Abstract
We thank Patel 1 for eloquently detailing the foundations of an argument for an independent NHS. As Medical and Law undergraduates, we feel this has reopened a Pandora’s box of much-needed debate. While the topic is vast and our Letter short, we wish to present further points for consideration.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed NHS shortcomings in its inability to adapt to stresses of this magnitude, to protect both patients and staff. 2 Having time and again been used as a political pawn, the NHS has been brutally kicked around, arguably rendering it too weary to continue as a public body.
Patel’s article makes the comparison between the judiciary protecting human rights and the NHS protecting human lives. However, it does not consider that these issues are heavily intertwined. The right to life is the most fundamental human right, with no derogations permissible. Additionally, the right to health is protected under Article 12 of the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These strengthen Patel’s argument for an independent NHS. Indeed its removal from Government hands would serve to recognise the NHS as a fundamental British institution that protects our health, just as the judiciary protects our rights.
In the Editorial associated with Patel’s article, Abbasi comments that ‘the practicalities [of an independent NHS] seem impossible to navigate’. 3 Indeed Patel’s essay does not provide acknowledgement that regardless of whether it becomes independent, the NHS will always remain a political issue; the NHS is after all, politics’ child. While the judiciary is independent under the separation of powers, the Supreme Court still rules on extremely prominent political issues. Similarly, the NHS will remain subject to political scrutiny and pressure.
The issue of NHS independence is complex and ongoing, and is likely to continue well into our careers as a doctor and lawyer.