'We don't do rabies'

When Alyssa McDonald was bitten by a stray dog in Romania, she was given excellent anti-rabies treat

"You want a babies injection?" asked the receptionist at my local GP surgery. "No," I explained as calmly as I could. "Not a babies injection, a rabies injection." "Oh ... I don't know about that," she said. "I'll have to check. Call back at six."

Two days earlier, at the end of a weekend trip to Bucharest, I had been walking through the city when one of the many stray dogs bit me - not badly, but hard enough to draw blood. I didn't really want the hassle of a trip to hospital, and I'd heard some horror stories about the Romanian ones. But then again, hospital was preferable to rabies. Virtually unheard of in the UK now, it still kills 55,000 people each year globally.

It is a particularly horrible way to die: within a week, sufferers become anxious and disorientated, developing an overwhelming thirst paired with an inability to swallow. Delusions, hallucinations and deranged behaviour (including thrashing, spitting and biting) follow; it usually takes another week or so before heart and lung failure lead to total paralysis, coma, and finally death. And once symptoms start to develop, rabies is nearly always fatal. So I was ready to put up with substandard treatment - I just wasn't prepared for quite how bad it turned out to be. And I didn't expect to find the NHS doling it out.

Dogs are a major nuisance in Bucharest. The rehousing programme during Nicolae Ceausescu's dictatorship forced many families to abandon their dogs, and now the city is home to about 200,000 strays. On average, strays bite 50 people a day; some of them carry tetanus and/or rabies. The city council has announced a couple of culls in recent years, but these programmes have never been extensive enough to tackle the problem. Fortunately, because the risk of being bitten is high, the city's hospitals are well set up to deal with the victims. The nurse I limped up to in Spitalil Colentina's anti-rabies unit spoke a little English, and within half an hour I'd been bandaged up, given shots for tetanus and rabies, and was out of the door with a prescription for antibiotics and directions on what to do when I got home. The days when rabies was treated with painful injections in the stomach are long gone; now you just need a series of five shots in your arm over the space of a few weeks. Easy.

The nurse gave me a leaflet containing information about the vaccine for my doctor in the UK. The entire service was free of charge.

As soon as I returned to London, I phoned NHS Direct to find out where to get my first follow-up shot. I was given the names of two NHS walk-in centres and a private Medicare centre before I was told that I could also see my GP.

"We don't do rabies," the receptionist at the first walk-in centre told me. "Tetanus we do, but not rabies." I called the second one. Then I tried again an hour later, and again an hour after that. Eventually I accepted that they weren't going to pick up, but I wasn't quite ready to accept the idea of paying for a treatment that I could get for free on the far side of the continent. So I skipped the Medicare option and phoned my doctor. Maybe I should have taken them up on that offer of a babies injection: I might actually have got somewhere if I had. When I called back at 6pm, the phone was engaged, and it stayed that way until the surgery closed at 6.30pm.

Life-threatening

Stuck for what else to do, I called the hospital closest to my office, St Thomas's in central London. Could they help me? The A&E receptionist was not keen. "Why didn't you call NHS Direct?" "I did," I explained, "and none of the options they suggested could help me. So now I am calling you, because I may have been exposed to rabies, and rabies is a life-threatening disease." "Where do you live?" I told her. "We're not your nearest hospital then, are we? You should have called the Royal London . . ." She was gracious enough to put me through to a doctor anyway.

"Yeah, we can do a rabies injection," the doctor told me. "But we shouldn't have to, really - you should be going to your doctor, because it's a community issue." I didn't ask why Romanian stray dogs are a community issue for Hackney Council.

So far, so incompetent. But the dismal service I'd received had nothing on what came next.

At A&E the next morning, I told the doctor what had happened, and about the five jabs the nurse in Bucharest had said I'd need. I didn't mention the antibiotics I'd been given for the wound itself; neither did he. Half an hour later, a student nurse appeared with a small syringe and the information leaflet from the vaccine, which she handed to me. She gave me the shot and smiled, "That's it! You're fine now." Really? What about the further three injections I'd been told I should have? "Oh, foreign hospitals are usually a bit overcautious with British patients. They're scared we'll sue." She assured me that I didn't need any further treatment, and that I was free to go. So I did. And I had got as far as the door when the doctor rang my mobile. He hadn't told the nurse to let me go, but since I already had, he just wanted to remind me that I'd need to see my GP for the remaining three shots.

