Scrubbing up: Your comments

In this week's Scrubbing Up Dr Alan Maryon-Davies, President of the UK Faculty of Public Health, says the UK should protect preventative healthcare from serious budget cuts despite the economic downturn. To do otherwise, he argued, would be "short-sighted folly".

What do you think? Here are some of the comments you have been sending to this week's Scrubbing Up.

YOUR COMMENTS

Who are the people responsible for making these decisions, they're obviously money not health oriented and yet their decisions will cost more money in the long term. A stitch in time saves nine springs to mind. Don't blame the public for using A&E though, here in West Wales doctors refuse to come out after hours and they tell you that if you think it's serious and can't drive yourself to hospital (a bit stupid really as you may be a danger to other road users) then dial 999.

Guto Evans, Cardigan

It is possible to make cuts in the NHS. Fat cat executives, we dont need them. We need to stop providing ALL cosmetic surgery free on the NHS. Including operations to correct self inflicted problems and alcohol abuse - make them pay, it will soon change people's ways.

Martin Beynon, Milton Keynes

Absolutely preventative health is way to go. The problem is the payback could be 50 years or more. So the government can cut it back easily and still claim they haven't cut NHS spending. The health of people is key for efficient, productive and future growth of the country.

Lixxie, Glasgow

£350 million spent on management consultants in the NHS each year. That would be a good start. Next moving on the layers of dead wood management and non-jobs. Visit an NHS hospital and see the plush offices of the managers and compare that to the money being spent on the front line down in A+E or on wards. There is plenty of money that can be saved in the NHS. Problem is the managers will save themselves and make cuts in services that are needed.

John, Cheshire

Preventative health care is an absolute necessity, as is the education of people with regard to healthy living. These two projects are long term and the results will not be seen immediately, however future generations will benefit greatly, as will the country. If cuts are to be made, why should this not come from the handouts given to other countries, i.e. the £5 million that Brown has promised Zimbabwe. Unfortunately this money will not go the people who need it, it will line the pockets of government officials - again. £5 million would be put to far better use here at home, after all charity does begin at home.

Karen Cummins, Corby, Northants

Preventive healthcare is a better investment than attempting a cure. Unfortunately the most likely to benefit clients are the most resistant to change. It would be shameful if the already meagre budget for this facet of medicine was reduced. What change did smoking reduction produce? I rest my case....

Mike Brookes, Rochdale, Lancs

The priority of the NHS should be to cure disease and repair injuries. Health Education belongs in schools and the media. The point is - anybody but a fool knows that smoking and excessive drinking of alcohol is dangerous to health. So is mountain climbing and yachting. All these NHS ancillaries do is waste money telling us what we already know, and they give birth to a plethora of agencies whose sole purpose appears to be to interfere with our lives to eliminate the slightest risk. The doctor cures and repairs, the nurse medicates and gives care. To use an analogy, it is enough for the chef to prepare and cook the sea bass. He does not need to know how to skipper the trawler that catches the fish.

Stephen Robey, Harwich UK

The first thing I would cut would be IVF. How can that be essential? One thing I worry about in this article is the "spend more on keeping people healthy, spend less on patching up people who are already ill". There's a danger that what you say here could be taken to mean "abandon those with no hope", like terminal cancer patients, and indeed, the aging population you mention who may have long term health problems.

Jane, Glasgow, Scotland

I work for a healthy and sustainable food initiative, a partnership between the NHS and many other statutory, community and business organisations. We encourage communities to grow their own food then cook and eat it. The idea that such initiatives can be considered "soft" targets for any proposed cuts denies the hard, well researched evidence, showing the undeniable benefits that such activities make to physical, mental, social and even economic well being. Engaging in community led food growing and consumption as well as learning cooking skills is preventative medicine. A more holistic, ecological take on public health. Cutting such initiatives is a false economy as the NHS will end up paying a few years down the line when the already huge burden of non-communicable food related diseases comes to a head. I'm glad you're fighting our (UK citizens) corner Dr Maryon-Davis!

Leon Ballin, Nottingham, UK

Your phrase, "the army of health service planners and commissioners", says it all. This is where the savings can be made. So much of government expenditure goes on people who don't really contribute anything beneficial, so why don't we find something more worthwhile for them to do? This applies generally not just in the NHS.
Charles Booth, Brynford, Flintshire

It's time people realised the cost of ill health to the NHS, preventive healthcare isn't rocket science....yet as the doctor suggests, millions are spent on treating, rather than promoting! My background is in health, over 26 years of treating and watching people die from chronic liver disease, lung cancer and relatives wondering how their loved one could be going for heart surgery at 40! Now in the last years working in public health and seeing the benefit from delivering and managing health improvement programmes, it is short sighted to cut the very services that make life changing impacts. For all those who bang on about stop smoking services being a waste of time...tell that to the thousands over 8 years who have added years to their lives and in some cases been around to survive their triple bypass operation! My plea to any government is to seriously think of the risk .... pulling these strategies will result in a public health time bomb! To the high level decision makers please be realistic and brave!

Jenny, Southend

It would be interesting to see a study on the success of the health promotion campaigns that you are so vigorously defending. Despite all the initiatives already in place, as a nation we continue to become ever more obese, alcohol consumption continues to spiral upwards and understanding of sexual health issues remains low. We all have a duty to take care of our own health, but there is inevitably a percentage of the population who will continue with practices detrimental to their well-being, whatever the message that is sent out. I would not support an argument that wants to protect health PR, at the expense of frontline medical staff, drug availability or the delivery of healthcare at the point of need. Instead we should look at the stratospheric rise in administrative staff and duties, created by the last ten years of government initiatives, which have placed an intolerable burden on all staff.
Nick, Cheltenham