Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yesterday I received a letter from the Chief Executive (no less!) of King's College Hospital. I view the letter as an indirect appeal for charitable donations.


To be frank, I am unsure about my own reaction to this. One side of me thinks that, when I next find myself in the fortunate position of being able to donate to a charity, that I should give this request serious consideration - especially as I have received (and continue to do so) excellent care under Kings. However, the other half of me feels unsure about the whole thing. This isn't another charity for starving children in Africa or endangered species in South America etc. Indeed, we are talking about a branch of our Welfare State - a publicly funded healthcare system for the benefit of all UK citizens.


Does this CE's action therefore constitute a blooming cheek, or, given the current economic climate, a reasonable course of action?


I am assuming that others will have received similar correspondence, in which case I am wondering what your views are on this too.

I was bemused but not horrified. It is a great hospital. There are probably people out there who can afford to make a donation and this might jog them to do so. It's kind of like when people run the London Marathon to raise money for hospital special baby units after their child has been saved. Perhaps Kings has just employed a new fund raising manager who is very keen.

I personally think it's desparately sad that the NHS is asking for charitable donations.

However, i think this has been going on for years hasn't it? It's 'normal'.


What's upsets me is the time I was last at Kings the nurse told me that HALF the babies in special care were there cos they were dehydrated. It costs near on ?1000 a night to keep a baby in special care. Formula milk or even the old fashioned sugar would easily prevent these babies getting dehydrated. That, or perhaps training the midwives about breast feedig or better still having *available* bfding counsillors on the post natal ward.


This week NICE passed up the opportunity of approving Avastin to treat colon cancer. It costs ?2k a month of that drug. Two fewer babies in special care.....


all very depressing


Bring back Matron?

Twirly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy - how can you be sure it's not the economic

> climate? All this talk of cutbacks and then this

> letter turns up, did make me connect the two.


Yes Twirly, I too felt it was more than just a mere coincidence.

Saila Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I personally think it's desparately sad that the

> NHS is asking for charitable donations.

> However, i think this has been going on for years

> hasn't it? It's 'normal'.


TBH I hadn't realised (until this thread) that it was normal. I still have mixed feelings about the letter though - they have, after all, used data from patients' medical records to send them unsolicited mailings in pursuit of charitable donations.

Sorry - just to clarify.


It seems, according to posters on this thread anyway, that requests by the NHS for charitable donations would appear to be - to a certain extent - not unusual. Though, prior to this thread, I hadn't realised this. On the other hand, a personal letter to patients appears (so far) to be less normal.

Those of you who have said you think the hospital is a great hospital, may I highly recommend you becoming a MEMBER of the FoundatioN Trust. Anyone can be a member and there is a meeting for any of us and non members at 6pm Thursday 16th September at the Weston Education Suite, at the far end of Bessemer Road, ie walk down it from Denmark Hill where the main hospital buildings are on your left, and the car park on your right, and then at the end the Weston Education Centre is to the right, in front of you.


Anyway, I have not received any such letter, but the Chief Exec himself often attends these meetings so you could ask him yourself all about them!

Twirly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy - how can you be sure it's not the economic climate?


The Kings College charity is not new. Most hospitals have been taking online donations for quite a while now. Local fundraising events for hospitals are not rare.


Sure, the current climate might make things particularly difficult, or perhaps they are anticipating tough times ahead, hence the letter.

There is a charity within Kings nick named the SAM fund (think it may stand for Samaritan Funds).It is used to purchase things like clothing for those who have been in an accident/fire and have no one close by to get clothes from home. Also used to get emergency food for those going home who may not be able to shop for a few days. This is mainly administered on Kings behalf by Lambeth and Southwark Hospital Social Work Teams.

Hospitals will never have enough money to do all that they want/can do. In the same way that schools will not have enough money and therefore try to raise funds in other ways. Its just one of those things.


Kings is a deserving cause but many will feel they pay sufficient in taxes to have paid enough of their monthly money in the direction of the NHS. Others might not. Personally I think direct mailing is a bit cheeky.

When reading such letters I often wonder how much their chief executive will donate, not a lot would be the reply.


I used to supply this hospital with British made equipment and then they started to buy from an American maufacturer for almost twice the price, for what many considered to be inferior equipment.


No, I would not give a penny until they tighten up the wastage on what they spend on equipment, but more especially on the middle management administrators who seem to have proliferated in recent years but do not improve the service one bit.


LadyM keep your money in your pocket I think like Mick Mack it is a bit cheeky, well actually I think it's a damned sauce.

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LadyM keep your money in your pocket


I shall take your advice SteveT - it has proved sound in the past (my shed is as good as new now, and Alex did wonders with my oven).


> I think like

> Mick Mack it is a bit cheeky, well actually I

> think it's a damned sauce.


I am inclined to agree with both you and Mick Mac...direct mailing is somewhat cheeky. Indeed, as per PR's suggestion, I am tempted to question the Chief Executive face to face about the matter.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...