I was confused - the nurse had said I didn't need any more treatment. "Did she? Oh, uh, then that's right." "Are you sure?" "Yes." I wasn't. But as I had the vaccine information leaflet, I could check: and like the Romanian one, it said I needed three more doses. (Not surprising, really, as that's the WHO's recognised regimen for rabies.) Why had the doctor needed me to tell him the dosage? When I went back to A&E and spoke to him, I discovered what had caused the confusion: he hadn't even read the information leaflet. And quite clearly, neither had the student nurse.

Rabies is hardly the UK's most pressing health issue, but the Health Protection Agency still treats about a thousand travellers each year who have been exposed to the disease abroad. Its line on treatment is unequivocal: as rabies is a fatal condition, the only available precaution - vaccination - must be used. The substandard treatment I received has serious implications for everyone who uses the National Health Service. In the end, my health was fine, but that doesn't excuse the level of service the NHS offered me. Being misheard, misinformed and passed from pillar to post is bad enough. But for two members of hospital staff to handle a less-than-everyday complaint by dishing out medication and advice without checking the facts is completely unacceptable, and potentially very dangerous. I contacted St Thomas's to ask for an explanation, but it was not prepared to comment unless I made a formal complaint.

According to research by the National Patient Safety Agency last summer, I'm not alone in receiving such poor service: almost 25,000 patients a year receive the wrong treatment in British hospitals. Whether the result is serious harm or just frustration and inefficiency, this is a pretty appalling track record. So, if you're looking for efficient, safe health care, try Romania. You might be less likely to end up foaming at the mouth.

This article first appeared in the 31 March 2008 issue of the New Statesman, Is Boris a fake?

Show Hide image

Why Jeremy Corbyn is a new leader for the New Times

In an inspired election campaign, he confounded his detractors and showed that he was – more than any other leader – in tune with the times.

There have been two great political turning points in postwar Britain. The first was in 1945 with the election of the Attlee government. Driven by a popular wave of determination that peacetime Britain would look very different from the mass unemployment of the 1930s, and built on the foundations of the solidaristic spirit of the war, the Labour government ushered in full employment, the welfare state (including the NHS) and nationalisation of the basic industries, notably coal and the railways. It was a reforming government the like of which Britain had not previously experienced in the first half of the 20th century. The popular support enjoyed by the reforms was such that the ensuing social-democratic consensus was to last until the end of the 1970s, with Tory as well as Labour governments broadly operating within its framework.

During the 1970s, however, opposition to the social-democratic consensus grew steadily, led by the rise of the radical right, which culminated in 1979 in the election of Margaret Thatcher’s first government. In the process, the Thatcherites redefined the political debate, broadening it beyond the rather institutionalised and truncated forms that it had previously taken: they conducted a highly populist campaign that was for individualism and against collectivism; for the market and against the state; for liberty and against trade unionism; for law and order and against crime.

These ideas were dismissed by the left as just an extreme version of the same old Toryism, entirely failing to recognise their novelty and therefore the kind of threat they posed. The 1979 election, followed by Ronald Reagan’s US victory in 1980, began the neoliberal era, which remained hegemonic in Britain, and more widely in the West, for three decades. Tory and Labour governments alike operated within the terms and by the logic of neoliberalism. The only thing new about New Labour was its acquiescence in neoliberalism; even in this sense, it was not new but derivative of Thatcherism.

The financial crisis of 2007-2008 marked the beginning of the end of neoliberalism. Unlike the social-democratic consensus, which was undermined by the ideological challenge posed by Thatcherism, neoliberalism was brought to its knees not by any ideological alternative – such was the hegemonic sway of neoliberalism – but by the biggest financial crisis since 1931. This was the consequence of the fragility of a financial sector left to its own devices as a result of sweeping deregulation, and the corrupt and extreme practices that this encouraged.

