It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Govt Medicine vs. the Elderly: In Britain in 2007-08, 16.5% of deaths came after 'terminal sedation

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Government Medicine vs. the Elderly: In Britain in 2007-08, 16.5% of deaths came after 'terminal sedation'


online.wsj.com

A a group of [NHS] doctors and health-care experts wrote about the Liverpool Care Pathway, a palliative program involving the withdrawal of fluids and nourishment for patients thought to be dying.
Noting that in 2007-08, 16.5% of deaths in the U.K. came after "terminal sedation," their letter concluded with the chilling observation that experienced doctors know that sometimes "when all but essential drugs are stopped, 'dying' patients get better" if they are allowed to.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
British Leaders: "Dismantle Nat'l Health Svc., "Fails Expectations," "No Longer Relevant"

National Health Care? "Elderly left at risk by bidding to find cheapest care"

"50 million new patients? Doc shortage looming"

[edit on 15-9-2009 by jdub297]




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Is this is the UK version of the "end of life" care and counseling contemplated in HR 3200?

What do the NHS patients think?


The Patients Association, an independent charity, presented a catalogue of end-of-life cases that demonstrated, in its words, "a consistent pattern of shocking standards of care." It provided details of what it described as "appalling treatment," which could be found across the NHS.

online.wsj.com...

Just as Gordon Brown and is wife proclaimed, "we love NHS," so many of the beneficiaries receive just what they need.

It's the disfavored and "high maintenance" patients that get the short shrift. Since there are fewer of them, by definition, their misery is drowned out by the happily complacent masses.

How does this this matter? Or how does this work, in general?


The usual justification for socialized health care is to provide access to quality health care for the poor and disadvantaged. (But this function can be more efficiently performed through the benefits system and the payment of refundable tax credits.)

The real justification for socialized medicine is left unstated: Because health-care resources are assumed to be fixed, those resources should be prioritized for those who can benefit most from medical treatment. Thus the NHS acts as Britain's national triage service, deciding who is most likely to respond best to treatment and allocating health care accordingly.
It should therefore come as no surprise that the NHS is institutionally ageist. The elderly have fewer years left to them; why then should they get health-care resources that would benefit a younger person more? An analysis by a senior U.K.-based health-care expert earlier this decade found that in the U.S. health-care spending per capita goes up steeply for the elderly, while the U.K. didn't show the same pattern. The U.K.'s pattern of health-care spending by age had more in common with the former Soviet bloc.


How does any of this apply to the current "Obamacare" debate. The 'public option' makes it relevant.


A scarcity assumption similar to the British mentality underlies President Barack Obama's proposed health-care overhaul. "We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it," Mr. Obama claimed in his address to Congress last Wednesday, a situation that, he said, threatened America's economic competitiveness.

This assertion is seldom challenged. Yet what makes health care different from spending on, say, information technology—or any category of consumer service—such that spending on health care is uniquely bad for the American economy? Distortions like malpractice suits that lead to higher costs or the absence of consumer price consciousness do result in a misallocation of resources. That should be an argument for tackling those distortions. But if high health-care spending otherwise reflects the preferences of millions of consumers, why the fuss?

The case for ObamaCare, as with the NHS, rests on what might be termed the "lump of health care" fallacy. But in a market-based system triggering one person's contractual rights to health care does not invalidate someone else's health policy. Instead, increased demand for health care incentivizes new drugs, new therapies and better ways of delivering health care. Government-administered systems are so slow and clumsy that they turn the lump of health-care fallacy into a reality.


As the rush to completion intensifies, it might be wise to keep an eye on what, exactly, is happening across the pond.

5o million new patients? Doc shortage looming"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

jw

online.wsj.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 15-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Starred and Flagged.

So many apparently fail to see the slippery slope being created by HR 3200 in this end of life area.

People don't get that obama can say all he wants that NOW nothing like that would happen in the U.S. under his plan, but who can predict what decisions will be made if the money to fund health care gets tight and the provisions for this are already part of the law?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


This is precisely the problem in Britain. Money istight, so resources have to be "allocated" (i.e., rationed)

Obama can SAY anything he wants. It's what he DOES that will ruin us.

So many people are still willing to take this man and his associates at their "word" that it defies explanation.

One thing I've always been able to rely on is that if an agreement allows something to happen, it will happen.

It doesn't need to say it must happen, so long as it's allowed.

jw



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
people don't get it either that they are dying from the 'chemotherapy', not from cancer



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
As the poster above me points out many people miss the fact that BECAUSE of the way the medical industry in the states work, not only do you get poisoned by "treatments" designed to make you dependent on drugs but you also get to pay through the nose for the privilege.

