Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Guest

Female Doctors Put Nhs Under 'tremendous Burden' Because They Get Married, Have Children And Want To Work Part-Time

Recommended Posts

There's no way in the world I would ever employ a woman of child-bearing age.

I would say the same but in practice for certain jobs that will be all the half-decent applicants that you get.

You should apply my test before recruiting them though Harry. Try to pull them and if they turn you down they must be a lesbian so won't be having any time off to have kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see that it's a problem, don't you just need to train more doctors to compensate?

Do doctors pay for their own training now like most students, or is it subsidised? If they don't, then there's the answer.

Edited by SpectrumFX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The glaringly obvious answer is that men should be doctors, and women should be mothers, like it was when I was a child. Not just for doctoring but in every field of work. Then, instead of a house costing two people's salary, it would only cost one person's salary.

Women fought for the right to work, and they won the obligation to work. Well done girls! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is, it's in society's interest for intelligent people to be able to have and look after children while performing skilled work, but it is not in an employer's interest to employ people who are likely to take time off to look after a family. The logical and fair way to deal with this is for the government to compensate employers for any losses incurred as a result of maternity/paternity obligations at a level that is sufficient to cancel out the risk of employing such people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the government to compensate employers

Government? You make it sound as though the Government has a pot of money somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The glaringly obvious answer is that men should be doctors, and women should be mothers, like it was when I was a child. Not just for doctoring but in every field of work. Then, instead of a house costing two people's salary, it would only cost one person's salary.

Women fought for the right to work, and they won the obligation to work. Well done girls! ;)

How about forbidding anyone from working? Then houses would be free!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The logical and fair way to deal with this is for the government to compensate employers for any losses incurred as a result of maternity/paternity obligations

Using whose money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about forbidding anyone from working? Then houses would be free!

Well no, because you need men to build houses, women sure as shit don't build them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well no, because you need men to build houses, women sure as shit don't build them.

No, they generally tend towards the more intellectual careers. My missus was a scientist working for an international company, and my sister-in-law is a doctor. You'd have that talent wasted? Not to mention the unfairness of prohibiting people from earning their own wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is, it's in society's interest for intelligent people to be able to have and look after children while performing skilled work, but it is not in an employer's interest to employ people who are likely to take time off to look after a family. The logical and fair way to deal with this is for the government to compensate employers for any losses incurred as a result of maternity/paternity obligations at a level that is sufficient to cancel out the risk of employing such people.

What on earth makes you think it is fair that the tax payer compensates an employer because one of the staff gets knocked up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see that it's a problem, don't you just need to train more doctors to compensate?

Do doctors pay for their own training now like most students, or is it subsidised? If they don't, then there's the answer.

It's not quite that simple. There is a very serious "deskilling" problem if doctors spend a significant period of time out of work. The work needs to be done regularly and with sufficient intensity to retain competence. After a long period of absence (e.g. maternity), it's quite common to require a doctor to have to be supervised for a period, until their competence can be confirmed. There is the added problem, that there are difficulties in simply employing more doctors to "cover" for expected long-term absence, as this dilutes the experience of the whole cohort. The GMC has suggested that a doctor that works fewer than about 25 hours per week, is at significant risk of having their license withdrawn, due to lack of ongoing experience.

The other issue is that not all doctors are necessarily interchangeable with each other. There is specialisation into individual fields, and then subspecialisation. For example, a general surgeon is often easily replaceable. A surgeon specialising in liver transplants, however, if they go, then the hospital has a big problem. There isn't scope to increase the number of trainees in this field; the field is already small, and everyone will likely already have a permanent job. An agency would be unlikely to be able to supply a suitably qualified doctor on a contractor (locum) basis and a formal recruitment could take over a year, due to lack of qualified people.

We are already seeing the effect on medical training, where junior doctors hours have been slashed, leading to problems with insufficiently experienced doctors taking senior posts.

Yes. Student doctors do pay for their training. 6 years @ £9k tuition each. As it is, this is heavily subsidised, as the actual cost of medical tuition is about £30k per year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What on earth makes you think it is fair that the tax payer compensates an employer because one of the staff gets knocked up?

You're missing the big picture. Without that compensation, the member of staff in question might never have been employed in the first place because of the employer's fear of loss, and hence would not have paid taxes into the pot. The amounts paid in compensation should be more than covered by the increased tax take that ultimately results from the use of otherwise unused talents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're missing the big picture. Without that compensation, the member of staff in question might never have been employed in the first place because of the employer's fear of loss, and hence would not have paid taxes into the pot. The amounts paid in compensation should be more than covered by the increased tax take that ultimately results from the use of otherwise unused talents.

Companies will have to take some of the burden then because the public are tapped out

Edited by SeeYouNextTuesday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they generally tend towards the more intellectual careers. My missus was a scientist working for an international company, and my sister-in-law is a doctor. You'd have that talent wasted? Not to mention the unfairness of prohibiting people from earning their own wage.

No, I believe in freedom of choice. If a woman wants to be a scientist or a doctor, she should be a scientist or a doctor. If she wants to be a mother then she should be a mother. She just shouldn't expect the rest of us to subsidise her motherhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Companies will have to take some of the burden then because the public are tapped out

Not quite sure I see the distinction; companies are the taxpaying public. Also, any system that ensures that talents are used more productively than before should lighten rather than increase the overall burden on taxpayers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I believe in freedom of choice. If a woman wants to be a scientist or a doctor, she should be a scientist or a doctor. If she wants to be a mother then she should be a mother. She just shouldn't expect the rest of us to subsidise her motherhood.

I'm not arguing that she should. My proposal would actually be most beneficial to those young women who choose not to become mothers but are (understandably) discriminated against on the grounds that they might become mothers. It would also be beneficial for employers (and hence the taxpayer) since they would then be able to make use of talent that they would otherwise have feared to use. And no employer would have to put on a pretence of not discriminating against young women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, another magic money tree thread.

Please try to understand the full implications of my proposal, benefits as well as costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite sure I see the distinction; companies are the taxpaying public. Also, any system that ensures that talents are used more productively than before should lighten rather than increase the overall burden on taxpayers.

It's

It's like google, Starbucks and amazon (to name only 3) never ever happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they generally tend towards the more intellectual careers.

That just smacks of snobbery to me.

A male builder who can build a house is of more use to society than a female doctor who keeps terminally ill 80-something patients alive for as long as she can at the taxpayers' expense. When my Dad was dying, every single doctor, nurse and carer was female, they kept him going for as long as they could despite my family's repeated requests to let him go, it's difficult to make a person understand something when their living depends upon them not understanding it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.