The origin of the crisis lay not in the Labour government – complicit though it was in the neoliberal indulgence of the financial sector – but in the deregulation of the banking sector on both sides of the Atlantic in the 1980s. Neoliberalism limped on in the period after 2007-2008 but as real wages stagnated, recovery proved a mirage, and, with the behaviour of the bankers exposed, a deep disillusionment spread across society. During 2015-16, a populist wave of opposition to the establishment engulfed much of Europe and the United States.

Except at the extremes – Greece perhaps being the most notable example – the left was not a beneficiary: on the contrary it, too, was punished by the people in the same manner as the parties of the mainstream right were. The reason was straightforward enough. The left was tarnished with the same brush as the right: almost everywhere social-democratic parties, albeit to varying degrees, had pursued neoliberal policies. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair became – and presented themselves as – leaders of neoliberalism and as enthusiastic advocates of a strategy of hyper-globalisation, which resulted in growing inequality. In this fundamental respect these parties were more or less ­indistinguishable from the right.

***

The first signs of open revolt against New Labour – the representatives and evangelists of neoliberal ideas in the Labour Party – came in the aftermath of the 2015 ­election and the entirely unpredicted and overwhelming victory of Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership election. Something was happening. Yet much of the left, along with the media, summarily dismissed it as a revival of far-left entryism; that these were for the most part no more than a bunch of Trots. There is a powerful, often overwhelming, tendency to see new phenomena in terms of the past. The new and unfamiliar is much more difficult to understand than the old and familiar: it requires serious intellectual effort and an open and inquiring mind. The left is not alone in this syndrome. The right condemned the 2017 Labour Party manifesto as a replica of Labour’s 1983 manifesto. They couldn’t have been more wrong.

That Corbyn had been a veteran of the far left for so long lent credence to the idea that he was merely a retread of a failed past: there was nothing new about him. In a brilliant election campaign, Corbyn not only gave the lie to this but also demonstrated that he, far more than any of the other party leaders, was in tune with the times, the candidate of modernity.

Crises, great turning points, new conjunctures, new forms of consciousness are by definition incubators of the new. That is one of the great sources of their fascination. We can now see the line of linkage between the thousands of young people who gave Corbyn his overwhelming victory in the leadership election in 2015 and the millions of young people who were enthused by his general election campaign in 2017. It is no accident that it was the young rather than the middle-aged or the seniors who were in the vanguard: the young are the bearers and products of the new, they are the lightning conductors of change. Their elders, by contrast, are steeped in old ways of thinking and doing, having lived through and internalised the values and norms of neoliberalism for more than 30 years.

Yet there is another, rather more important aspect to how we identify the new, namely the way we see politics and how politics is conceived. Electoral politics is a highly institutionalised and tribal activity. There have been, as I argued earlier, two great turning points in postwar politics: the social-democratic era ushered in by the 1945 Labour government and the neoliberal era launched by the Tory government in 1979.

The average Tory MP or activist, no doubt, would interpret history primarily in terms of Tory and Labour governments; Labour MPs and activists would do similarly. But this is a superficial reading of politics based on party labels which ignores the deeper forces that shape different eras, generate crises and result in new paradigms.

Alas, most political journalists and columnists are afflicted with the same inability to distinguish the wood (an understanding of the deeper historical forces at work) from the trees (the day-to-day manoeuvring of parties and politicians). In normal times, this may not be so important, because life continues for the most part as before, but at moments of great paradigmatic change it is absolutely critical.

If the political journalists, and indeed the PLP, had understood the deeper forces and profound changes now at work, they would never have failed en masse to rise above the banal and predictable in their assessment of Corbyn. Something deep, indeed, is happening. A historical era – namely, that of neoliberalism – is in its death throes. All the old assumptions can no longer be assumed. We are in new territory: we haven’t been here before. The smart suits long preferred by New Labour wannabes are no longer a symbol of success and ambition but of alienation from, and rejection of, those who have been left behind; who, from being ignored and dismissed, are in the process of moving to the centre of the political stage.

Corbyn, you may recall, was instantly rejected and ridiculed for his sartorial style, and yet we can now see that, with a little smartening, it conveys an authenticity and affinity with the times that made his style of dress more or less immune from criticism during the general election campaign. Yet fashion is only a way to illustrate a much deeper point.

