Sunday, 15 July 2012

The English Health Service And Privatisation



'The Department of Health has appointed Lazard, an investment bank, to explore a privatisation of Plasma Resources UK (PRUK) in a move that could raise tens of millions of pounds for the taxpayer' states Sky News.

For the taxpayer?  Will the taxpayers have any say in whether they want blood plasma products privatised?  Of course not.

Will privatisation make the service more efficient?  If G4S is an example then no.

Often I consider myself fortunate to live in a rural area where change happens very slowly.  This morning I consider myself fortunate to live in a country where politicians appear to understand privatisation is not always the answer to our woes.

Does this mean blood donors will be paid for their donations?  Surely the DoH doesn't expect the public to donate their blood free to a private company.  If that is the case PSUK may be in for a surprise because I doubt if many will be happy to give their blood so as a large organisation and its shareholders can  benefit financially.

10 comments:

Apogee said...

Of course there is the American example of drug addicts using blood sold to blood banks as income and contaminated blood becoming the result.

BJ said...

Apogee was there before me SR.

Thanks for the heads up.

Of course, what they'll do is 'separate' the donation from the service they provide.

"Someone has to collect it - why not a private body."

JRB said...

As well as posing interesting political and financial questions, your piece raises some interesting moral and ethical questions, as yet unanswered either by PRUK, the NHS or the powers that be.

Whilst the basic rules and regulations re: blood products are controlled by Europe, the government’s advisory committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO) is specifically responsible for policy relating to blood donations.

If a private company is to take over the sourcing and supply of blood products will the same SaBTO ethical and moral standards and the strict rules they impose surrounding blood donations still apply, or will ‘commercial’ expedience overrule these ethical and moral standards.

This proposal raises more questions than it answers.

tris said...

Isn't this only in England?

subrosa said...

Oh Apogee I'd forgotten about that.

subrosa said...

I expect that's how they'll do it BJ. This hasn't become headline news though. I wonder why.

subrosa said...

JRB, thank you for your insightful information. I couldn't find any answers to your queries.

subrosa said...

I'm not too sure Tris as the company is called PRUK. JRB gives insight in his post so I assume it applies to Scotland too.

Brian said...

Rosie,
The system of regulation and oversight is shown here.
The creation of PRUK and its incipient sale is due to the same EU hatred of organisations linked to a single national state - hence the Post Office sell off. PRUK will have multinational private sector status (for whom the EU is run). It will probably be rebranded as Viscera after its sale

subrosa said...

Brian, why didn't I find that page when I googled? Thanks very much.

Interesting they say it's slightly different in Scotland but don't say why.

Related Posts with Thumbnails