by Ornella Mancin
09 JUNE –
we should probably say thank you to Prof. Cavicchi if a bit of discussion has finally begun about the fate of the family doctor who is now tormented in absolute indifference. At the very least, we now know that SNAMI does not suit this doctor halved (Qs June 1) and SMI (Qs June 6), while proving available, requires clear protections and a diversified compensation mechanism for the two working methods (agreement and parasubordinate).
For the most part, Fimmg continues to remain silent, even though we find micro teams, integrated group medicine and community centers from the mouth of Veneto Fimmg. No clarity on how the presence of MMG will be distributed on these 3 levels, and with what protections, a pretty clear sign of a scam in the void without planning, if one has not achieved the goal of maintaining the agreement.
The professor. Cavicchi in his latest speech (Q. 6 June) makes it clear that the current situation is the result of myopia among those who have ruled the profession in recent years, and reiterates above all that “the greatest political responsibility concerns Fimmg as a majority union “is rooted in the maintenance of a status quo and thinks that no one would come to present the bill, yes, I add, more and more convinced that the willingness shown during the pandemic to take things that did not belong to us (tampons, tracking, green passports, etc.) would have guaranteed us an eye on the political side. Fimmg has obviously rained wrong, and today we stand with a handful of lenses.
Overall, however, the reactions of the unions appear to be rather weak, if not inconsistent. In the face of what Cavicchi outright called a “counter-reform” that “changes our public health for the worse”, which is to reduce “the role and function of the MMG to a minimum, revoke its historic public functions and create the conditions” in favor of actual to replace the convention with “insurance”, with “work performance” by means of “low-cost precariousness”, one should have the courage to raise one’s voice perhaps by proclaiming a total strike. Would health care be maintained without GPs? Let’s try to see: we close our studios indefinitely!
Calling a total strike at the moment could pass to a populist way of dealing with the problem, and I would therefore like the proposal to be understood as a hyperbole, that is, as an expression of an increasingly irritated situation.
If it is true, as Belleri wrote (QS June 1), that the “halved doctor” that Cavicchi explained to us is the result of a compromise involving Fimmg up to the neck, then it is clear that it would be unthinkable to continue a total strike against Fimmg.
The most sensible thing would be to discuss with Fimmg and try to define a “solution” together on the basis of a higher interest.
In my opinion today, all trade unions, even if they express diametrically opposed views, should have a sense of responsibility to reunite and work towards politics in order to achieve a moratorium on the political process followed by Ministerial Decree 71 to give us time to to discuss internally, provided we have the desire and willingness to discuss with each other (which I allow myself to doubt!).
Fimmg should have no problem telling his interlocutors that the proposal for Ministerial Decree 71 has raised strong doubts and strong opposition in the category, and that a supplement to reflection would be wise. The fate of a category of over 40,000 doctors is being decided, so it does not seem like an exaggeration to ask before deciding to organize at least a cloth of consultation.
I know it’s not easy, but I also know, for the sake of the category, that this discussion serves us as air. Never before have unions had to demonstrate that they count and move in favor of the profession, and offset the increasingly clear gap between members and management by involving the grassroots in the discussion of family medicine destiny. A “reform” of these proportions can not go over the heads of those directly involved, due to the declared bankruptcy of the trade union action.
We owe it not only to save the value and role of the family doctor, but also to block this drift towards the private sector, as Cavicchi well emphasizes. The area will soon be a land of conquest for insurance companies, cooperatives and everything else that is able to deliver low cost insecure service packages without perhaps anyone who can take care of the patient as a whole.
Even Pope Francis urges us not to lose this “wealth” that is public health, yet we do nothing to reverse the trend.
June 9, 2022
© All rights reserved
Other articles in Letters to the Editor