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.

 

Death Panels Come To The UK

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
It seems that if you have worked hard all your life and paid into the system, if you get cancer or other terminal illness then you are no longer worthy so a death panel will decide that you are not worthy, cost too much, so will ensure your speedy dispatch off this mortal coil.

On the other side, if you are a waste of space druggy or alcoholic you will recieve any treatment you need, even though you probably have not paid a penny into the system and will probably go back to being a waste of space after treatment.

Either way, treatment and the prolonging of life should not be denied anyone. This is a very slippery slope indeed all for the sake of knobhead Camerons cuts.

For the sake of money a much loved family member cant have that few extra days or weeks with their family. They are surplus to requirements... The ultimate end result of empathy free Darwinism.. What next? Taking your family member to the doctors to get put down?

Thats where we are heading.
Source




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 


Thing is, I see their point. For me, I don't think that spending all that money to prolong their life a few weeks is really worth it. It's not about the money for me, anyway. These people go through agony and extreme humiliation just have a feeble half-life for a few short months. We force people to linger of death's doorstep for months, whereas we have the compassion to give animals some euthanasia. What's the point in forcing these people to live at death's doorstep, and where's the compassion in that?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   
One of the few things I really believe in is paying into the NHS and would pay more for better care.. as long as we can fine tune how many friggin managers et al they have and a return to the notion that the caring profession is actually caring.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   
I guess its down to the person to decide wether they want treatment or not. 9 out of 10 probably will want treatment of some sort, but then it will come down to wether they can afford it or not, which is what i find silly. If there are treatments availible to help people, the price should not be an issue. It just shows the way the world works. If you are rich you can have treatment, if you are poor you cannot. It seems we havent come along as far as we think in the past few thousand years....



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
I know of three cases in my life alone where people have been told they probably shouldn't bother with treatment 'x' because they only have months to live, and it would just be dragging things out, only to go on and beat these things, and still be alive and kicking today.
If I know of three, god knows how many cases like that there are out there...

It's not forced, if they ask for the treatment because they want to spend an extra few weeks/months with their loved ones though is it?

I thought the point, was to do all you could to sustain life. It shouldn't really be politicians places to decide who lives and who dies..
edit on 27-9-2011 by Deplume because: fail spelling is fail



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
This news is slightly worrying for me. I have already had 2 lots of different Chemo therapies courses for a recurring malignant brain tumor. It's very likely that my tumor will come back in the near future and I hope that they will still use chemo again, considering my young age. I don't know what I would do if they turned down chemo, because I still feel that even if my tumor goes active again, I will still be able to fight it for another few years with the help of more brain surgery and chemo. I can't have anymore radio therapy, but I believe the chemo has kept me alive a lot longer than the doctors expected. I should have been dead 2 years ago according to their initial prognosis.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
reply to post by EvanB
 


Thing is, I see their point. For me, I don't think that spending all that money to prolong their life a few weeks is really worth it. It's not about the money for me, anyway. These people go through agony and extreme humiliation just have a feeble half-life for a few short months. We force people to linger of death's doorstep for months, whereas we have the compassion to give animals some euthanasia. What's the point in forcing these people to live at death's doorstep, and where's the compassion in that?


I agree, but what about choice? Choice is taken away and doctors get to play God.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by 2012king
 


Sometimes I feel we have in fact gone backwards.. the destruction of families and communities has certainly played it part in creating a selfish greedy society.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 


i'm sorry if you are facing sad times within your family. that is tough to go through. that said, i know from healthcare workers that the illness of a loved one clouds peoples better judgement as they find themselves unable and unwilling to let go. this is very common. sadly, it makes things tougher on the patient and for those who care for them.

i hear many people in the USA speak of healthcare as if it is a birthright. it isn't. we have the privilege of access to healthcare and we have to pay the bills for it, just as when we are using the services of any other professional. there are no free lunches, everything comes at a cost.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
It's not about the money for me, anyway. These people go through agony and extreme humiliation just have a feeble half-life for a few short months. We force people to linger of death's doorstep for months, whereas we have the compassion to give animals some euthanasia. What's the point in forcing these people to live at death's doorstep, and where's the compassion in that?


