Forums Forums Enthusiast Forums A - Z On the Box Hospital

Anyone else watch Hospital which was on TV other night? If you did what are your thoughts on 98 year old man having heart op and a part transplanted to help him walk and get about better.During op he had a blood clot happen which had to be removed from his brain. Now he did come through it all but to me and it might be abit controversial but I thought that's being greedy for life. It all cost over £30,000 and the surgeon said it would cost more than that it he were to come in with stroke or heart trouble and have to stay in hospital. Sorry but I think we all want to live as long as we can but just because it's possible with intervention is it right to go against the aging process? I don't know maybe I'm totally wrong in my thinking be interested in your thoughts on subject.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you cools. I suppose its real life training for the surgeons and gives them experience and knowledge for when they treat younger people. If the old guys been working all his life and paying taxes and NI then why not. Who decides what age you can longer get treated?
We are told it cost £30,000 but some if not most of cost is still there even if he wasn't treated. Surgeons and nurses get paid annually for doing their job.
Debateable that heart problems is due to ageing process and not lifestyle choices.

I watched the programme , It was said at one point that years ago the op wouldnt have taken place on a 98 year old.The probability of a stroke during the op was very high & did in fact happen so he was transferred to another hospital for more surgery. At his age I expect he served during the war,paid his dues & has a loving family BUT if the brain op hadnt removed the clot he would have spent whats left of his life in care,maybe unable to function.I dont think many of us would want to take the risks so respect to the gentleman involved even though it cost the NHS thousands .Im on the fence with this one as I have a DNR in place & no-one lives forever.

Its all valuable research, one of the main problems of surgery is the reduction and identification of clots that develop during surgery, new techniques are being found all the time.

If people volunteer as guinea pigs then that is their choice.

Agreed Digger but in this case the Gentleman didn't offer himself as a Guinea Pig he just wanted to live longer & that's his choice to make

Guinea pigs always have a reason, he will have been made very well aware that he might be curtailing his life, not lengthening it.

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 .

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.

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.

An excellent reply Venice

Nobody has the right to play God with anybody else's life and certainly not with any predefined conditions.

Quote DD "Nobody has the right to play God with anybody else's life and certainly not with any predefined conditions.[/quote]

Not ever? Even mercy killings? Soldier in the field leaving behind his critically wounded mate to the ministrations of oncoming ISIS ?

Spouse who's COPD motor neurone partner begs and begs and begs because they can no longer cope with the suffocation feeling and excruciating pain ?(Bearing in mind medics DONT/CANT always give legal relief)

Yes it's a hard one to say ye or nay too really suppose it's personal choice of whether you want to live longer and the quality of your life. Don't you think the medical profession have taken over the decision of God and really as has been quoted become a victim of its own success! At one time you were only expected to reach 3score years 10. I'm glad for my sake that now people are living alot longer but doubt whether I will reach 98/100 as people do regularly these days , would I want to? I guess none of us can answer that until we have to, I know unless I had quality of life the answer would be no.

How many people would pay into a new 'extended life fund' I wonder , if it was brought out (separate from private medical care)to ensure they would be treated after about 90yrs old. Going by pensions, not many is my guess , as few trust the Govt enough to be assured their money wont end up in the Govt's 'we changed our rules fund'

Anybody can do this already with either private treatment or health insurance provided the theatre team think it is not too high a risk but being private (kerching!) the risk goalposts may change a bit from NHS.

More ethical dilemmas' here:

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/tv-radio-events/tv/hospital