Pupils who want to be doctors 'barred' from vital work experience at NHS hospitals - because they go to private school
The Mail on Sunday can reveal that official schemes at world-famous London hospitals, including Barts and University College London Hospital (UCLH), are only open to local state schools.
Meanwhile King's College Hospital Trust, which includes King's College Hospital – one of the largest teaching hospitals – gives 'priority to those not attending a private school', as does South London and Maudsley NHS Trust.
Last night critics accused the NHS of discrimination and being 'infected by Labour's vendetta against independent education'.
The British Medical Association strongly advises pupils who want to be doctors that they need clinical work experience to even be considered for a medical degree.
But now thousands of children, including those on bursaries – around a third of the estimated 650,000 private-school pupils in the UK – are struggling to find work experience at key hospitals.
One would-be medical student from Emanuel School in south London was told by King's College Hospital Trust – their local NHS trust – that pupils from private schools were not admitted on to their courses, even if they lived in the area.
And the MoS has learned of another, on a 100 per cent bursary, who 'applied to every hospital trust and GP practice within an hour of her home' including Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Northampton General Hospital and Milton Keynes University Hospital but 'received either rejections or no responses from almost all' because of the school she attends.
Last night, Gordon West, head of careers at prestigious independent school Stowe, said: 'This young woman is not from a wealthy background at all; she's from one of the highest priority groups there are.
'Policies like King's College don't account for stories like hers. By excluding private-school kids, they also shut out students on 100 per cent bursaries, many of whom come from families with very limited means.'
He added that it was a common story for sixth formers desperate for medical experience to be turned away.
'Even where independent students aren't officially barred, they are often de-prioritised. Unfortunately, missing out on clinical work experience really does put them at a disadvantage.
'This is essentially indirect discrimination. The silence and rejections they face when seeking placements are very telling.'
It is the latest in a series of NHS policies which discriminate against private pupils revealed by the MoS, including the case of an eight-year-old boy turned away for treatment by Kingston and Richmond NHS Trust because he went to a private school.
This newspaper also exposed the cases of a girl in Somerset who was refused mental health treatment by her local NHS Trust as she was privately educated.
A King's College Hospital NHS Trust spokesman said: 'In 2024, we facilitated 396 work placements. The vast majority were for students from state schools.'
At Barts Hospital, a spokesman said that placements for private-school pupils could be offered – but only through a staff referral.
South London and Maudsley NHS Trust said its aim was to 'support applicants from local schools who meet the participation criteria' such as 'being from a lower income family', but it warns 'priority will be given to those not attending a private school'.
On its website, UCLH says it cannot 'accommodate' students outside of its partnerships with The Social Mobility Foundation and 'selected local schools', however a spokesman said placements were possible 'for friends and family of UCLH staff members'.
Sources at NHS England said it was for individual trusts to allocate work experience placements.
By Karol Sikora, British Medical Expert
The NHS is often revered on account of it being available for everyone, regardless of their means. Yet it is all too happy to discriminate against you if you went to a private school.
Now it has extended its petty class war to sixth-form pupils considering a career in medicine. Several trusts are refusing work experience to those educated in the independent sector.
It is true that pupils from middle-class backgrounds have an advantage when it comes to organising work experience. One of your parents might be a doctor, or know someone who is.
So, yes, it is important for hospitals and medical schools to make sure that work experience is given to people from all backgrounds. But instead of putting up spiteful barriers, they could approach state schools and invite them to apply.
Banning people on account of what school they go to is just as wrong as discriminating against people on the basis of their race or sexuality.
This crude form of social engineering is the work of rogue junior managers, no doubt addled by socialist drivel spouted by the British Medical Association, the profession's hard-Left union. No one has ever complained to me that their doctor was 'too posh'. They do, however, object when they cannot understand their physician.
How much hand-wringing do these social-justice managers perform over requiring English language fluency – something patients actually want?
My guess is not half as much, lest they be accused of discrimination – a word with an elastic meaning, it seems, when it comes to what school a candidate attended.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
27 minutes ago
- Metro
What does a tick bite look like?