Well said, that's why I believe eutanasia should be legal in some extreme cases. A lot of people brings counter-argument, that's just killing people, that it's unhuman, etc. but what's really unhuman IMHO is keeping someone artificially alive, without any hopes for reconvalescence, often in paralyzing pain, surrounded by strangers for whom you're just another patient on death-row. Pure hypocrisy.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
This news is slightly worrying for me. I have already had 2 lots of different Chemo therapies courses for a recurring malignant brain tumor. It's very likely that my tumor will come back in the near future and I hope that they will still use chemo again, considering my young age. I don't know what I would do if they turned down chemo, because I still feel that even if my tumor goes active again, I will still be able to fight it for another few years with the help of more brain surgery and chemo. I can't have anymore radio therapy, but I believe the chemo has kept me alive a lot longer than the doctors expected. I should have been dead 2 years ago according to their initial prognosis.
Hang tough, my friend!



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
This news is slightly worrying for me. I have already had 2 lots of different Chemo therapies courses for a recurring malignant brain tumor. It's very likely that my tumor will come back in the near future and I hope that they will still use chemo again, considering my young age. I don't know what I would do if they turned down chemo, because I still feel that even if my tumor goes active again, I will still be able to fight it for another few years with the help of more brain surgery and chemo. I can't have anymore radio therapy, but I believe the chemo has kept me alive a lot longer than the doctors expected. I should have been dead 2 years ago according to their initial prognosis.


This is why we must fight against this. Its barbaric and anti human to the extreme. I do not mind my contributions going to your treatment, infact I insist that it does!

What about consulting the public? It our fricken money that pays these clowns!



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


I hope it doesn't

best wishes tho
all will remain well.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by stainlesssteelrat

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
It's not about the money for me, anyway. These people go through agony and extreme humiliation just have a feeble half-life for a few short months. We force people to linger of death's doorstep for months, whereas we have the compassion to give animals some euthanasia. What's the point in forcing these people to live at death's doorstep, and where's the compassion in that?


Well said, that's why I believe eutanasia should be legal in some extreme cases. A lot of people brings counter-argument, that's just killing people, that it's unhuman, etc. but what's really unhuman IMHO is keeping someone artificially alive, without any hopes for reconvalescence, often in paralyzing pain, surrounded by strangers for whom you're just another patient on death-row. Pure hypocrisy.


Again, I still think it should be down to the individual to decide for themselves.
If they are in a state where they are physically unable to decide for themselves then that is a different matter. I am not saying pull the plug straight away, but if there is absolutely no way back then obviously this situation will be explained to those involved.
Is a family member deciding to turn off life support not the same as offering a terminally ill patient the opportunity to stop dragging out suffering and deciding to end their own life painlessly? Surely that should not be down to governing bodies/laws to decide,but down to the individual.
I would have thought it was basic human rights but obviously not.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvanB

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
This news is slightly worrying for me. I have already had 2 lots of different Chemo therapies courses for a recurring malignant brain tumor. It's very likely that my tumor will come back in the near future and I hope that they will still use chemo again, considering my young age. I don't know what I would do if they turned down chemo, because I still feel that even if my tumor goes active again, I will still be able to fight it for another few years with the help of more brain surgery and chemo. I can't have anymore radio therapy, but I believe the chemo has kept me alive a lot longer than the doctors expected. I should have been dead 2 years ago according to their initial prognosis.


This is why we must fight against this. Its barbaric and anti human to the extreme. I do not mind my contributions going to your treatment, infact I insist that it does!

What about consulting the public? It our fricken money that pays these clowns!



HEAR HEAR! Totally agree!
woodwardjnr forgive me for using you as a case in point, but you are exactly who I'm talking about.
Why should anyone turn round to you and say ''Sorry, no more treatment, it's just extending your life, and we can't really afford it, bye''

Maybe if we cut back on the amount we spend giving legal representation to illegal immigrants who have broken the law(and I stress the ILLEGAL part, immigrants in general are not an issue in my book)
or the 'health and safety' panels, who decide footballs are dangerous for kids health, and they should wear goggles while playing with playdough...
or perhaps tax people more fairly, as the public have been demanding for months if not years... then we wouldn't have to deny treatment to anyone?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by LargeFries
reply to post by EvanB
 


i'm sorry if you are facing sad times within your family. that is tough to go through. that said, i know from healthcare workers that the illness of a loved one clouds peoples better judgement as they find themselves unable and unwilling to let go. this is very common. sadly, it makes things tougher on the patient and for those who care for them.

i hear many people in the USA speak of healthcare as if it is a birthright. it isn't. we have the privilege of access to healthcare and we have to pay the bills for it, just as when we are using the services of any other professional. there are no free lunches, everything comes at a cost.


Thankfully there is no one in my family with a dreaded illness, we are all healthy buggers lol.

