If you continue without changing your settings, we’ll assume you’re happy to receive all cookies from the BMA website. Find out more about cookies
When you visit any web site, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalised web experience.
Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms.
You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.
These cookies are required
These cookies allow us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information we collect is anonymous unless you actively provide personal information to us.
If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.
These cookies allow a website to remember choices you make (such as your user name, language or the region you're in) and tailor the website to provide enhanced features and content for you.
For example, they can be used to remember certain log-in details, changes you've made to text size, font and other parts of pages that you can customise. They may also be used to provide services you've asked for such as watching a video or commenting on a blog. These cookies may be used to ensure that all our services and communications are relevant to you. The information these cookies collect cannot track your browsing activity on other websites.
Without these cookies, a website cannot remember choices you've previously made or personalise your browsing experience meaning you would have to reset these for every visit. In addition, some functionality may not be available if this category is switched off.
Our websites sometimes integrate with other companies’ sites. For example, we integrate with social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, to make it easier for you to share what you have read. These sites place their own cookies on your browser as a result of us including their icons and ‘like’ or ‘share’ buttons on our sites.
The GMC says that one of the primary duties of a doctor is to be ‘open, honest and [act] with integrity’. Whatever your reservations about the GMC, this is very hard to disagree with. Naturally, everyone would wish doctors to be honest and truthful, and the damage that can result when they aren’t is potentially profound.
I’ve never met a doctor who would deny that it is their duty to be honest. Sure, we may all have slightly different thresholds concerning telling the whole truth – is our confident reassurance to a dangerously-ill patient always strictly truthful? – but very few of us would be willing to tell an outright lie.
Or so you might think. Now, kindly turn to your hospital’s blood transfusion policy. Most hospitals require that before blood can be issued for transfusion, two samples for crossmatching must be supplied, taken by different individuals on separate occasions.
This is national guidance and has been shown to improve transfusion practice. (The direct evidence that it actually improves outcomes seems pretty limited – two single-centre observational studies– but leave that to one side for now.)
In lots of cases, the two-samples rule works fine. It’s not a big deal to obtain a second blood sample from a reasonably healthy elective patient. But for people with learning disabilities, young children, needle-phobic adults, or those unlucky enough to have difficult access, a second episode of venepuncture can be a very big deal indeed.
Where taking blood involves physical restraint or sedation – and when the patient doesn’t understand what’s being done to them it sometimes does, despite Ametop and distraction – repeating the process can seem like needless cruelty.
The Secret Doctor values their GMC number and therefore for the purposes of this article has never taken two crossmatch samples simultaneously and podded them to the lab half-an-hour apart, with different signatures on the tubes. But I have certainly heard of it being done, by colleagues about whose integrity I otherwise do not have the slightest doubt.
Were they wrong? If they were, what should they have done instead? Strict honesty clearly requires that they undertake venepuncture twice, but if that was your screaming two-year-old, or your terrified autistic sister, being held down, what would you want them to do?
The result is that large numbers of doctors and nurses end up, essentially, lying. Most of them feel bad about it, but they’d feel even worse about the alternative. Surely, any rule or system which forces people into either dishonesty or (as they see it) acting against a patient’s best interests can’t be right? We need to give senior clinicians the flexibility to make exceptions, even to the most well-intentioned rule.
By the Secret Doctor. Read the blog and follow @TheSecretDr on Twitter and on Facebook
Totally agree! Another recurring example is moving to a new hospital trust with no ability to log in to any of the vital systems required for weeks on end despite starting on call duties immediately. We are explicitly told not to share, or use shared, log in details, but cannot work without doing so. Rules need to reflect the working reality or they are of no use whatsoever and put us at risk.