Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UK's NHS Doctors Issuing 'Do Not Resuscitate' Orders On Elderly Without Patient Or Family Consent

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Oh, ain't socialized medicine a grand concept! That is until your "free" runs over budget, and the Soylent Green machine has your name all over it! Oh, what a utopia!

E lderly patients condemned to early death by secret use of do not resuscitate orders


Elderly patients are being condemned to an early death by hospitals making secret use of "do not resuscitate" orders, an investigation has found.

The orders – which record an advance decision that a patient's life should not be saved if their heart stops – are routinely being applied without the knowledge of the patient or their relatives.

On one ward, one-third of DNR orders were issued without consultation with the patient or their family, according to the NHS's own records. At another hospital, junior doctors freely admitted that the forms were filled out by medical teams without the involvement of patients or relatives.
edit on 10/15/11 by Ferris.Bueller.II because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


10 hospitals studied? 4 or 5 were commiting the illegalities, 4 or 5 were not. Well 50% at least its not widespread(sarcasm) Pretty sick story it sounds like the hospitals simply do not have the resources to take care of these people that should probably be in senior assisted living or a hospice if they are in that bad of shape



Although at least five hospitals were found by the CQC to be in breach of medical guidance regarding consultation with families, the watchdog declared four of the five to be "compliant" with its standards on dignity for patients, which cover broader aspects of care.







edit on 16-10-2011 by AllUrChips because: quote



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by AllUrChips
 


I doubt that is the problem. It has more to do with the government cannot afford hospice or long term care for the sick or elderly. Maybe they are right to let them die. What does it matter if they live a few more years when they cannot contribute anything to society or work to create tax revenue to offset their expense to the state.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
well even though it is bad i kinda agree with it. The earth is getting over populated, hospital bed are running out, goverment hasnt got money to feed, bed, monitor, lookafter and give treatment to due to cuts. In the west we are very quick to put value on things even peoples lives and TBH old people arent usefull there not going to go back to work, there a drain on resorces. It is really sad, in the east old people are respected and become the head of the household when they get older, here people almost see it as a hindereance! I see it all the time at the train station or out and about people pushing passed old people because they are walking to slow or doing something to slow and you can see in this quite short temperted person that they are angry with them for fundementally being old, i mean when you get older you do slow down and walk slower and stuff. kinda sad to be honest
edit on 16-10-2011 by definity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by monkeyfartbreath
 

I couldnt agree more actually. Its not the govs responsibility to take care of them.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AllUrChips
 


Well actually it is the governments responsibility, because since they are talking NHS that is the UK and the government is responsible for peoples healthcare there, because they tax them to cover healthcare from cradle to grave. So it is a violation of the contract that the UK government has made with its citizens. But, I guess you get what you pay for and they cant really live up to there agreement so now they are down to deciding who gets to live and who gets to die for the good of their society. I guess all men are created equal until you become useless to the state.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllUrChips
reply to post by monkeyfartbreath
 

I couldnt agree more actually. Its not the govs responsibility to take care of them.



What is the UK government's responsibility when it guaranteed free medical care for life to all it's citizens?
Does that give the UK government the authority to determine the length and quality of all it's citizens' lives?



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Yes they do, apparently. See this is what happens when you turn your life over to the nanny state. You live at their mercy and have no choice but to live under their rules. People in the UK have given up their rights and their freedom in order for the government to take responsibility for them.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
The fine print version. This is not free health care, it's needed health care. The government decides what is needed. Your input is considered, but the final decision is up to them. It is based on you viability, cost, and your productivity as a citizen for the common good of your community and society at large. You agreed to this when you picked your form of government and again when you, or your parents sign up for the National Health Care card and number.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I attribute this all to a government that wrote a check its butt couldnt cash. What we will see over the next 20 years is a dismantling of the socialist parts of western governments. These programs are all unsustainable at any level of taxation.

Just from a healthcare point of view, how hard would it be for me to keep someone alive, in a coma or incapicatated for a decade or more if someone else was paying the bill and I didnt care about cost. I wouldnt think too hard.

So now you have people that paid in say a million dollars in taxes over their lifetimes, but now it costs 5 million in healthcare to keep them alive as long as possible. Thing is this might work if it was an insurance company who had wisely invested that million dollars, but governments never invested the money. They spent it almost as fast as it was coming in.
edit on 16-10-2011 by monkeyfartbreath because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I don't believe in abuse of this order, but as a nurse and as someone who comes from a family of nurses there are family members that keep people alive due to their own agendas...It is sad...and wrong...In these cases someone should step in....DNR order in some cases is humane trust me...



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by zbeliever
I don't believe in abuse of this order, but as a nurse and as someone who comes from a family of nurses there are family members that keep people alive due to their own agendas...It is sad...and wrong...In these cases someone should step in....DNR order in some cases is humane trust me...
That being said, couldn't it be said the same about abortion?



