A Daily Mail reporter went to a British parenting forum to dig up dirt for a story. Instead, she got schooled. The question:
I am writing a feature for The Daily Mail about the increase in the number of children being sent to A&E. Figures released earlier this week show an increasing number of youngsters are sent direct to hospital, because GPs are reluctant to treat children. Babies in particular. This means long waits, and inappropriate care. Has your child been sent to A&E with a common infection or minor injury by your GP or NHS Direct? Have you an opinion on this subject, as a parent?
I gathered from reading this that A&E means a hospital. Anyway, the parents at Mumsnet who responded not only advocated sending children to a hospital if there are any doubts about a diagnosis, they also had plenty to say about the Daily Mail in general. Here's a sampling:
Sorry but even the way you have asked your question is skewed to make us think negatively of the NHS. How many lives have GPs saved by sending babies to A&E because they aren’t sure what to do? Happy to wait 6 hours if a little life is saved.
I'd much rather be sent with dd and it turns out to be nothing than a gp think its nothing and it turns out to be something bad. It isn't inappropriate care and no parent would begrudge a long wait to be seen and ensure their childs health.
How does sending a baby to a&e result in 'inappropriate care'???
All these stories of GPs sending babies to A&E and saving their lives. Is that what you are looking for Zoe?
Do your parents know you work for the Daily Mail?
Have you an opinion on this subject, as a parent?
Yes. Please stop bashing the NHS.