Death Panels Come To The UK

reply to post by EvanB


That's a different thing, it seems. It would appear that is for those patients on effectively permanent life-support with no signs of recovery and clinical brain death. I would agree (and would desire if it was me) that people in that situation should be allowed to die.

Originally posted by andy06shake
Oh yeh im Scottish and with your countrys behavior lately dont think you have a leg to stand on eh? Riot on dude!!! Proud English Man, thats a joke i hope! Atleast we can keep our Chavs under control!

Only because they're all too pissed to bother caring about anything, all paid for by English taxpayers!

See, we can all sling silly insults around, gets us no where though. Grow up and stop with the jabs against the English and offer up some constructive comments, because I am damn sure if we start to pick holes in each others countries, we'd find plenty in your neck of the woods chap.

reply to post by popsmayhem


And this is coming from a country where, if you don't have any money to pay for your dialusis or chemo, you die a slow, painful and unmedicated death.

What experience or knowledge have you got of the NSH, exactly? I've never had an issue every time I've needed it and never had to wait more than 2hrs in A&E from coming in through the door and going home again. My brother was born with renal failure and without the NHS he would be dead, but he is alive 20 years later, having had a transplant and is now on drugs to control his immune system. Such a thing would have been unaffordable in the US and even if we had insurance, it would be massively expensive just to keep him alive. In the NHS, it is free - for life.

reply to post by stumason



Fear based marketing old chap

Its like yeast. A little leaven leavens the whole lump..

reply to post by Merigold


There are a number of things wrong with what you are saying. First of all the Institute of Cancer Research, along with other charities, receives part of its funding from private corporations so you can’t say that any work done by that institute is cost free for private industry.

Secondly it’s a far cry from initial identification and small scale trials to full commercial production; it’s not a simple as “charity comes up with them, pharma markets them”. Although small scale trials were conducted by ICR and Royal Marsden the drug still required (and requires) extensive testing and development which involves a number of companies.

The cost of developing a brand new drug is estimated to be around $800m and 12 years. Pharmaceutical companies spent around $39bn on drug R&D in the US alone in 2004.

www.cbo.gov...

Third comparing a drug that is used by a small number of people to something like Viagra is a misunderstanding of how price works. Greater demand naturally decreases price as it allows, among other things, R&D costs to be spread thereby bringing down unit costs. The same scale cannot be achieved with a drug that might be used by a couple of hundred thousand compared to one used by hundreds of millions.

You can argue that the price of Viagra could be raised to cover the R&D of other drugs but at some point you will get diminishing returns as demand decreases (some will decide they don’t need it and some will move to competitors). It is likely that the price of Viagra is already bringing in as much profit as it can as it would, of course, be in the best interests of the seller to set prices at this level. So increasing prices in an attempt to cover more of their R&D costs will in reality decrease their income and result in less R&D.

There is something seriously wrong with society when life extending drugs are about a profit.

Again, where in the development chain does this moral sin end? Why is it that the investors are immoral for expecting a return on their risk but the engineer is ok?

At the end of the day the right thing should not have a cost associated with it, profit should NOT trump the right thing to do.

But they do, there is no changing that. People will always have to give up their time to design and manufacture the drugs and people still have to take a risk in investing in their production and all of these people need to be compensated for this.

If you say that no one can derive a profit for providing a need then all of these people must live at cost, i.e. they only get what they need to survive. If we did that then what would be the incentive to invest in pharmaceuticals on the one hand where you get nothing for your capital as opposed to investing in making video games on the other where you can get a 5% return?

Under a such a system drug development would all but halt.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

But it's not falling to pieces and it's not failing.

Yes, it is mis-managed.
Yes, there is endemic waste.
Yes, there are the occassional horror story.
Yes, there are issues with the benefit system and free loaders being a drain on resources.

But all of those can be addressed, even those that are more directly related to social and political issues.
And that would benefit and help improve the service provided by the NHS.