If at some point under a state based health care system the aged DO have trouble getting access to treatment, then they can have it covered privately under pretty much the exact same system you have now (except it will probably be cheaper because private companies will actually have to fight for patients rather than being fed one of the largest populations on earth without having to work for it.)



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by angelx666
 


people don't get it either that they are dying from the 'chemotherapy', not from cancer


Of course, the coming panel of "doctors and medical authorities" will not include chemotherapy in the "best practices" that might otherwise be available to those for whom it is a last resort.

There will be no "last resort."

jw



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by gYvMessanger
 



If at some point under a state based health care system the aged DO have trouble getting access to treatment, then they can have it covered privately


Except for those who can't afford it and will rely upon the state to pay for it. If it is approved by the "doctors and medical experts" who will determine "best practices" for the aged and infirm who don't have private coverage.

And assuming private coverage still exists.

(Read the links and stories above to see how "state based health care" is taking care of the elderly in the UK.)

jw

[edit on 15-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The Liverpool Pathway Sucks.

My Ma was under it, as she was suffering from terminal stomach cancer and was in extreme pain. It was dreadful to watch, to see someone slowly die of starving and dehydration. To see a woman, a strong woman, become stick-like...

...

....

.....

....

...

..

.

The quicker that proper euthanasia is legalised in the UK, the better. We only hold off throwing the over 50s onto the pathway to make sure we beat the US in life expectancy stats. We don't want to embarrass you yanks too much, though.

The Liverpool care pathway involves terminal sedation. TS is used in the US as well. [*SNIP*]

You'll be telling us Stephen Hawking would be dead under the NHS next.


How frequently terminal sedation is used in the United States has never been studied, but estimates range from almost never to as much as 50% of the time in hospice care. The practice has been sanctioned in the U.S. since 1997, when the Supreme Court, in a decision outlawing euthanasia, explicitly ruled terminal sedation legal under the Constitution. But the procedure didn't make big headlines until 2006, when some experts suggested that it may have played a role in the deaths of four critically ill patients trapped in a New Orleans hospital after Hurricane Katrina. (Louisiana prosecutors went further, charging the patients' doctor and two nurses with second-degree murder; a grand jury refused to indict them.) Two years prior, in a 2004 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Timothy Quill, a professor of medicine at the University of Rochester, described using sedation to help his father die. Cases like these have fueled public unease with the practice.

linky

Just so its clear:

You already have a form of the Liverpool Care Pathway, and have done since 1997 when it was judged legal. The LCP just tries to make it more objective and is based on years of practice at some of the best cancer hospitals and hospices in the UK.

Between 0-50% depending in US hospices. No reliable figures for the US. Go collect the data, then criticise the Liverpool Care Pathway.

But, yeah, euthanasia not LCP if and when I need it, ta!

 


Mod Note: Political Baiting and Sniping on ATS – Please Review Link.

Mod Note: Courtesy is Mandatory – Please Review Link.

[edit on 9/16/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

The quicker that proper euthanasia is legalised ... the better


Agree

Second line: I agree that the sooner proper euthanasia is legalised, the better



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Err how is that any different to what happens now, except NOW if you cant afford it and your 20 your just as boned as if you cant afford it and your 70. (in america).

I live in the UK and personally require medication that if I was to receive it in the states would cost me $2000 every other month (I'm not kidding you that's the cost of the drugs in the quantity I need them), without these drugs I would be forced to live an abnormal life of pain and inability (for as long as I could stand to live like that) with these drugs you wouldn't even be able to tell I was sick, and bare in mind this is before I get any normal form of illness / malady that people encounter in their lives (and which my medication makes more susceptible too).

Of course private medicare will still exist, most other developed countries have free healthcare (to some extent or another) for their citizens and ALL of them have options to go private if they so wish.

I also have no problem with those who have to "live" in hospitals on copious amounts of machine / drug support having those withdrawn if they are going to be a requisite for "living" but that is another debate.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by gYvMessanger]

[edit on 15-9-2009 by gYvMessanger]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by gYvMessanger
 




Good post


Second line: Good post .. cuts through the BS


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/16/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by gYvMessanger
reply to post by jdub297
 


Err how is that any different to what happens now, except NOW if you cant afford it and your 20 your just as boned as if you cant afford it and your 70. (in america).


Bleugh, I just noted who posted this thread - the wonders of ignore.

