Public consultants doing private work

I know how the system works.

What we're talking about here is the consultants contract - other hospital costs are a discussion for another day.

A private consultant DOES attend the birth. If the birth occurs during the consultants working day, then it takes him away from his public duties - which he is contracted to do.

Are we 100% sure that the public only consultants in the Rotunda are doing private work only outside the Rotunda and only outside of their normal work hours? And are they adhering to the working week limits in the OWTA?

If Patient A has greater needs than Patient B, and Doctor Y is a better doctor than Doctor X (seeing at Y has private patients, that is possible) there is an unfair outcome, and we have money buying health treatment not needs.

That is fine in a fully private context, but where the taxpayer is covering costs, including the indemnity costs, and it is happening in public facilities, that is completely unacceptable.

If consultants want to treat private patients, build a private maternity hospital.

Well done Minister Mc Neill

It cannot be done in the premises of the public hospital nor with the benefit of the state indemnity. Nothing pre Jude’s a public only consultant from undertaking this work in his/her own time outside the public hospital.

Could it not be said that private /semi private care and the charges attached are in actual fact subsidising public beds in Maternity hospitals.

Having both public and private on the same campus - creating centres of maternity excellence for all would surely benefit mothers and babies - Public and private.

Could it be that this battle is much more about a powerful bureaucracy pressurising a working hospital of long standing quality for nothing more than to be seen to get its own way - to introduce ill worked out changes that will effect generations of women and babies.

Nope, that cannot be said that private is subsidising public in maternity hospitals.

If consultants want to deliver private maternity care, they can do so in a private hospital. No private hospital will do it because of the cost of indemnity insurance which demonstrates that public is subsidising private if private is allowed in public hospitals.

Once again.

This has nothing to do with gender, right to care or access to care. Want to go private? Fine but it should not be during consultants public contractually agreed hours or on publicly funded rooms whilst being covered by public insurance (Tax payers).

The taxpayer should not be on the hook for a a few millions worth relating to just one case done privately outside of the consultants public hours.

Saint Carmels closed for this exact reason - indemnity unsurance for mat care is through the roof and for good reason.

Why should tax payers fund/subsidise private care?

As John Doe pointed out, the Minister is also a women so you can lay off the 'men deciding womens healthcare' line.

Private means private (fully funded - no taxpayer involved). Not semi private/part private or whatever sh*tshow of a poorly defined system we have no.

The national interest? This is very far from the national interest unless removing choice, inflicting stress and possibly distress on many many women already in a challenging situation being pregnant is “in the national interest”. It’s pretty disgusting to read the responses I can’t explain strongly enough how important private care was for us and it’s absolutely sickening to see it being removed as an option for women in future (as luckily it will be around for as long as consultants on legacy contracts are).

This argument over insurance is just plain wrong also - for one who cares and secondly the person is in a public hospital so why would they not be covered by the insurance in the public hospital. There is no babies being delivered outside of public hospitals, supported by public staff. I will say again the private part of the care is is scans and appointments in the consultants private clinic in the lead up to the birth - the birth is no different to a public patient except you are under the care of your consultant rather than whatever random one is on duty that day.

The argument over insurance isn't wrong, it is why there are no private maternity hospitals. If your private consultant makes a mistake, the State picks up the tab, that is wrong.

I can't explain how sickening it is to see people demand that they get the right to buy better health care in a public hospital over those who deserve that health care more. It is disgusting and horrific that a woman under public care in distress and at risk of dying giving birth can have the consultant taken away because the woman in private care with a perfectly normal birth is entitled to have her consultant with her, that is what you are defending.

A baseless sensationalist scenario made up for impact.

Unless the public system can offer a service comparable to going private then you absolutely should be able to pay for what’s best for you and your family. Anyone who wishes can avail of a private consultant if they want to.

Except in this case, the doctor is working a public shift so that's not really acceptable in any job to operate like that. You're in the public system so you should be treated as such rather than getting priority from somebody on shift. It's a very entitled attitude to think that priority is remotely okay.