Yes, there are genuine concerns about the direction Cameron's administration is taking the NHS.
But the vast majority of people in this country receive more than adequate treatment from dedicated staff regardless of the severity of their illness or ailment and regardless of social or financial background and standing.

No-one is killing off little old ladies...yet.

Well, what if they REALLY do start to kill old people off?
Or start suggesting/having parents terminate
mentally retarded children or down syndromed kid's ect?

What can you do if it does get to that point?
There needs to be laws put into place (imo)
that could somehow outlaw those practices and death panels.

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

Are you suggesting that everyone in the US gets whatever treatment they desire regardless of cost? That’s not what happens to my knowledge.

Yes we do, we get a bill in the mail though for it if you do not have insurance..
Might not be whatever you disire but what ever to keep you alive.
At least though you can claim bankruptcy on it in a very dire situation (millions owed)

If you purchase insurance though you will be fine.

reply to post by popsmayhem


What if my Auntie had balls?

No-one has suggested that they should or might start killing old people or those with mental or physical disabilities.
And it's at least as likely to happen in your country or somewhere else as it is here.

And if anyone did then they would be guilty of murder so it would require debate and the passing of a Billl in Parliament.

Denying people with terminal illnesses treatment due to financial consideration is one thing, killing someone because they are old, ill or handicapped is quite something else.

reply to post by popsmayhem

If you purchase insurance though you will be fine.

And what of those who can't afford to purchase medical insurance?

Currently my 83 year old grandad is having treatment for bowel cancer, which is also in his liver. While under any circumstances no-one wants someone they love to die, I understand the need to stop prolonging lives for the sake of living.
I was shocked to see the headlines, but I do believe it's been a long time coming. Just another way to shuffle us off this mortal coil as quick as possible...

I think the problem with some peeps in this thread is they seem to think the UK is a constitutional monarchy, this is just not the case. Voting in the uk is theatre for the masses. Money talks and ******** walks as they say. Freedom is an illusion, if you cant see this then you are part of the problem! Denying elderly and terminally ill people medical services is just as bad as the eugenics programs that Germary had in place in WW2.

The NHS is the single biggest customer of any pharmaceutical company in the world. The cronies in charge appear unable to use that buying power to demand a good deal. Moreover all medical research should be taken out of the hands of big pharma - the only solution they'll ever come up with is a drug.

How about really focusing on prevention and not cure. Get them to sort out the crap they're putting in our food. E.g. The Egyptian's Aswan Dam - electricity for all - and an end to the black silt that ensured that country thrived for millennia arriving from the now defunct Nile flood. Instead they now use chemical fertilizers and with the year round sunshine the water in the fields evaporates pretty darn quickly and leaves concentrated levels of chemicals in the food. Consequently Egypt has had a cancer epidemic since the 70's.

I always find it galling when I hear our US cousins declare that healthcare is not a right but a privilege...that's a fundamental difference in our thinking. Here in the UK healthcare is very much a right and ill health doesn't tend to put our house at risk - adding to our woes. What else is society for? I always regarded society as a system that facilitated the care of most vulnerable be they young, old or ill.

Now look, it really is very simple.

No country or community will ever be able to afford to provide every treatment to every citizen on demand. Certain wealthy individuals may be able to achieve this for themselves and expensive insurances may help some others get close to it, albeit at a prohibitively high cost for most, but no social health scheme will ever approach it.

...and nor should it.

Resources are finite and public spending is all about priorities. Sooner or later someone will have to make a decision whether to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to briefly prolong the life of a terminally ill octogenarian or whether that money should be spent giving a premature baby the chance to live for more than a few days. Whether or not we as individuals see that choice being made or not it will be there in some shape or form. The alternative may not be the premature baby, it may be providing adequate education to a child, improving public transport for everyone, supporting industrial development in the Welsh valleys or even providing social housing for immigrants.