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bullcookies

Originally posted by zbeliever
I don't believe in abuse of this order, but as a nurse and as someone who comes from a family of nurses there are family members that keep people alive due to their own agendas...It is sad...and wrong...In these cases someone should step in....DNR order in some cases is humane trust me...
That being said, couldn't it be said the same about abortion?


Yes if by abortion you are using it as another example of the government sanctioning the murder of its own citizens.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by Bullcookies

Originally posted by zbeliever
I don't believe in abuse of this order, but as a nurse and as someone who comes from a family of nurses there are family members that keep people alive due to their own agendas...It is sad...and wrong...In these cases someone should step in....DNR order in some cases is humane trust me...
That being said, couldn't it be said the same about abortion?


Yes if by abortion you are using it as another example of the government sanctioning the murder of its own citizens.
And thus the same could be said about war?



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bullcookies

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by Bullcookies

Originally posted by zbeliever
I don't believe in abuse of this order, but as a nurse and as someone who comes from a family of nurses there are family members that keep people alive due to their own agendas...It is sad...and wrong...In these cases someone should step in....DNR order in some cases is humane trust me...
That being said, couldn't it be said the same about abortion?


Yes if by abortion you are using it as another example of the government sanctioning the murder of its own citizens.
And thus the same could be said about war?


Well generally in a war the goal is the sanctioning of the murder of another countries citizens unless the government is funding both sides of its own civil war, but I get your point.
edit on 16-10-2011 by monkeyfartbreath because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by Bullcookies

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by Bullcookies

Originally posted by zbeliever
I don't believe in abuse of this order, but as a nurse and as someone who comes from a family of nurses there are family members that keep people alive due to their own agendas...It is sad...and wrong...In these cases someone should step in....DNR order in some cases is humane trust me...
That being said, couldn't it be said the same about abortion?


Yes if by abortion you are using it as another example of the government sanctioning the murder of its own citizens.
And thus the same could be said about war?


Well generally in a war the goal is the sanctioning of the murder of another countries citizens unless the government is funding both sides of its own civil war, but I get your point.
edit on 16-10-2011 by monkeyfartbreath because: (no reason given)
It may seem odd but these are the things I think about all the time. Basically what are we as individual are willing to sacrifice for the common good. That is really what Health care is about. Money vrs Life of others. As far as abortion and war my opinions are varied and situational. I have been in combat but have not had an abortion(wrong gender) But as far as combat I can say sucks really bad. My other question, and I have no real numbers, but if all those people would have been born, or not been killed in combat, or had been resuscitated, what would the world and society be like and how many would that be.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I think it might help you if you looked at war as an aid to human evolution. See man has no natural predators that we have not conquered, so all we have to continue mankinds evolution is war. So by participating in war we are faciliting the development of our species.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath
reply to post by AllUrChips
 


I doubt that is the problem. It has more to do with the government cannot afford hospice or long term care for the sick or elderly. Maybe they are right to let them die. What does it matter if they live a few more years when they cannot contribute anything to society or work to create tax revenue to offset their expense to the state.


I agree that hospice and long term care is expensive, but youth who've been in a car or bike accident at 19 might well be in long term care too, and lots of them are. DIalysis care is expensive as well, as is cardiac surgery. So why single out the elderly for special bias? This kind of thinking really disturbs me, because it is playing God with the value of someone's life.

A child is non-productive, if working for a living is the standard you go by. Why measure seniors with such a blind eye? In Canada, seniors have been the real backbone of the volunteer movement for example, and have built and paid for the health system currently in use, yet we don't hesitate to resuscitate a child who has not contributed an iota to the tax revenue, nor built the system. To dismiss someone's life as non-productive just because they're senior is therefore a grossly unfair assessment. If you value life, then you value it until its natural end. I'm sure happy my grandparents got to end their days in a natural way, with compassion and gratitude on our family's part for the life they led.

Do not resuscitate forms should be signed upon admission by the person being admitted or their legal representative and reviewed at a predetmined regular date.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath
I think it might help you if you looked at war as an aid to human evolution. See man has no natural predators that we have not conquered, so all we have to continue mankinds evolution is war. So by participating in war we are faciliting the development of our species.
From my experience we are trying to change poorly predicted out comes of the last wars using out dated strategies making the same mistakes. Kinda like playing Chinese checker on a chessboard with a football bat and eating a chicken soup sandwich. FUBAR



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Bullcookies
 


I'm sorry but "no".....this is letting nature take its course and when you can no longer reason,walk,talk,eat with out a tube,breath without a tube,but your family wants to keep you going because you make 5,000 a month and the VA hospital only takes 2,000 and your kids come every month for the balance......Don't think there is only a few people in this situation....because there is more then you probably think....
edit on 16-10-2011 by zbeliever because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join