Posts1,029,848
Topics75,779
Members13,634
Forums65
Posts in last 24hrs29
|
Most Online14,906 Nov 23rd, 2019
|
|
38 registered members (8 invisible),
1,396
guests, and366
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
Re: Hospital
[Re: cools]
#1030516
10th Feb 2017 11:44pm
10th Feb 2017 11:44pm
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,621 Wirral
venice

Forum Guardian
|

Forum Guardian
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,621
Wirral
|
My thoughts are that its unlikely any of us know for sure what the motivation for operating was . It could have been to keep him going for a year or two purely because he was otherwise fit and as someone said , hed paid his dues , or it could be it suited the medical teams to have a bit of practice , as suggested .
I agree wholeheartedly with reason 2 -- with reason 1 , I have mixed feelings .We dont like to think of the worth of a life measured in money , and thats what privatization will do , but in the case of the very elderly , it wouldnt surprise me if in the future we have to save to take out pecific extra 'life extension' insurance if we wish to have expensive surgery , after say 90 or so . Of course in an ideal world, there would be enough NHS money to pay for everything, but its not going to happen , so we will have to make hard decisions .
|
|
|
Re: Hospital
[Re: cools]
#1030518
11th Feb 2017 12:09am
11th Feb 2017 12:09am
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 13,867 Birkenhead
diggingdeeper

Wiki Master
|

Wiki Master
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 13,867
Birkenhead
|
If there are hard choices to be made should it not be based on how well the person has attempted to look after their health and well being together with ability/inability to afford?
Someone that is still playing tennis into their nineties should not be penalised, someone that has been a slob most of their lives and costed the NHS a lot because of that should not be treated as an equal.
Or .... no bias at all. The biggest bias in recent years has been the question of "can we keep this person alive for 10 years" and seems to be a target in many medical cases. To write someone off at 66 because they are unlikely to reach 76 is wrong, most of these people have worked most of their lives and contributed to society, they are entitled to the time of leisure. I can understand a lower setting but my opinion is that if they are likely to have anything over 6 months of quality life then that fully justifies their entitlement.
The biggest problem is the lack of investment by the government in training new nurses and doctors, they face a situation of the employees ruling the roost because of the supply/demand situation.
Another area the government has failed in is controlling the medical profession, medical professionals play with peoples lives after long hours where they would not be allowed to drive or operate machinery with those hours.
I also believe that a person has a right to die of their own choice provided it can be demonstrated that their quality of life is below, and likely to remain below, what they consider reasonable.
The further you are down the pay scale, the more 'essential' you are when the s--- hits the fan... Sue Farbysmith 2020
Insults are engendered from vulgar minds, like toadstools from a dunghill - Charles Caleb Colton
We don't do charity in Germany, We pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn
|
|
|
Re: Hospital
[Re: cools]
#1030523
11th Feb 2017 2:54am
11th Feb 2017 2:54am
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,621 Wirral
venice

Forum Guardian
|

Forum Guardian
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,621
Wirral
|
I dont think it should be judged on how well people have looked after themselves alongside financial considerations, because it would be too hard to judge fairly.
The person fostering 2 children one of whom is disabled , with a dementia struck parent to oversee may have no time to prioritise exercise and their own healthcare.
What about the person who is just born with less oomph and doesnt have the energy or drive to exercise ?
What about the person who is unable to control their food intake because cuts mean clinical help is unavailable and they have no willpower ?(latest studies show some people's physiology makes it harder) How about the person living in group type accommodation where they are not in control of the kinds of food being served most of the time and money is short-?
How about people who are over the 'poverty level' but are helping out an offspring in dire straits and therefore cut back on their own normally healthy lifestyle, to do so ?
What about people who are depressed and comfort eat ?
What about those who are workaholics who run themselves into the ground despite eating well?
How do you judge eligibility of people who have lived healthily for half their lives but not the the other half for whatever reason .
How do you even prove who has looked after themselves and who hasnt ? Some people who are naturally slim , do no exercise, and look as if theyve lived super healthily -- but havent ?
What about your dangerous sport addicts - who judges if they have looked after their health well when many of them will have needed hospital care which wouldnt have been needed if they hadnt been boxing, skiing ,showjumping , climbing or whatever?
I wouldnt like to be the on the panel who has to decide which of the above are more worthy of receiving treatment than another . I just dont see how it could be worked out at all, because you're comparing such vastly different things with too many variants and unknowns.
So, for me you treat everyone regardless of how theyve looked after themselves . As I said, though if ruthless cuts DO have to be made, I think the over 90's or 95's (regardless of how theyve looked after themselves) would be the group likely to be targeted by the NHS , because its easier to justify limiting expensive treatments to them, than any other groups I can think of.
Mind you , thats objective. If it was my husband, mum or dad , I would probably be fighting to get them treated .
Agree with all the other points you made DD . A legal self destruct button like fish advocated a bit back, would be my preference for choosing the time of ones demise.
|
|
|
|
Click to View Topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toyah . .
by GaryFromWirral. 10th Jan 2021 1:39pm
|
|
|
|
|
AQUARIUM
by lincle. 8th Jan 2021 10:47am
|
|
|
|
Toyah . .
by GaryFromWirral. 10th Jan 2021 1:39pm
|
|
|
|
|
Sunrise Mon 8:16am
Sunset Mon 4:29pm
Local Time Mon 11:45pm
|
|
|