We cannot fund everything and never will. Where you draw the line and which call for public money wins will always be a matter of debate and much soul searching but as long as idealistic idiots and mindless newspaper editors fail to recognise that what is spent on futile treatments directly and adversely affects what can be spent on vital public services we will never learn to address these matters rationally and with proper consideration.

Will NHS services be rationed?, yes, of course they will just as they always have been. Should they be?, you bet your life they should. Does it help to discuss serious topics using infantile terms such as "death panels"?, no it doesn't.

"Does it help to discuss serious topics using infantile terms such as "death panels"?, no it doesn't." Thats just it though, nothing seems to help anymore! Maybe if the released some of the Tech that they really have then funds could be released to accomodate the major problems this world has. But who wants free energy and lifespans in excess of 200+ years. Me thats who, i want it and so do you(Planet Earth) but TPTB want control so thats the way of it, so far eh?

reply to post by popsmayhem

Yes we do, we get a bill in the mail though for it if you do not have insurance..

My question was “Are you suggesting that everyone in the US gets whatever treatment they desire regardless of cost?”

Your answer suggests that no not everyone gets whatever treatment they desire regardless of cost. What they get is what they can afford or what their insurance company will cover not whatever they desire.

I’m not making any judgement as to which is better I’m just pointing out that both systems ration treatment so that in the end some treatments are denied.

reply to post by andy06shake


I think the problem with some other "peeps" in this thread is that they don't understand very basic economics, live in a fantasy and refuse to engage with the argument.

reply to post by christina-66

The NHS is the single biggest customer of any pharmaceutical company in the world. The cronies in charge appear unable to use that buying power to demand a good deal.

That's not really true, the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme seeks to control drug prices to ensure a good deal.

www.dh.gov.uk...

Of course that does come with perverse incentives/disincentives if that’s what you were referring to.

Moreover all medical research should be taken out of the hands of big pharma - the only solution they'll ever come up with is a drug.

Why?! No one is forced to buy their products if they don’t work and they spend billions on developing new treatments.

If you remove their ability to conduct R&D you won’t increase public or charity sector R&D so all you’ll do is remove a massive source of innovation.

reply to post by Mike_A

Why?! No one is forced to buy their products if they don’t work and they spend billions on developing new treatments.

If you remove their ability to conduct R&D you won’t increase public or charity sector R&D so all you’ll do is remove a massive source of innovation

Do you have any idea how many women have been killed because cervical cancer was treated with chemo instead of penicillin. It's not a cancer it's an std. It seems a condom would have saved countless lives.

Or what about the treatment of ulcers? Again requiring penicillin. The cause? A bacterium most of us carry - helicobacter pylori - it took until the late 90's to work that one out.

They could decriminalize cannabis, curing cancer and saving money in the process. A win/win for everyone except for big pharma. And there in lies the problem. Until we get the lobbyists out of government nothing will change.

"I think the problem with some other "peeps" in this thread is that they don't understand very basic economics, live in a fantasy and refuse to engage with the argument."

Argument??? I thought this was a discussion. Also the reason i wont engage is because a lot of the opinions posted i agree with to some extent! Oh and theres nothing basic about economics these days! As for living in a fantasy, no just Glasgow, more like a horror movie than a fantasy!

Originally posted by EvanB
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

Ahh so you are an idiot that doesn't understand common sense and how things work?

Ahh I see.

P.S. Death Panels were never in the US and it was a farce that 98% of humans figured out. Sorry you are in the 2%.

reply to post by christina-66


I’m not sure I see your point. What does any of that have to do with whether pharmaceutical companies should be able to develop new drugs?

reply to post by EvanB

What next? Taking your family member to the doctors to get put down?

I can see it getting much worse than that. Soon we should be hearing of people burying loved ones in the backyard like the family pet. Do you believe there is some kind of cap on inhumanitarianism when it comes
to governments ? The governments are all presided over by an evil dehumanizer and I know how strange that sounds.

But they don't say truth is stranger than fiction just because it's a catchy thing to say.

SnF