The end of neoliberalism, once so hegemonic, so commanding, is turning Britain on its head. That is why – extraordinary when you think about it – all the attempts by the right to dismiss Corbyn as a far-left extremist failed miserably, even proved counterproductive, because that was not how people saw him, not how they heard him. He was speaking a language and voicing concerns that a broad cross-section of the public could understand and identify with.

***

The reason a large majority of the PLP was opposed to Corbyn, desperate to be rid of him, was because they were still living in the neoliberal era, still slaves to its ideology, still in thrall to its logic. They knew no other way of thinking or political being. They accused Corbyn of being out of time when in fact it was most of the PLP – not to mention the likes of Mandelson and Blair – who were still imprisoned in an earlier historical era. The end of neoliberalism marks the death of New Labour. In contrast, Corbyn is aligned with the world as it is rather than as it was. What a wonderful irony.

Corbyn’s success in the general election requires us to revisit some of the assumptions that have underpinned much political commentary over the past several years. The turmoil in Labour ranks and the ridiculing of Corbyn persuaded many, including on the left, that Labour stood on the edge of the abyss and that the Tories would continue to dominate for long into the future. With Corbyn having seized the political initiative, the Tories are now cast in a new light. With Labour in the process of burying its New Labour legacy and addressing a very new conjuncture, then the end of neoliberalism poses a much more serious challenge to the Tories than it does the Labour Party.

The Cameron/Osborne leadership was still very much of a neoliberal frame of mind, not least in their emphasis on austerity. It would appear that, in the light of the new popular mood, the government will now be forced to abandon austerity. Theresa May, on taking office, talked about a return to One Nation Toryism and the need to help the worst-off, but that has never moved beyond rhetoric: now she is dead in the water.

Meanwhile, the Tories are in fast retreat over Brexit. They held a referendum over the EU for narrowly party reasons which, from a national point of view, was entirely unnecessary. As a result of the Brexit vote, the Cameron leadership was forced to resign and the Brexiteers took de facto command. But now, after the election, the Tories are in headlong retreat from anything like a “hard Brexit”. In short, they have utterly lost control of the political agenda and are being driven by events. Above all, they are frightened of another election from which Corbyn is likely to emerge as leader with a political agenda that will owe nothing to neoliberalism.

Apart from Corbyn’s extraordinary emergence as a leader who understands – and is entirely comfortable with – the imperatives of the new conjuncture and the need for a new political paradigm, the key to Labour’s transformed position in the eyes of the public was its 2017 manifesto, arguably its best and most important since 1945. You may recall that for three decades the dominant themes were marketisation, privatisation, trickle-down economics, the wastefulness and inefficiencies of the state, the incontrovertible case for hyper-globalisation, and bankers and financiers as the New Gods.

Labour’s manifesto offered a very different vision: a fairer society, bearing down on inequality, a more redistributive tax system, the centrality of the social, proper funding of public services, nationalisation of the railways and water industry, and people as the priority rather than business and the City. The title captured the spirit – For the Many Not the Few. Or, to put in another way, After Neoliberalism. The vision is not yet the answer to the latter question, but it represents the beginnings of an answer.

Ever since the late 1970s, Labour has been on the defensive, struggling to deal with a world where the right has been hegemonic. We can now begin to glimpse a different possibility, one in which the left can begin to take ownership – at least in some degree – of a new, post-neoliberal political settlement. But we should not underestimate the enormous problems that lie in wait. The relative economic prospects for the country are far worse than they have been at any time since 1945. As we saw in the Brexit vote, the forces of conservatism, nativism, racism and imperial nostalgia remain hugely powerful. Not only has the country rejected continued membership of the European Union, but, along with the rest of the West, it is far from reconciled with the new world that is in the process of being created before our very eyes, in which the developing world will be paramount and in which China will be the global leader.

Nonetheless, to be able to entertain a sense of optimism about our own country is a novel experience after 30 years of being out in the cold. No wonder so many are feeling energised again.

This article first appeared in the 15 June 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Corbyn: revenge of the rebel

Martin Jacques is the former editor of Marxism Today. 

This article first appeared in the 15 June 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Corbyn: revenge of the rebel

0800 7318496