Lyme disease, a bacterial infection which is spread to humans through bites from infected ticks, is 'increasing rapidly', with the number of people who've been diagnosed with the disease, including several celebrities, rising. Signs and symptoms of Lyme disease include a circular red rash, flu-like symptoms and – if the infection is not treated swiftly with antibiotics – it can cause nerve and heart problems, pain and swelling in the joints, and trouble concentrating for years. Therefore it's important for people to be able to recognise what tick bites look like, and the tell-tale red rash that can be the first sign that a person has Lyme disease. A tick bite usually results in a small red bump – similar to the bump you get when a mosquito bites you – and it will likely go away after a few days. The bites aren't always painful, so it's important to check your skin for ticks and bites after you've been outdoors. The distinctive red rash associated with Lyme disease is circular and forms a pattern not unlike a bullseye – but it's important to note that not everyone who gets Lyme disease will get a rash. These rashes can develop up to three months after a person has been bitten, but most of the time they will be noticeable within the first month after the bite. The NHS points out that the majority of tick bites are harmless, and that only a small amount of ticks carry the bacteria that can cause Lyme disease in humans. More Trending If you spot a tick on your body, don't panic – you can use fine-tipped tweezers to remove it. Then simply disinfect the bite. The NHS also stipulates that you should see a GP if you've been bitten by a tick or been in an area in the last month where infected ticks have been found and you have flu-like symptoms (headaches, aching muscles, nausea) or a circular bullseye rash. According to the NHS, to remove a tick safely: Use fine-tipped tweezers or a tick-removal tool – you can buy these from some pharmacies, vets and pet shops. Grasp the tick as close to the skin as possible. Slowly pull upwards, taking care not to squeeze or crush the tick. Dispose of it when you've removed it. Clean the bite with antiseptic or soap and water. View More » This article was fist published on August 1, 2019. MORE: British mum steals towels from sunbed hoggers in dead of night saying 'they deserved it' MORE: Cost of Mounjaro weight-loss drug to go up by 170% in the UK within weeks MORE: Chikungunya cases double in UK as expert warns 'all it takes is one mosquito bite' Your free newsletter guide to the best London has on offer, from drinks deals to restaurant reviews.
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why antibiotics are like fossil fuels
In 1954, just a few years after the widespread introduction of antibiotics, doctors were already aware of the problem of resistance. Natural selection meant that using these new medicines gave an advantage to the microbes that could survive the assault – and a treatment that worked today could become ineffective tomorrow. A British doctor put the challenge in military terms: 'We may run clean out of effective ammunition. Then how the bacteria and moulds will lord it.' More than 70 years later, that concern looks prescient. The UN has called antibiotic resistance 'one of the most urgent global health threats'. Researchers estimate that resistance already kills more than a million people a year, with that number forecast to grow. And new antibiotics are not being discovered fast enough; many that are essential today were discovered more than 60 years ago. The thing to remember is that antibiotics are quite unlike other medicines. Most drugs work by manipulating human biology: paracetamol relieves your headache by dampening the chemical signals of pain; caffeine blocks adenosine receptors and as a result prevents drowsiness taking hold. Antibiotics, meanwhile, target bacteria. And, because bacteria spread between people, the challenge of resistance is social: it's as if every time you took a painkiller for your headache, you increased the chance that somebody else might have to undergo an operation without anaesthetic. That makes resistance more than simply a technological problem. But like that British doctor in 1954, we still often talk as if it is: we need to invent new 'weapons' to better defend ourselves. What this framing overlooks is that the extraordinary power of antibiotics is not due to human ingenuity. In fact, the majority of them derive from substances originally made by bacteria and fungi, evolved millions of years ago in a process of microbial competition. This is where I can't help thinking about another natural resource that helped create the modern world but has also been dangerously overused: fossil fuels. Just as Earth's geological forces turned dead plants from the Carboniferous era into layers of coal and oil that we could burn for energy, so evolution created molecules that scientists in the 20th century were able to recruit to keep us alive. Both have offered an illusory promise of cheap, miraculous and never-ending power over nature – a promise that is now coming to an end. If we thought of antibiotics as the 'fossil fuels' of modern medicine, might that change how we use them? And could it help us think of ways to make the fight against life-threatening infections more sustainable? The antibiotic era is less than a century old. Alexander Fleming first noticed the activity of a strange mould against bacteria in 1928, but it wasn't until the late 1930s that the active ingredient – penicillin – was isolated. A daily dose was just 60mg, about the same as a pinch of salt. For several years it was so scarce it was worth more than gold. But after production was scaled up during the second world war, it ended up costing less than the bottle it came in. This abundance did more than tackle infectious diseases. Just as the energy from fossil fuels transformed