The real heart of the BMA LMC GP UK (enough acronyms to obscure meaning?) conference lay in the issues debated — motions that touched everything from clinical ethics to working conditions to the future of how we practise medicine.
Here’s a glimpse into some of the motions that sparked the most debate — and why they matter.
💊 When Patient Safety Meets Systemic Chaos
A motion was proposed for an urgent and thorough review of prescribing practices around weight loss medications like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro. These drugs have become the latest craze with celebrities and members of the public — and often not for the right reasons.
Many private prescribers operate outside of national guidelines, with requests landing in GPs’ inboxes to take over the prescriptions, monitor side effects, and — in effect — carry the legal risk. There are troubling reports of these medications being prescribed to:
- Non-obese patients
- Individuals with eating disorders
- Minors under 16
- People who not infrequently end up in A&E with complications
Meanwhile, unregulated online prescribing platforms are bypassing essential safeguards like in-person assessments and comprehensive medical histories. One of the more debated “littles” in the motion was whether to launch a public awareness campaign about the risks of this type of prescribing. The concern is that those in need of the medication would be deterred by such a campaign. Irrespective, the challenge of handling poor prescribing habits often lands at the door of GPs.
“It’s like being handed a lit firework and being asked to ‘just hold it for a second’… while the one who lit it walks away. Repeatedly.”
🏥 Passing the Buck from Secondary Care
Another motion tackled the growing frustration around secondary care prescribing requests — where GPs are asked to prescribe medications on behalf of hospital specialists or nurses who can’t prescribe, or to order investigations that hospital teams should be managing themselves.
The tension is obvious: say yes, and GPs are left carrying responsibilities that aren’t theirs. Say no, and patients suffer. The motion passed with strong support to push back on this creeping shift of responsibility. Throw the fireworks back, essentially!
🏥 Private Providers and Unequal Care
A third motion called attention to private provider prescribing arrangements — and the concern that these can be unsafe, unsustainable, and widen health inequalities. It urged GPC UK to adopt a firm stance against such arrangements.
However, arguments against the motion pointed out that some private shared care works well, especially for patients stuck in limbo within the overstretched NHS. Those suffering from long COVID, or patients who simply can’t access NHS services, often turn to private providers out of desperation.
It’s a messy reality: when people feel abandoned by the system, they’ll look for care wherever they can get it.
⚖️ Ethics, Autonomy, and Assisted Dying
One of the most charged and respectful debates was around a motion on assisted dying, following the proposed Bill to allow terminally ill adults in the UK to request medical assistance to end their life.
The motion called for GPs not to be compelled to participate in assisted dying, and urged that such work be carried out by dedicated, separately funded services, so that it does not compromise existing care or GP capacity.
The debate acknowledged a deep unease: that laws allowing clinicians to end life — even compassionately — fundamentally alter the doctor–patient relationship.
Speakers pointed to examples from countries like Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands, where eligibility criteria have quickly expanded over time to include:
- Chronic pain sufferers
- Mental illness
- Even social factors like homelessness and isolation (in some reports)
There’s something profoundly precarious about legislating the boundaries of life and death — and the doctors will inevitably get caught in between.
🤖 Tech, Data, and the Line Between Help and Harm
Another motion highlighted concerns around the hasty adoption of AI in General Practice. While automation might promise efficiency, there’s a risk of misusing it and data breaches.
A separate motion debated whether GPs should remain data controllers of their patients’ records — a role that carries legal and administrative responsibility. While some argued it creates undue liability, most agreed the risks of handing over data control to central government or third-party entities were far greater (using it for political or commercially-driven purposes). We’ll hold on to this firework… definitely don’t let the children be in charge of them!
“People trust their GP, not the algorithm. And definitely not the policy brief it was built on.”
🌍 Fairness and the Forgotten
Perhaps the most morally resonant motion came from Northern Ireland, calling for a reversal of recent BMA policy that prioritises UK medical graduates for training places over International Medical Graduates (IMGs) opportunities — a policy that rubs salt into an already raw wound.
The debate was laced with painful accounts of the discrimination and hardship IMGs endure just to practise in this country. It was not without opposition, but this was respectful. However, these are the very doctors who keep the wheels turning in overstretched, overlooked areas — often in places others simply won’t go, like the far reaches of Northern Ireland.
To frame this as a matter of “protecting our own” misses the point entirely: these colleagues are our own. They’ve jumped through bureaucratic hoops, paid dearly, and stepped up when the system is gasping for help. To deny them equal opportunities to train and grow — after inviting them in and relying on them is short-sighted, ungrateful, and out of tune with the values the profession claims to uphold. The motion was convincingly backed.
“If we invite people into the house, hand them the keys, and then lock the fridge — what kind of host does that make us?”
🔚 Closing Reflection
The conference may not have the dazzling skies of bonfire night and reading motions might sound like wading through policy soup — but in that Glasgow hall, these debates were anything but dry. They were alive with colour from personal stories, ethical tension, and professional grit. And it was laced with wit.
Every motion brought a choice point: what kind of system are we building, and who are we building it for?
I’m still uncertain about my next steps in the short or even medium term — but what this conference made clear is that I want to be part of this community for the long haul. I want to contribute to shaping the system, not just as a critic on the sidelines, but by lending my voice and energy to the process itself.
Mindful Medic 