UK legislation. Courts. End of life. Who decides?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

No, the state should not decide your fate, except when you impede on the liberties of others. It gets a little difficult when your only answer to health needs is state-run healthcare. The paternalistic state has essentially monopolized it, that it becomes too difficult to find healthcare elsewhere. Now the matters of your own health and life is made by some pencil-pushing bureaucrat who has more invested in the monopolized healthcare than the people it was intended to care for.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

No, the state should not decide your fate, except when you impede on the liberties of others. It gets a little difficult when your only answer to health needs is state-run healthcare. The paternalistic state has essentially monopolized it, that it becomes too difficult to find healthcare elsewhere. Now the matters of your own health and life is made by some pencil-pushing bureaucrat who has more invested in the monopolized healthcare than the people it was intended to care for.

Private health care exists in the UK so no it isn't the only answer.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In the main, for the average working person you are correct, the NHS is the only option practically available due to cost considerations. But in the main I have to say the NHS has always been a fantastic service for me, from maternity care when my child was born, to numerous times I've been sewn back together, and now currently the treatment I am having for whatever it is that is broken with me.
MRI scan on NHS = free at point of service
Private = around £500

CT scan on NHS = free at point of service
Private = around £500

ECG test on NHS = free at point of service
Private = around £100

So already that's over a thousand quid I haven't had to find so far, which I am pleased about because being self employed and missing out on so much work lately my stash of cash is running really low right now.

ScepticScot is absolutely correct, nobody is obliged to use the NHS except in accident and emergency when calling 999 it will always be an NHS provided/funded paramedic and emergency unit you will be taken to initially. If you are private then you can opt to be transferred to your private hospital as soon as you are stabilized.

A friend of mine has always been private, but to be fair he is a millionaire. He needs an operation which the NHS will not provide so he's off to London soon and it's going to cost him in excess of £40,000. He has health insurance but his policy (like the NHS) will not cover the operation.

Now private medical care has been brought into the conversation I'm wondering in a "no chance of recovery - on life support" situation, would a private hospital be as quick to withdraw fluids/nourishment as the NHS?
As a business, if the patient is still covering the costs would they wish to kill the cash cow so to speak or make a purely medical decision.
Any thoughts on that from others are more than welcome.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In the main, for the average working person you are correct, the NHS is the only option practically available due to cost considerations. But in the main I have to say the NHS has always been a fantastic service for me, from maternity care when my child was born, to numerous times I've been sewn back together, and now currently the treatment I am having for whatever it is that is broken with me.
MRI scan on NHS = free at point of service
Private = around £500

CT scan on NHS = free at point of service
Private = around £500

ECG test on NHS = free at point of service
Private = around £100

So already that's over a thousand quid I haven't had to find so far, which I am pleased about because being self employed and missing out on so much work lately my stash of cash is running really low right now.

ScepticScot is absolutely correct, nobody is obliged to use the NHS except in accident and emergency when calling 999 it will always be an NHS provided/funded paramedic and emergency unit you will be taken to initially. If you are private then you can opt to be transferred to your private hospital as soon as you are stabilized.

A friend of mine has always been private, but to be fair he is a millionaire. He needs an operation which the NHS will not provide so he's off to London soon and it's going to cost him in excess of £40,000. He has health insurance but his policy (like the NHS) will not cover the operation.

Now private medical care has been brought into the conversation I'm wondering in a "no chance of recovery - on life support" situation, would a private hospital be as quick to withdraw fluids/nourishment as the NHS?
As a business, if the patient is still covering the costs would they wish to kill the cash cow so to speak or make a purely medical decision.
Any thoughts on that from others are more than welcome.

I never said there wasn't private healthcare nor was it impossible to find healthcare elsewhere. But, as you implied, paying for private healthcare involves saving, insurance, or otherwise putting money aside for care, which is difficult. Not to mention that there is little incentive to do so because the taxpayer is paying for healthcare already.

Just to be a stickler, healthcare is never free. The taxpayer pays for it whether they need it or not. But it also appears the taxpayer pays for the government to decide on his fate, on how to seek care, and on when and where he could do it.

I assume a private hospital will provide care so long as you fund it.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Private health care exists in the UK so no it isn't the only answer.

I never said it was the only answer. I said "It gets a little difficult when your only answer to health needs is state-run healthcare".

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I never said there wasn't private healthcare nor was it impossible to find healthcare elsewhere. But, as you implied, paying for private healthcare involves saving, insurance, or otherwise putting money aside for care, which is difficult. Not to mention that there is little incentive to do so because the taxpayer is paying for healthcare already.

Agreed

Just to be a stickler, healthcare is never free. The taxpayer pays for it whether they need it or not.

Aha! You will note I carefully stated "free at the point of service" - I did this specifically to counter the "it's not free" line always thrown back on ATS discussions.

But it also appears the taxpayer pays for the government to decide on his fate, on how to seek care, and on when and where he could do it.

Only if the taxpayer chooses to use the NHS.

I assume a private hospital will provide care so long as you fund it.

That's my gut instinct as well. I imagine if the private healthcare is funded by a policy then at some stage the insurance company would say pull the plug though, similar to the NHS. But say my millionaire mate's wife decided to use their own private funds if he was on life support, then that cash cow would be kept alive indefinitely. I don't know though, seeing as the courts can get involved here, and in the case of the child in Liverpool are refusing to let the Italian health service take responsibility for the costs and his care.

It's an interesting question though.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Private health care exists in the UK so no it isn't the only answer.

I never said it was the only answer. I said "It gets a little difficult when your only answer to health needs is state-run healthcare".

