Hinchingbrooke fiasco exposes bad case of double standards

Hinchingbrooke fiasco exposes bad case of double standards

The Hinchingbrooke fiasco has exposed the extraordinary double standards of many commentators on the NHS. Whilst Mid Staffs brought a number of inquiries into the poor care on some wards, including an inquiry devoted to the system (which was politically motivated), the exposure of poor care at Hinchingbrooke, the first privately-run NHS hospital, has brought calls for an inquiry not into the poor care, but into the report itself!

The Daily Mail, which has been quick to monster those who have challenged elements of the press narrative about Mid Staffs, is now an emphatic denialist about poor care at Hinchingbrooke. It trumpets "evidence", which is actually merely a series of inferences and suppositions. Far from being "shocking evidence" of a stitch-up, it's simply shocking that the DM will make such a bold assertion on so little evidence.

So many patients were happy with their care at Hinchingbrooke. The same was true at Mid Staffs. 

Some indicators show that care was good at Hinchingbrooke. The same was true at Mid Staffs.

The DM claims that the report produced was influenced by political considerations. The same is contended about Mid Staffs.

It seems that the only difference is that Hinchingbrooke was run by the private sector, and therefore the DM believes that those opposed to privatization were determined to see it damned. Many have come to the opposite conclusion about Mid Staffs, that those with a pro-privatization agenda were determined to use the hospital to achieve their ends. Both may be right. It's hard to see why the DM can be so emphatic that Hinchingbrooke was a stitch-up, and Mid Staffs wasn't.

The most interesting question is whether or not Julie Bailey or James Titcombe will attack the denialists? Or is that only when it's Mid Staffs or Morecambe Bay? Or when it's a chance to attack Andy Burnham?