The Oxford-Cambridge Varsity Debate
You need only to switch on the television or pick up the nearest paper to realise that medicine is rife with controversy. From the testing of new drugs to nurse’s wages there is an entire spectrum of diverse and complicated issues that need to be dissected, defended and discussed in order to allow for resolutions. The Oxford-Cambridge Varsity debate has been running for the past two years and allows students from both universities to discuss serious issues pertaining to social and ethical issues regarding our healthcare. This year the proposition was: “This House Would Privatise the Provision of Healthcare.”
The event took place at the Royal College of General Practitioners and was judged by an impressive panel including Lord Hameed, Baroness Finaly and Dr Henke. The teams each comprising of three students contained students from different year groups, backgrounds and in the case of the Cambridge team subjects. The event itself was set up by students from the respective universities with sponsorship coming from the Priory group, a private medical enterprise.
The Oxford team in proposition of the motion discussed the several shortcomings of the current NHS. They highlighted the several inefficiencies inherent within a giant centralised organisation that would result in an overall poor standard of healthcare not tailored to patient needs. Their proposed model based on the Dutch system of healthcare allowed patients to supplement basic health care with other treatments that could be purchased from private insurance companies. The focus of their arguments was that privatisation would result in greater competition amongst hospitals thereby driving up the standards and providing patients with greater amount of choice regarding healthcare options. It was also thought that in introducing costs this would provide an incentive for individuals to take greater care of their health and encourage healthier lifestyles amongst the general population.
The Cambridge team made a powerful rebuttal to the proposition stating that access to healthcare was a basic human right that would be taken by privatisation of the system. In allowing privatisation they believed that our long-held tradition of equality would be undermined. An interesting point was also raised that those with a genetic predisposition to chronic diseases may automatically be at a disadvantage as they are more likely to require medical treatment for these conditions than those without. It was also thought that in having to pay for check-ups and appointments individuals would be less willing to see a doctor until the problem had become particularly serious. In the case of certain conditions such as skin melanomas, in which early administration of treatment is the most effective this could have potentially lethal consequences.
Dr Irving the chair of the debate and of the AiT committee spoke about the importance of the RCGP hosting the annual debate, “The future of our health is in the hands of students like those we have seen today. The RCGP is responsible for approximately ten thousand GP trainees in the UK and the military. We therefore feel that in encouraging students to tackle the important issues of tomorrow now will stand them in good stead for tomorrow.
The quality of the debate has been of a very high standard and we hope that this spirit of debate and discussion will extend further to medical students within the respective universities and beyond”.
Despite the convincing arguments put forward by both teams it was up to the judges to decide a worthy winner. Prior to announcing the verdict the judges commended the Oxford team on their attempts to tackle the important economic problems facing the NHS and the Cambridge team for their discussion of ethics within the healthcare system. The decision however went to award the Oxford team as the winners of the 2010 Varsity Debating champions. No doubt the excitement and tension will resume in a year when Oxford compete to hold their title.