society, antibiotics allowed the entire edifice of modern medicine to be built. Consider surgery: cutting people open and breaking the protective barrier of the skin gives bacteria the chance to swarm into the body's internal tissues. Before antibiotics, even the simplest procedures frequently resulted in fatal blood poisoning. After them, so much more became possible: heart surgery, intestinal surgery, transplantation. Then there's cancer: chemotherapy suppresses the immune system, making bacterial infections one of the most widespread complications of treatment. The effects of antibiotics have rippled out even further: they made factory farming possible, both by reducing disease among animals kept in close quarters, and by increasing their weight through complex effects on metabolism. They're one of the reasons for the huge increase in meat consumption since the 1950s, with all its concomitant welfare and environmental effects. Despite the crisis of resistance, antibiotics remain cheap compared with other medicines. Partly – as with fossil fuels – this is because the negative consequences of their use (so-called externalities) are not priced in. And like coal, oil and gas, antibiotics lead to pollution. One recent study estimated that 31% of the 40 most used antibiotics worldwide enter rivers. Once they're out there, they increase levels of resistance in environmental bacteria: one study of soil from the Netherlands showed that the incidence of some antibiotic-resistant genes had increased by more than 15 times since the 1970s. Another source of pollution is manufacturing, particularly in countries such as India. In Hyderabad, where factories produce huge amounts of antibiotics for the global market, scientists have found that the wastewater contains levels of some antibiotics that are a million times higher than elsewhere. Like the climate crisis, antibiotic resistance has laid global inequalities bare. Some high-income countries have taken steps to decrease antibiotic use, but only after benefiting from their abundance in the past. That makes it hard for them to take a moral stand against their use in other places, a dilemma that mirrors the situation faced by post-industrial nations urging developing nations to forgo the economic benefits of cheap energy. This may be where the similarities end. While we look forward to the day when fossil fuels are phased out completely, that's clearly not the case with antibiotics, which are always going to be part of medicine's 'energy mix'. After all, most deaths from bacterial disease worldwide are due to lack of access to antibiotics, not resistance. What we are going to need to do is make our approach to development and use much more sustainable. Currently, many pharmaceutical companies have abandoned the search for new antibiotics: it's hard to imagine a more perfect anti-capitalist commodity than a product whose value depletes every time you use it. That means we need alternative models. One proposal is for governments to fund an international institute that develops publicly owned antibiotics, rather than relying on the private sector; another is to incentivise development with generously funded prizes for antibiotic discovery. And to address the issue of overuse, economists have suggested that health authorities could run 'subscription' models that remove the incentive to sell lots of antibiotics. In one pilot scheme in England, two companies are being paid a set amount per year by the NHS, regardless of how much of their product is actually used. Finally, we have to remember that antibiotics aren't the only game in town. Supporting other, 'renewable' approaches means we get to use the ones we do have for longer. Vaccines are vital to disease prevention – with every meningitis, diphtheria or whooping cough vaccine meaning a potential course of antibiotics forgone. And the 20th century's largest reductions in infectious disease occurred not because of antibiotics, but thanks to better sanitation and public health. (Even in the 2000s, the threat of MRSA was addressed with tried-and-tested methods such as handwashing and cleaning protocols – not new antibiotics.) Given that antibiotics themselves emerged unexpectedly, we should also be investing more in blue-skies research. Just as we no longer burn coal without a thought for the consequences, the era of carefree antibiotic use is now firmly in the past. In both cases, the idea that there wouldn't be a reckoning was always an illusion. But as with our slow waking up to the reality of the climate crisis, coming to appreciate the limits of our love affair with antibiotics may ultimately be no bad thing. Liam Shaw is a biologist at the University of Oxford, and author of Dangerous Miracle (Bodley Head). Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End by Atul Gawande (Profile, £11.99) Infectious: Pathogens and How We Fight Them by John S Tregoning (Oneworld, £10.99) Deadly Companions: How Microbes Shaped our History by Dorothy H Crawford (Oxford, £12.49)
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
How to heal heartburn WITHOUT drugs: Acid reflux pills taken by millions cause crippling side-effects and are even linked to cancer and dementia. Now doctors reveal what to do
It is the uncomfortable chest pain that nearly half of us will experience at some point – and for many, it can be completely debilitating. The most recognisable symptom of acid reflux is a burning sensation when stomach acid leaks up into the oesophagus and throat – which is why it's often referred to as heartburn. But the condition can also trigger nausea, a sore throat and cough, bloating and bad breath. For years, GPs have relied on a go-to treatment: a type of drug called a proton pump inhibitor, or PPI, which reduces the amount of acid produced in the stomach. The most widely used, omeprazole, costs as little as 15p a pill and is remarkably effective.
