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: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



Will you bigoted Americans lay off the NHS?

You'll find precious few Brits who want it dismantled, and most of them are going to be in the pay of priavate health insurers who do such a great job in the US. [/sarcasm]

For the record, my own mother had "terminal sedation". I am very happy about that and they could have done it a couple of weeks earlier: the last day I went in to see her, the nurse came in and said to her, is there anything I can do? My mother screamed at her, "Kill me!"

[*SNIP*]

Mod Note: Courtesy is Mandatory – Please Review Link.

[edit on 9/16/2009 by AshleyD]




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by uaocteaou
 


What I find interesting given your OP, is the FACT that the UK has a higher life expectancy than the US does....


Sometimes, people accept as FACT information that has no basis in REALITY. Some people profit quite well from this gullibility.

Statistics between countries are meaningless absent absolutely equivalent references and term of measurement.

"Life expectancy" does not equal "health care." Many life "expectancies" are lowered because of auto or industrial accidents; illegal drug, drinking, smoking and eating habits; exposure to violent crime and weapons; and of course, wealth.

Ooops.

Unfortunately, different countries measure "live births" differently. Seems odd, but there ARE different ways of taking the measure. Good example: premature deliveries that have no chance of survival anywhere else in the world are routinely cared for in US hospitals. At tremendous costs. Uninsured, for the most part. (Raises the average cost of care, you know?)

Countries that encourage abortion and eugenics (i.e., the UK) terminate pregnancies at much higher rates than those which value human life as something more than a commodity (e.g., the U.S.). Many medically risky and difficult preganancies are carried to term in the US that would have been terminated in the UK.

Sort of skews the accounting.

Same with life expectancy. Different standards (how many highway and firearm deaths are there in the UK annually) and different standards of living make one-on-one comparisons virtually meaningless.

Even actuarial standards vary from nation to nation.

Go figure.

Please.

jw



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


Will you bigoted Americans lay off the NHS?


Sensitive are we?

You didn't even read the story, did you?

Notice the byline? Need it spoonfed?

Here:

By RUPERT DARWALL
London


How can you blame the US, or even the OP for relaying the British news?

This is British press.
Reporting what British Patients' advocates have reported.
And what British doctors and health care experts are saying about it.

Sorry. I don't offer criticism. I'm making observations based on British sources!

Get over it or so something about it.

jw

[edit on 16-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
6 doctors wrote in to the Telegraph to petition against the current implemented system.

6.

Your article didn't make that very clear.

To put it in perspective my local GP surgery (one of perhaps 30 in the local area) has 10 staff doctors.

Nor do we know how the data was collected, or what ANY of the 16.5% where actually suffering from.

You cant give in to propaganda just because a small boy shouts loudly. I'm sure there ARE people who die before they are ready because the doctors are allowed to refuse them life sustaining health care for no reason other than to keep them ticking a little longer in bed, and I'm equally sure there are people who are grateful for the mercy.

Hell in your in own case with your parents, you still could have bought them home to die under this system if you wanted, you could pay for the drugs to keep them alive, but their comes a point when it really is just purely pointless and selfish.

My grandmother is 80 years old, three weeks ago she had a heartattack and was in hospital a few days and given a pacemaker to regulate everything. Now shes at home and shes much recovered.

Can you explain to me why those resources where wasted on her ? I mean shes 80 right, eats full english breakfasts every morning and a steak for dinner (or whatever), shes not gonna last more than a few more years at best, its a huge waste of money but there she is, and am I glad sure I am.

It does make me wonder just how damn sick youve got to be before your doctor gets to decide whether or not to "murder" you.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by gYvMessanger
6 doctors wrote in to the Telegraph to petition against the current implemented system.

6.


It's not even that.

It's actually sort of 4. Dowager Lord Salisbury is no quack. Do a little research about her organisation 'Choose life'. While you're there, do the same for 'medical ethics alliance' (Dr Anthony Cole - a paediatrician). You might find an interesting link, lol.

Neither is Dr Elizabeth Negus. She's an English 'lecturer'. Interestingly, she says she teaches at 'Barking University', no such place. It's actually Barking college, oops (big difference in the UK between HE college and uni). Milliard is emeritus and so is David Hill. So only 2 practicising, and one in palliative care.

I'm quite sure a sufficient pope poke would show the link between them all. And Millard fits the bill from some of his old letters to the BMJ.

As for the other Telegraph article Rupert Darwell, as mentioned is a conservative (ex-advisor to Norman Lamont), and has been associated with a number of free-market deregulation think-tanks in the UK. He's written many a hit-piece on the NHS.

Anyway, their letter in the Torygraph just says that 'hey, it's possible to make mistakes and we have an article that suggests 16% terminal sedation'.

