few people's life's. In the end, they both are in business to make money or they wouldn't continue to exist.
Spot on Cathleen. Dr. Suzanne Humphries’s bookgoes into some detail and presents much evidence drawn from public records that support your statements. She showed this in Leicestershire (small pox, early 1800s) and Chicago(late 1800s.)
There are many excellent and spot-on points here. The only one I'm conflicted about is this:
"And babies are now more likely to live...because of cleaner drinking water, cleaner air, better sewage disposal and so on."
We have so many pollutants in our air and water nowadays that it's hard to think of them as "cleaner." I don't know if the current state of our water (think flouride, microplastics, etc) and air is doing more harm than good.
A good point, Katherine. Although I think Dr. Coleman is referring to the early 1900's when cities were overcrowded, without much clean drinking water or sewage facilities, and people lived in homes with poor lighting and ventilation, thus many people got sick and died, especially babies. After clean drinking water, sewage systems installed, and better ventilation and lighting in homes, the quality of health improved and people lived longer. But, nowadays, I do agree with you that our drinking water, soil, and foods are full of toxins and all of this is making people unhealthy and sick.
Give chocolate to dogs and they die! Metabolism is different! Creating life saving drugs that don’t work are a successful art form. I’ll say it again! Big Chemo drives Big Agra and Big Medicine is the beneficiary and they stay silent when they should be rallying against a dysfunctional food system!
When I was in school, many years ago, there were more psychology majors than psychologists, by a factor of 10. I am guessing that when the supply so blatantly outweighs the demand, then you must create demand. Enter big Pharma, they have an answer ... anti-depressants that create much more depression and a very willing population to solve their problems with a pill.
I am a Canadian so your triage comment threw me. When you say ‘which patient gets seen today, which next week, and which patient gets seen in a year’ do you mean ‘which patient gets seen next April, which in October, and which patient gets a call three months after they died?’ Sorry, I am confused.
All stacks up. I'm often concerned people die almost immediately after diagnosis. The worst thing for them was the treatment. Ever it happens to me, I'll carry on without interventions thank you. Chemotherapy actually kills fast growing cells indiscriminately [hence rapid hair loss]. How this can possibly benefit the patient is beyond me.
How Women Doctors Destroyed Health Care in Britain
Dr Vernon Coleman
No other doctor in Britain will ever dare agree with the headline to this article but in their hearts both male and female doctors know that I am right.
All the current problems with the health service in the UK are a result of the deliberate increase in the number of women in medicine.
Inevitably, no one will debate this statement with me. But nor can they dispute what I am about to tell you.
First, a political decision was taken, half a century ago, to increase the number of female doctors. Medical schools were told to favour female applicants over male applicants when selecting potential medical students.
Second, many of the female doctors chose to go into general practice because it is easier to work part time as a GP than it is to work part time as a hospital consultant.
Third, female doctors didn’t want to do night calls or weekend ends or to work on bank holidays. They claimed that they had babies and children to care for and that they would not be safe if they had to make home visits at night.
Fourth, for the same reason of safety, female doctors wanted to stop doing home visits.
Fifth, with more female doctors in general practice (many of them working part time) there weren’t enough male doctors to do all the night calls and weekend calls. And so GPs stopped doing out of hours calls and started to work the same sort of hours as librarians. (Actually, these days the average GP works 24 hours a week – which is considerably less than most librarians.)
Sixth, the absence of GP cover at nights and weekends meant that patients who fell ill at night or at weekends had to call an ambulance, or take themselves to their local accident and emergency department. This dramatically overloaded the ambulance service and the local accident and emergency department.
Seventh, the refusal of GPs to visit patients at home meant that elderly patients had to be kept in hospital than longer than would have been necessary if GPs had still been available to do visits. And so this put pressure on hospital beds.
Eighth, doctors everywhere found that their job satisfaction dropped dramatically. One of the most satisfying parts of a GP’s job used to be visiting patients at night and at weekends – making a diagnosis and providing emergency treatment on the spot. Without this job satisfaction, GPs found themselves becoming little more than dispensers of prescriptions and writers of referral letters to hospitals. (In the same way that pharmacists had become little more than dispensers of packets of pills.) In hospitals, doctors found themselves having to do the jobs GPs used to do.