Not sure I follow. How is having guaranteed treatment under the NHS with option of private if you have the means or insurance more difficult than only bring able to get treatment privately?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Agreed, there are two top class private hospitals in reasonable travel distance from me. Ijust will never use their services because I don't have health insurance, and I couldn't afford them out of my own dwindling savings.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Not sure I follow. How is having guaranteed treatment under the NHS with option of private if you have the means or insurance more difficult than only bring able to get treatment privately?

What I said was, "It gets a little difficult when your only answer to health needs is state-run healthcare". Examples of this includes people who cannot afford private healthcare, and are thus stuck with the bureaucratic version.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: ScepticScot

Agreed, there are two top class private hospitals in reasonable travel distance from me. Ijust will never use their services because I don't have health insurance, and I couldn't afford them out of my own dwindling savings.

Depends what you need done. If it's just to get a quick consultant appointment or a one off scan it can be a lot better value than waiting especially if effects your ability to earn (speak from personal experience).

For multiple visits unless you insurance or a bank balance with multiple zeros at the end not so practical.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Not sure I follow. How is having guaranteed treatment under the NHS with option of private if you have the means or insurance more difficult than only bring able to get treatment privately?

What I said was, "It gets a little difficult when your only answer to health needs is state-run healthcare". Examples of this includes people who cannot afford private healthcare, and are thus stuck with the bureaucratic version.

Well if you can't afford private health care I would suspect even a bureaucratic version is infinitely better than no care at all.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Aha! You will note I carefully stated "free at the point of service" - I did this specifically to counter the "it's not free" line always thrown back on ATS discussions.

Cheeky, but even at the point of service it isn't free. I assume the NHS is well-funded. But that's beside my point.

hat's my gut instinct as well. I imagine if the private healthcare is funded by a policy then at some stage the insurance company would say pull the plug though, similar to the NHS. But say my millionaire mate's wife decided to use their own private funds if he was on life support, then that cash cow would be kept alive indefinitely. I don't know though, seeing as the courts can get involved here, and in the case of the child in Liverpool are refusing to let the Italian health service take responsibility for the costs and his care.

Where I live a police officer just passed away after being in a coma for 30 years. I'm not sure a regular citizen such as myself would get that kind of care.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Well if you can't afford private health care I would suspect even a bureaucratic version is infinitely better than no care at all.

I'm comparing private to state-provided healthcare, not state-provided healthcare and no healthcare.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Man, I've had so many visits to the hospital in the last month or so, multiple blood tests, ECG's, MRI/CT's with more to follow next week, Cardiology consultations, and various medications, it would have cleaned me out of cash for sure by now.
The only insurance policy I wish I hadn't procrastionated on and taken out is "Critical illness/self employed sickness" because it would be paying out my loss of earnings. I could kick myself because my symptoms started a year ago and I thought about doing it and seeking help after the initial qualifying period had passed.
I am a prize knob sometimes!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Aha! You will note I carefully stated "free at the point of service" - I did this specifically to counter the "it's not free" line always thrown back on ATS discussions.

Cheeky, but even at the point of service it isn't free. I assume the NHS is well-funded. But that's beside my point.

hat's my gut instinct as well. I imagine if the private healthcare is funded by a policy then at some stage the insurance company would say pull the plug though, similar to the NHS. But say my millionaire mate's wife decided to use their own private funds if he was on life support, then that cash cow would be kept alive indefinitely. I don't know though, seeing as the courts can get involved here, and in the case of the child in Liverpool are refusing to let the Italian health service take responsibility for the costs and his care.

Where I live a police officer just passed away after being in a coma for 30 years. I'm not sure a regular citizen such as myself would get that kind of care.

With a few exceptions it really is free at point of use.

a reply to: ScepticScot

With a few exceptions it really is free at point of use.

I suppose if you don't pay taxes it might be. But that's just a way of hiding that fact that someone else is paying for it.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: ScepticScot

Man, I've had so many visits to the hospital in the last month or so, multiple blood tests, ECG's, MRI/CT's with more to follow next week, Cardiology consultations, and various medications, it would have cleaned me out of cash for sure by now.
The only insurance policy I wish I hadn't procrastionated on and taken out is "Critical illness/self employed sickness" because it would be paying out my loss of earnings. I could kick myself because my symptoms started a year ago and I thought about doing it and seeking help after the initial qualifying period had passed.
I am a prize knob sometimes!

I'm sorry to hear about your condition, friend.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Where I live a police officer just passed away after being in a coma for 30 years. I'm not sure a regular citizen such as myself would get that kind of care.

Wow, would that have been under a Police Dept insurance policy or something then?
30 years, just wow, I don't imagine any insurance plan in the UK would keep someone alive that long.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: ScepticScot

Man, I've had so many visits to the hospital in the last month or so, multiple blood tests, ECG's, MRI/CT's with more to follow next week, Cardiology consultations, and various medications, it would have cleaned me out of cash for sure by now.
The only insurance policy I wish I hadn't procrastionated on and taken out is "Critical illness/self employed sickness" because it would be paying out my loss of earnings. I could kick myself because my symptoms started a year ago and I thought about doing it and seeking help after the initial qualifying period had passed.
I am a prize knob sometimes!

Had a friend stung in similar situation when he switched to self employed contractor status for (a lot) more money.

Being ill is bad enough without having to worry about your income as well.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

With a few exceptions it really is free at point of use.

I suppose if you don't pay taxes it might be. But that's just a way of hiding that fact that someone else is paying for it.

Still free at point of use, that is the point.