But healthcare in the UK IS a human right via the NHS which every person in the UK pays for through a tax called national insurance... It is free at source and their for all citizens.. Our current government wishes to change that by the looks of it but they dare not as they would not last very long! The NHS is a sacred cow that dare not be touched.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   
I understand, it is costly and frankly the NHS is already over extended. It doesn't seem cost efficient to pay thousands for a few extra weeks. However what price for a few extra weeks? the companies who make these drugs seem to think it worth upwards of several thousand per month. if it's you, or your loved one, no price is too much I suspect.

The real question, the real bastard in this is NOT the NHS or the doctors who did the report, it is the drug companies, who put a price on people's hope to have a few more weeks of life worth living.

One of these drugs is called Abirateron, it for people who suffer from Prostate cancer, it extends life, giving people pricelss time with their loved ones.

Johnson & Johnson has put a price on that valuable time. 40K USD for one course of treatment.

Instead of telling people that a few extra weeks with their families is a waste of money, the NHS should tell Johnson & Johnson to lower the price, instead, it seems to be ok because we all know that profit comes before anything else.

Shame on Johnson & Johnson for a company policy which says only the rich deserve a few extra weeks.
Shame on the NHS for not calling them out on it



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Care has always been rationed and always will be in some form or another. You cannot escape the fact that providing one kind of care necessitates taking away resources from some other activity; it’s very easy to say “how can you put a price on human life” but that ignores the above fact. By putting resources into prolonging one person’s life by five years you may be taking resources away from prolonging another by 30.

It's arguable whether these doctors are best placed to make the decision as to the most efficient use of resources but at the end of the day someone does have to make that decision.

By the way this has nothing to do with Cameron’s cuts, NICE, which makes these decisions, has existed in its current form since 1999 and decisions like this have been made since time began.

reply to post by Merigold
 



The real question, the real bastard in this is NOT the NHS or the doctors who did the report, it is the drug companies, who put a price on people's hope to have a few more weeks of life worth living.

One of these drugs is called Abirateron, it for people who suffer from Prostate cancer, it extends life, giving people pricelss time with their loved ones.

Johnson & Johnson has put a price on that valuable time. 40K USD for one course of treatment.


And how much did it cost to design that drug, to test it, to manufacture it and to transport it etc? The cost of producing these drugs is huge and the failure rate incredible. The headline cost is misleading if you’re talking about what the pharmaceuticals get out of the transaction; of that 40k how much is profit?

You could say that they shouldn’t make a profit or that profits should be capped but if you do that then what incentive is there to invest in new drugs and treatments? If you look at where investment in new drugs comes from and where it goes you will find that markets that have a cap placed on prices and/or profits see much less investment. We can have cheap/free drugs if you want but that would come with a slower pace of development for new medicines.

Also at what stage in the development process does the moral duty end? So the investors must accept smaller dividends to bring the price down, but does that include the pensioners whose fund depends on those investments? What about the scientists and engineers who design the drugs and make twice the average income, should they take a pay cut? What about the factory workers who manufacture the drugs do they have a moral duty to reduce their pay since that also adds to the price? What about the truck drivers who transport them? What about the petrol station owners whose profits add to the distribution costs? If you bring together everyone who makes a profit out of that 40k headline cost then you will have far more people than just the “fat cats” on the board of Johnson and Johnson.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
if i had a herd and planned to lead them to slaughter, i wouldnt invest alot in their health and well being,
whereas if i was going to keep them around and shear them i might take more care of them..
sound logical?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Cameron is hell bent on dragging this country back into some Victorianesque society along with all the inequalities and injustices that went with it.

Yes, there is much wrong with the NHS and waste is endemic alongside rampant cronyism and corruption yet the NHS could and should be the shining light of a caring and progressive nation, instead this administration seems intent on ripping the heart out of it and destroying all that is good about it instead of addressing the core issues and thus building an efficient, caring and effective institution that provides the best of treatment for all members of our society.

My younger brother was born in the early 70's and it was only the brilliance of NHS staff and their modern equipment that enabled him to live past 2 years old.
If he was born today he wouldn't survive.
Key personnel are so disillusioned that they are increasingly going abroad and the equipment is outdated and poorly maintained.

Quite extraordinarily exorbitant amounts are spent within the NHS and other public sector areas on the hypocritical, out dated and ineffective current drug legislation, policies and practices when alternative approaches have been proven to work.

I suspect that this could well be the thin end of the wedge and I wonder what other criteria will be introduced to determine if a person deserves treatment or not?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join