It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
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.
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.
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.
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.
people don't get it either that they are dying from the 'chemotherapy', not from cancer
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
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.
The quicker that proper euthanasia is legalised ... the better
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).
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.
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
Originally posted by jdub297
What do the NHS patients think?
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