The first point is somewhat possible and the procedures should be used properly with due care - which they are meant to be. With or without the LCP this could happen. Indeed, you would think that an appropriate care pathway developed via evidence-based medicine and practice would be more reliable than the use of terminal sedation in the US with no such approach. However, these letter writers have absolutely no evidence that it is even happens or is common. Secondly, the 16.5% is based on a very questionable and unreliable questionnaire survey that extrapolates to estimate prevalence, and in no way corresponds to the actual audit data.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by gYvMessanger
 


I am glad your grandmother fared well. Mine just turned a spry 101 last April, and every year has been worth it for her children and grandchildren.


It does make me wonder just how damn sick youve got to be before your doctor gets to decide whether or not to "murder" you.


See, that's the problem with our HR 3200 ("Obamacare"). You don't have to be sick before the medical authorities are paid to begin planning the "end of life" steps for you.

President Obama and his chief advisors on health care have espoused hopes for health care that make the NHS very tame.

John Holdren, Science Advisor, advocates “de-industrialization.” He says: ”[L]aws requiring compulsory abortion could be sustained if the population crisis became sufficiently severe.”

Ezekiel Emmanuel, Health Care czar, is a proponent of the “complete lives” regime by which health care is allocated by age to “productive” Americans. He has advised the President that: “This provides insights for allocation of health care resources. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

Obama agrees. He told the New York Times (May 16,2009) that a "panel of experts" should make make these decisions instead pf patients and families.

Would your grandmother have qualified if these people made the call?

This is why we are concerned about what the UK, Europe, Japan and Canada experience.

jw

[edit on 16-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by rich23
 


Will you bigoted Americans lay off the NHS?


Sensitive are we?

You didn't even read the story, did you?

Notice the byline? Need it spoonfed?

Here:

By RUPERT DARWALL
London



You might have noticed that it's in the WSJ, for a start, and that Mr. Darwall is a "London-based strategist. There's an agenda here and he's not simply "relaying the British news." The POV of the article is clearly American. Here's the first sentence:


Rarely has the Atlantic seemed as wide as when America's health-care debate provoked a near unanimous response from British politicians boasting of the superiority of their country's National Health Service.


Actually, they were responding to the ludicrous attacks on the NHS in the wake of the Obamacare debate. It's not as if the NHS is a perfect system. If you can point to a perfect system anywhere on earth, please do so. But don't use the NHS to justify attacks on Obamacare, about which I know little and care less.

I know damn well which country I'd prefer to fall ill in.


This is British press.
Since when has the WSJ been the British press? I'm far from convinced that the author is British, and the WSJ certainly isn't, unless Wall Street has moved recently and nobody said anything about it.


Sorry. I don't offer criticism. I'm making observations based on British sources!


Yes, you do offer criticism. It's not the British press, and the observations you make are based on US reporting of British sources, which isn't the same thing.

So that's three things you've got flat wrong.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
For people who are interested here are the replies of the British public to the article which originally started this:

www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by gYvMessanger
For people who are interested here are the replies of the British public to the article which originally started this:

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Good to see one of two practicing quacks (the only palliative) who wrote the letter say it was just personal opinion. Wouldn't want stuff like actual data and science getting in the way of their mouldy cheese and whine.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by rich23
 


You might have noticed that it's in the WSJ, for a start, and that Mr. Darwall is a "London-based strategist.

Actually, they were responding to the ludicrous attacks on the NHS in the wake of the Obamacare debate. It's not as if the NHS is a perfect system. If you can point to a perfect system anywhere on earth, please do so. But don't use the NHS to justify attacks on Obamacare, about which I know little and care less.


I've noticed several references to the "letters" that prompted the article, but no cites or quotes.

Here's the source and the British press report that inspired the article:

"Sentenced to death on the NHS"
Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned.
www.telegraph.co.uk...


In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.

As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.

The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.


So, is your complaint that the British author of the article was published by WSJ, or that it was reported?

jw




[edit on 16-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
His problem is clearly stated if you read his post, that your quoting an American media outlet, who in turn is showing the work of an AMERICAN journalist stationed in London.

Ive had a look around the English media, and whilst ill admit other media outlets did pick the story up, in passing, no one but the Telegraph gave it any serious consideration, and the Telegraph seems to have produced the piece as part of a week long look at the issue.

Even the original piece (which is still available on the Telegraph website) isn't as sinister as the WSJ piece.

What we've learn't by looking into this subject is that essentially:

1) A very small group of people (only one of whom is a verified medical practitioner), not backed up by verifiable data wrote a LETTER to the Telegraph regarding the subject, as ANY lobbyist group can do, the Telegraph being a right wing paper and knowing there has been a debate recently on health care because of the whole "If Stephen Hawkin was English he would be dead" lols we got from the American press not long ago decided to do a few features on the subject in its health section, with usual right wing slants attacking the current labor governments managing of the health care system.

