doctors

Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton says he still plans to show up in East Lansing, Mich., next Tuesday. But if he does, it looks as if the Arkansas governor will be making a solo appearance rather than confronting President Bush face to face as the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates had hoped. The commission’s terms for debate have been rejected by the Bush campaign, forcing cancellation of next week’s encounter and quite possibly of the two others the commission has tried to arrange. Partisans can argue who gains from all this. What ought to be clear to everyone is that voters are the big losers.

The commission, headed by former Democratic Party chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr. and former Republican Party chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., was formed in 1987 with the idea of taking all the partisan squabbling out of debate arrangements.

The commission proposed three 90-minute presidential debates and one debate between the vice presidential candidates, with questions put by a single moderator. Clinton accepted; Bush wants questions to be asked by a panel of journalists. That latter format allows–almost requires–shorter answers while cutting down on the opportunity for follow-up questions aimed at drawing out precise rather than general responses. By insisting on playing by its rules or refusing to play at all, the Bush camp is negating the bipartisan commission’s purpose.

FORUM OF IDEAS: Voters lose, because here for the first time in this campaign would have been a chance to gauge the candidates’ ideas for dealing with the nation’s problems through something other than carefully prepared formal statements or sound bites largely without content.

Here would have been a chance to see how well Bush and Clinton do on their feet, not just in brief responses and retorts, but in sustained exposition. Anyone who doubts that there is a public hunger for serious talk about serious problems, and a disgust with the glitz and sloganeering that most campaigning has become, is not reading the popular mood accurately.

Certainly Ross Perot sensed that hunger, which is why he encouraged a movement in his name, and certainly he senses it still, which is why as he told The Times this week he may reactivate his campaign. Perot’s biggest complaint is that neither Bush nor Clinton is talking about how he would control the swelling federal deficit, arguably the greatest drag on economic growth. He’s right; the candidates are ducking the issue, because if they were to take it on honestly they would be forced to speak about what is conventionally regarded as politically unspeakable. They would have to tell voters that the deficit can be controlled only by cutting spending, which means reducing a lot of government programs people cherish, or by increasing revenues, which means raising taxes. They won’t say that. Perot would, and in doing so he might just force Bush and Clinton finally to get specific about the deficit crisis.

TIME OF TWISTS: That would be one more twist in a campaign year that can already be seen as one of the most unusual in modern times. Two major developments are already apparent: the reshuffle facing Congress–especially the House, where come January as much as one-third of the membership may be new–and the large number of women who have entered contests for state and national offices and the large number who at this point stand a good chance at election in November. A record 11, for example, have already won primaries for Senate seats.

There will be no end to analyses about what it all means, but some preliminary judgments can be made right now. People seem increasingly to have gone from being cynical about the political process to being angry.

Incumbents are one evident target of this anger, while women candidates benefit because, among other reasons, many of them tend to be relatively new entrants into the political arena. It would be comforting to think that the shallowness and dishonesty of so much of what passes for political discourse have become no less a target of righteous public wrath. Certainly that would be one of the most positive things to take place in our political life in a very long time.

In a healthcare system devastated by Israel’s genocidal war where medical supplies are few, doctors are turning to 3D printers powered by solar energy to treat some injuries in Gaza. Al Jazeera’s Hind Khoudary took a closer look.

Young resident doctors have gone on strike in the UK, demanding better pay and more training positions that will allow them to continue in their field. Al Jazeera’s Sonia Gallego explains this is the 14th such strike in recent years.

The British Medical Association is calling for improved pay and an increase in available jobs for qualified doctors.

Resident doctors in England have begun a five-day strike in a long-running dispute over pay and working conditions.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer addressed the strike during Prime Minister’s Questions in parliament on Wednesday, describing the walkout as “dangerous and utterly irresponsible”.

“My message to resident doctors is: don’t abandon patients,” Starmer said. He urged them to “work with us to improve conditions and rebuild the NHS”.

The prime minister also blamed the previous Conservative government for leaving the National Health Service “absolutely on its knees”.

The doctors, formerly known as junior doctors and accounting for nearly half of England’s medical workforce, walked out at 07:00 GMT on Wednesday. The strike is due to continue until 07:00 GMT on Monday.

The strike follows an online ballot organised by the British Medical Association (BMA), the union representing resident doctors. About 30,000 members voted to reject the government’s proposal, triggering the industrial action.

Jack Fletcher, a BMA representative, said the dispute centred on two main issues: pay and a lack of jobs for qualified doctors.

“There is a jobs crisis, where doctors are trained but unable to secure roles, and there is a pay crisis,” Fletcher said while standing on a picket line outside St Thomas’ Hospital in London.

“We must value our doctors in this country,” he added. “Last year, more doctors left the profession than at any point in the past decade.”

The strike comes as the NHS faces increased pressure, with flu-related hospitalisations in England rising by more than 50 percent in early December. Health authorities across Europe have also warned of an unusually early and severe flu season.

NHS England said fewer doctors than usual would be on duty during the strike period, with staff required to prioritise life-saving care.

The BMA is calling for what it describes as a “genuinely long-term plan” to address pay, after years of below-inflation rises. It is also demanding the creation of new training posts, rather than what it says are recycled positions, to allow doctors to specialise and progress.

The government’s most recent offer, made last week, did not include new pay terms. Shortly after taking office, Health Secretary Wes Streeting agreed to a deal offering a 22 percent pay rise, below the 29 percent sought by the union.

Doctors are seeking “full pay restoration”, calling for salaries to return to their 2008 and 2009 levels in real terms after years of erosion by inflation.

Physicians are seeking a return of salaries to their 2008-2009 levels before they were eroded by inflation.

Resident doctors in England will go ahead with a five-day strike this week after rejecting the government’s latest offer aimed at ending a long-running dispute over pay and working conditions.

Formerly known as junior doctors, the physicians, who make up nearly half of England’s medical workforce, will walk out from 07:00 GMT on Wednesday until 07:00 GMT next Monday.

The action follows an online survey by the British Medical Association (BMA) in which members voted to reject the proposal.

“Tens of thousands of frontline doctors have come together to say ‘no’ to what is clearly too little, too late,” BMA resident doctors committee chairman Jack Fletcher said in a statement, adding that members had rejected the government’s latest offer on working conditions.

Fletcher said the union remained willing to work towards a resolution.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting appealed to doctors to call off the strike.

“There is no need for these strikes to go ahead this week, and it reveals the BMA’s shocking disregard for patient safety,” he said, describing the action as “self-indulgent, irresponsible and dangerous”.

Speaking to Sky News, Streeting said the government was open to the BMA rescheduling the strike to reduce risks to patients during a surge in flu cases.

Flu-related hospitalisations in England rose by more than 50 percent in early December, reaching an average of 2,660 patients a day, the highest level for this time of year. Health leaders have warned there is still no clear peak in sight.

Across Europe, health authorities are grappling with an unusually early and severe flu season, warning of rising cases across the continent.

The BMA said 83 percent of resident doctors voted to reject the government’s offer with a turnout of 65 percent among its more than 50,000 members.

The offer, made on Wednesday, did not include new pay terms. The BMA has been campaigning for improved pay even before the Labour Party won last year’s general election.

Shortly after taking office, Streeting agreed a deal offering doctors a 22 percent pay rise, short of the 29 percent sought by the union.

The BMA has also called for improvements beyond the 5.4 percent pay increase announced earlier this year, arguing resident doctors continue to suffer from years of pay erosion.

Doctors are seeking “full pay restoration”, meaning a return of salaries to their 2008-2009 levels in real terms before they were eroded by inflation.