And thus my case is proved.
Women doctors have not done so deliberately or individually, but as a group they have destroyed health care in the United Kingdom.
And they have, I fear, destroyed it permanently.
For advice on staying alive, please read `Coleman’s Laws’ which is subtitled `Twelve essential medical secrets which could save your life’.
I would like to reply to Dr. Vernon's column here: they did much the same to pharmacists for many of the same reasons, as well.
We have female ob/ Gyn residents who have every excuse in the book to not come to work.
Very hard to make this generalization. My daughter is in med school. She has wanted to be a doctor since she was 8. She wants to help people and is fully aware that if she wants to accomplish this, big pharma cannot become her master. I just don't buy the premise that female doctors have ruined medicine. Big Pharma has ruined medicine and many doctors, both male and female are beholden to their masters.
Doctors haven't been ruined by medicine, it's ruined doctors.
Priceless. If people stayed away from witch doctors the poison producers would go broke. See it is the victims fault.
Well, I don't think we can say it is the victim's fault, till now when you should know better.
Hospitals operate like gambling casinos. Gambling casinos make money from gullible people who think they can beat the odds and win. Hospitals make money from gullible people who think drugs, chemo, screening programs, unnecessary surgeries, etc., will save their lives. Gambling casinos let a few people win, hospitals save a few people's life's. In the end, they both are in business to make money or they wouldn't continue to exist.
Cathleen, that's brilliant.
BRAVO
thank you :-)
Spot on Cathleen. Dr. Suzanne Humphries’s bookgoes into some detail and presents much evidence drawn from public records that support your statements. She showed this in Leicestershire (small pox, early 1800s) and Chicago(late 1800s.)
There are many excellent and spot-on points here. The only one I'm conflicted about is this:
"And babies are now more likely to live...because of cleaner drinking water, cleaner air, better sewage disposal and so on."
We have so many pollutants in our air and water nowadays that it's hard to think of them as "cleaner." I don't know if the current state of our water (think flouride, microplastics, etc) and air is doing more harm than good.
A good point, Katherine. Although I think Dr. Coleman is referring to the early 1900's when cities were overcrowded, without much clean drinking water or sewage facilities, and people lived in homes with poor lighting and ventilation, thus many people got sick and died, especially babies. After clean drinking water, sewage systems installed, and better ventilation and lighting in homes, the quality of health improved and people lived longer. But, nowadays, I do agree with you that our drinking water, soil, and foods are full of toxins and all of this is making people unhealthy and sick.
And living in a time without welfare.
Give chocolate to dogs and they die! Metabolism is different! Creating life saving drugs that don’t work are a successful art form. I’ll say it again! Big Chemo drives Big Agra and Big Medicine is the beneficiary and they stay silent when they should be rallying against a dysfunctional food system!
Thank you again Dr. Vernon Coleman, your books reveal your deep love of humanity. Warmest regards.
When I was in school, many years ago, there were more psychology majors than psychologists, by a factor of 10. I am guessing that when the supply so blatantly outweighs the demand, then you must create demand. Enter big Pharma, they have an answer ... anti-depressants that create much more depression and a very willing population to solve their problems with a pill.
WHOA!
I will read with interest.
I am a Canadian so your triage comment threw me. When you say ‘which patient gets seen today, which next week, and which patient gets seen in a year’ do you mean ‘which patient gets seen next April, which in October, and which patient gets a call three months after they died?’ Sorry, I am confused.
All stacks up. I'm often concerned people die almost immediately after diagnosis. The worst thing for them was the treatment. Ever it happens to me, I'll carry on without interventions thank you. Chemotherapy actually kills fast growing cells indiscriminately [hence rapid hair loss]. How this can possibly benefit the patient is beyond me.
Also, eyeglasses, especially for myopia and astigmatism.
Do Glasses Make Your Vision Worse?
A Survey of Research on Myopia, Visual Environment, and “Corrective” Lenses:
https://i-see.org/myopia_correction.html