Francis Maude abandons Crawley Down constituents again by once more saying ‘NO’ to backing ‘The Dispense with the Law Campaign’

 

In the House of Lords, on 16th May, Earl Howe made this statement:

“My Lords, there is a balance of interests here, not least the interests of the patient. We therefore need a set of rules which reflects those interests. Patients who live in a rural area can be dispensed to by their GP if there is no pharmacy within 1.6 kilometers of where the patient lives, or within 1.6 kilometers of the GP practice. Without these rules, it would rarely be viable for new pharmacies to open to serve rural areas” (see Earl Howe lets the Cat out of the Bag post).

Despite this crystal clear evidence being put before Mr Maude, in this letter to him (see link) proving, that the Government is and has been practicing ‘selection against’ a minority section of the population, i.e. those burdened by the imposition of 1.6km rule in order to make community pharmacies financially viable he answered with this (see link again) in which you will see he says ”I read your comments very carefully but I did not see anything that has led me to change my position on this matter.”

That is why this post is entitled:

Francis Maude abandons Crawley Down constituents again by once more saying ‘NO’ to backing ‘The Dispense with the Law Campaign’

Unbelievable but true!

Get the full story by following this link http://dispensingdoctorscampaign.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/francis-maude-again-says-no-and-abandons-his-constituents-at-the-crawley-down-health-centre/

A big thank you to all 231 of you who signed the first, paper petition, (Francis Maude has a copy of it), and then went on to sign the e-petition.

However, fear not, the battle continues.  More will be revealed in due course!

Peter

4 comments to Francis Maude abandons Crawley Down constituents again by once more saying ‘NO’ to backing ‘The Dispense with the Law Campaign’

  • E Meeus

    Francis Maude is concerned with nothing other than what is best for Frances Maude, this is not the first and I’m sure not the last time he will not do what is best for Crawley Down.

    • Peter Dodds

      Sadly I’m afraid I have to agree with you. He will do nothing other than toe the Party Line. Earl Howe is the main culprit though as he is the minister in charge of this matter. If you read my blog:
      http://dispensingdoctorscampaign.wordpress.com
      you will see that I have destroyed every argument he has put up to maintain the status quo and has even admitted in the House of Lords that the regulations are really there to provide a guaranteed stream of income in the shape of enforced prescription business to a community pharmacy from those of us unlucky enough to live within 1.6km of the pharmacy premises without which, he says, they could not survive. Having been defeated by common sense and cogent argument he, Francis Maude and the Government refuse to talk about it any more!
      I’m all for the village having a pharmacy but it must be funded in a democratic way and not by selection against a section of the patient population on the basis of where they live.

  • I am amazed that this debate is still going on.

    The patient population of Crawley Down, along with the rest of the country, had the opportunity to vote in favour of the well publicised ‘dispensing doctors campaign’but chose not to.

    Perhaps the population are not so concerned as first thought.

    • Peter Dodds

      I don’t think the 231 patients from the surgery who signed the manuscript petition which I handed over to Francis Maude would be ‘amazed’ to hear that the debate continues. Similarly unamazed would be the 89% of patients polled in a DDA survey who are not eligible to receive dispensing doctor services but would like to have the option to do so.

      The measure of patient concern cannot be judged by how well the e-petition did because this is merely a quotient of how difficult it is to alert the patient population to what is going on when the national press is not involved.

      So, surprising as it might seem to some, the debate is continuing, especially in Scotland where the rules are a little different but have a similar effect, and where it is now a very hot political potato. In England and Wales new moves are under consideration.

      Peter