2) The piece which had already had a healthy amount of right wing spin on it was read by an American journalist working out of London, who proceeded to put even more right wing spin on it to help those back home fighting against the proposed health care system for the states.

3) The only people so far (on this site and others provided) who have shown any level of belief in the accusations of systematic failure of the system leveled against the NHS in the WSJ article and the OP are people who essentially have no idea as they have zero first hand experience.



[edit on 16-9-2009 by gYvMessanger]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
The thing is very simple. Of course the NHS is commited to keeping people alive. Has anyone been to Brighton, Blackpool, Skegness or similar towns. You can't move for old people so surely somethings been done right here? Americans seem very parnoid about change (god knows why). If change isn't done then nothing gets better, change is a healthly evolution in any country. (well not quite, take somila for example) But change is going to happen at some point, and sometimes this has to be accepted. But please don't use the NHS as an arguement to prevent it. After all its kept me nan and grandpa alive and their both over eighty.
Nice one Britain



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Jacksonred
 


If change isn't done then nothing gets better, change is a healthly evolution in any country. (well not quite, take somila for example) But change is going to happen at some point, and sometimes this has to be accepted.


Nothing in this thread, or in any criticism of "Obamacare," is an argument for status quo.

There are other alternatives than HR3200. Sen. Baucus introduced an alternative this day.

What's wrong with people being allowed to choose their provider, choose the type of care, choose the amount of payment, and even the payor?

That would be an evolutionary change.

Many people in this country do not want MORE government interference in their lives. Many people would rather change toward freedom of choice and free markets than socialism and a "nanny state."

A lot of them were in D.C. last weekend to make that clear.

You may.

jw



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
JW I just want to ask how much you pay for health care Ive heard some really scary numbers from other threads and I'd just like to hear how much per month health coverage for you is (if you work doesnt cover it, as I understand some employers in the states do).

Of course you should have the option to choose. If anything free health care should be relatively basic i.e you can get a leg fixed or help with a mental condition but you cant a boob job or vanity treatments of any kind, and if you wanted it would be fantastic to get the government to pay your contribution payments back into private health care so it gets discounted for you should you wish to pursue that route.

edit:

amusingly i just went to check out my payslips and im paying more NI contributions per month then I thought, we should definitely demand more from our healthcare system (though possibly not me I get quite a good deal).

[edit on 16-9-2009 by gYvMessanger]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by gYvMessanger
 
What I pay doesn't really matter. I am self-employed, so I ultimately bear the cost of ALL my healthcare.

Since it's MY money, I do not let the insurance co., or the government tell me who to see, what services they will provide, or how much to pay. My providers and I determine these things.

You know; like a "free market."

The real problem is what the average, working class, American will pay if "Obamacare" goes through.

Cost estimates were released today along with the "Baucus" bill.

As it turns out, in order to keep the cost under Obama's "promise" of $900 billion, average workers will have to pay between $3,000 and $8,000 for coverage. Although the program initially offered subsidies to the poorest to help with the cost, they had to be reduced to stay under the "cap."

Those who already have coverage will have to pay more to subsidize those who don't. Employers who provide insurance will also have to pay into this "pool." So will insurers.

Oh, and to stay under the cap, benefits had to be reduced, deductibles raised, and co-pays increased.

Now that the facts are out, many former supporters of the bill have bolted, most notably Sens. Reid, Snowe and Rockefeller. Many Democratic legislators are now on record saying they WILL NOT accept the bill.

Again, why have someone else paying the bills anyway? Why not let the worker keep his $3,000 to $8,000 tax free to pay for his basic care and let gov't and insurance cover the severe illnesses and accidents?

jw



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
No if that is the case you probably shouldn't accept it to be honest, as my understanding is that would mean paying more than private healthcare costs those who do have it already by quite a bit, though Im not sure if thats right.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by gYvMessanger]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by gYvMessanger
 

This is all many people are asking for.

Even the worst reports say the US soends about $5,700 per person for healthcare. Why not just let them keep that, or more, and use it themselves?

The gov't could set aside a "pool" for the poor and for catastrophic illness to help with the costs. But the patient should be the one to make the decisions.

After while, doctors would compete with doctors for patients and prices would come down.

Same with other health care providers.

Right now, I can go to either of 2 neighborhood grocers, or any of 3 area pharmacies and see a doctor or nurse practitioner for basic and preventive care at GREAT prices! They COMPETE for my business.

The market works for most goods and services. It's the intervention of third-parties into the relationship that screws things up for everyone.

jw



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join