The funny thing is that over 65s are already covered by government run single-payer healthcare in the US - Medicare. Moreover the proposed 'public option' is neither NHS-like or single-payer.

It's just more FUD brought to you by a certain element.

In sum, one of the arguments by the UK right-winger (he used to Lamont's advisor - where was he Black wednesday? lol) is that the US single-payer Medicare spends more on the elderly than the NHS. Cool. We still have a longer life expectancy here - I wonder if the needless extra x-rays get them? Obviously the coffin-dodgers are pretty good at dodging the LCP for a decent time in the UK as well.

I assume, then, that these people will be pushing for single-payer universal healthcare. Apparently better than the NHS, as long as you don't mind giving a year of life away.

So, again, just to be clear. The over 65s are already under the gubmints thumb in the US. Medicare is a government run system. They seem to spend a lot of money to live not as long as us on average in the UK.

USA! USA!

[edit on 15-9-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


You miss the point entirely.

If you want to kill yourself or your parents, or even your children, have at it. Hell, take a few siblings and cousins, too.

The Obama/Holdren proposal will allow the government to make that decision "for" you.

I believe in and endorse "end of life" planning and even hospice care, if that is what the patient wants.

My parents were lucky enough to choose to die in their home, under their own terms. And, mind you, "against medical advice" designed to prolong otherwise hopeless situations. And, of course, without insurance picking up the tab for a futile, miserable, hospital stay.

(As in so much of U.S. medical care, the doctors' decisions were driven more by "how much will insurance/government pay for" rather than "what is in my patient's best interest".)

That is what you face when someone else makes the choices, or the payments, for you. You lose control.

I refuse to give up control over my well being to some actuary, adjuster, or bureaucrat. So did my parents.

It wouldn't have happened without taking charge, and taking it away from others whose sole consideration is money.

If you are comfortable trusting your well being to some bureaucracy, that's up to you.

I (and a few others, from what I've seen) do not want the government interfering in my life any more than they already do. And that's too much.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 15-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Oh really thanks for that info
this whole debate makes even less sense to me now.

Jdub i don't see how the government gets to tell you when to die, I just see they get to tell you when they won't pay for you to live anymore, something which will be set out in formal guidelines and will be up for infinite debate / challenge and manipulation via the political system as everything else is, but you can still go private, or choose whatever options you currently have available.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by gYvMessanger
reply to post by melatonin
 


Oh really thanks for that info
this whole debate makes even less sense to me now.


No worries. You're weren't alone either. A poll shows that a majority of US conservatives (59%) surprisingly want the gubmint to keep out of medicare, lol.

Well, it is the US.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by gYvMessanger
 


i don't see how the government gets to tell you when to die, I just see they get to tell you when they won't pay for you to live anymore


For people who can afford private care or other options, that works out just fine, as it did for my parents, who gave up worthless hospital time for time at home.

Some people will not be able to afford such alternatives. For them, the gov't will make the final decision.

In a eugenic sort of way, that may make sense to you.

jw



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
What do the NHS patients think?


I think you gotta be crazy as hell to adopt our system.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by gYvMessanger
 



Jdub i don't see how the government gets to tell you when to die, I just see they get to tell you when they won't pay for you to live anymore, something which will be set out in formal guidelines and will be up for infinite debate / challenge


You are assuming that the patient will be able to do anything about it as they will no doubt be heavily sedated from the outset. There will be no debate...the patient will be given a mix of morphine and sedation so they are barely conscious and dehydrated to death. As a relative you will sit for days watching them die and hearing the death rattle as their respiration is deliberately suppressed until they die. And tough if the imbecilic doctors have misdiagnosed and your relative would have survived for a few more years. This will be done as a matter of financial saving, not on any other criteria.
For those that support gleefully the idea of euthanasia or this form of murder, you have never sat at the bedside of someone who is being killed off or you would not be speaking like this.
I would personally like to euthanise the men who order this crap, the governing body of NICE, and anyone else involved...preferably with no sedation and in a painful way. The world is run by those unable to feel...deeply sick people.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


It does yes, and I have no problem with people who have no life other than to be stuck on machines / meds and cant do anything but just about live being allowed to die, I think there is a limit on how long we should force someones body to keep going.

Fear of death is not a good enough reason to prolong everyone's life beyond what their body would cope with, if not for modern medical interference, but I also think its need to go hand in hand with a dignified form of euthanasia.

Also the NHS is not perfect (by a long shot) it needs serious reform, but from what I can gather its a lot better then the current US system. Which is exactly you must pay to get anything.




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join