Death Panels Come To The UK

reply to post by christina-66


You cannot treat HPV with penicillin. Please educate yourself. The most common treatment is having the mutated cells burned out of you. HPV causes cervical cancer.... cervical cancer is not an STD.

reply to post by popsmayhem


Actually we do want state run healthcare because it will give us the motivation to finally do away with diseases.

Maybe we will try saving lives for once.

Canada has been developing cures for that very reason.

reply to post by EvanB


So you have to take what the governemnt offers, so right now if the govenment doesnt want to pay for you, they wont. How much does the average tax payer spend on medical per month in the uk?

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck

They should still have the right to make the ultimate choice themselves though,if they are incapable of making such a choice it does become something of a grey area,especially if there are no family members available to intervene on their behalf.For an issue such as this to be decided by a panel who are emotionally detached from the patient does seem to me to be morally reprehensible.

Essentially it does seem as though we are,more and more becoming a non empathetic society,but this could be only the thin end of the wedge,with perhaps future generations being genetically tested to deem their worthiness to receive medical intervention.

reply to post by EvanB


Since the english got into bed with the americans things have gone downhill here. I only hope that the Scots will not follow this lead

reply to post by EvanB


So you would be cool with your tax dollars going to keep someone on life support for months and months just so that a hospital can charge the government for her 'care'?

reply to post by LargeFries


What an absurd comment,that it is a privelage. Driving is a privelage, healthcare is a necessity. Reread the Declaration of Independance: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
I suppose education is a privelage also.

You have a right to life. You have a right to be treated and to be given medical care. To not have healthcare for citizens and making it a privelage and not a right puts us back in the dark ages and devalues human life.

Originally posted by nixie_nox


You have a right to life. You have a right to be treated and to be given medical care. To not have healthcare for citizens and making it a privelage and not a right puts us back in the dark ages and devalues human life.

You are aware, though, that this article isnt about denying people health care, right?

It's about not wasting a bunch of money keeping someone alive just so hospitals can charge to keep them alive. Get it?

reply to post by firecircle


Last time I checked, the Brits and their government were quite capable of making their own decisions, no one made them do anything.

They are two completely different health systems. One has nothing to do with the others.


The title is misleading, and a terminology is being improperly used to name this thread.

reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican


Yes I understand what the article is about. If you look, I was responding to a specific statement that someone made. Hence the "replied too" statement at the top of my post. You are trying to troll me and you don't even know what your trolling about.





Get it?

reply to post by mnmcandiez


Ok - I was over simplifying - now how does one contract HPV? It most certainly is an std. That's simply an uncomfortable truth.

Originally posted by PapaEmeritus
reply to post by EvanB

 

So you have to take what the governemnt offers, so right now if the govenment doesnt want to pay for you, they wont. How much does the average tax payer spend on medical per month in the uk?

That depends on how much you earn as it comes directly out of your wages. Its a minimum of around £80 per month, but you also have to pay for dental treatment (if you are working) and contribute to your prescriptions.

reply to post by whatsinaname

you didn't read what I wrote after that.

No you just edited what you said.

money is debt, we don't need it.

Well that’s just incorrect but even if you get rid of money you still cannot escape the need to ration resources somehow. You still only have a finite number of people to design and manufacture the drugs that are needed.

reply to post by christina-66


You still haven’t explained what your post about chemotherapy and penicillin has to do with whether pharmaceutical companies should be able to develop new drugs?

You appear to be stuck in the same old groove....investments, capital returns, etc. etc. In case you hadn't noticed the globe is in financial meltdown because the system you advocate has failed....and has done so absolutely. It was all those economic whiz kids who caused it. We need new ideas - not more of the same.

This was not the first recession or global downturn, things are bad but the system has not absolutely failed. People said the same thing in the 1930’s, it wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now.

And as for requisition of assets etc....of course medical research would cost less and be more efficient in the public sector.....you won't have all those billions to fork out in dividends for a start. We may even see some out of the box thinking if the researchers don't need a marketable product at the end of their research.

That is not what the evidence of planned economies shows. If public ownership was so efficient why has every known planned economy seen huge economic shortages?

You haven’t actually answered any of the criticisms of nationalisation that I posted in reply to Evan. I said that if you nationalise pharmaceutical companies…

“you won’t eliminate costs, the capital still has to be paid for, scientists have to be paid, engineers have to be paid etc.

You then also have to find a way of replacing the investment that currently comes from private investors, you’re unlikely to get more from charity since if they could give more they probably would already. You could raise taxes but as I mentioned earlier private investment in pharmaceutical R&D was $39bn in the US alone, that’s a lot to raise in taxes if UK investment in anywhere near that figure.

And none of that makes a bit of difference to drugs purchased from foreign companies.

Non-profit enterprises also tend to be less efficient as incentives are different and price does not guide investment. For example there is little reason for a middle manager to improve efficiency when there is a guaranteed income from taxes; just look at procurement in defence for ample evidence of that.

But none of this addresses that basic problem of how to ration limited resources. Even if you could take all profits out of the equation you still have to decide whether you researchers work on cancer drugs or Alzheimers drugs or any number of alternatives.

Whatever system you use you will still end up denying some people treatment that could drastically improve, prolong or save their lives.”

What this comes down to is a scarcity of resources whether you martial them via a private or public system. That is the inescapable problem that means all treatments must be rationed as the doctors in the OP suggest.

reply to post by randyvs

The proposition has government written all over it

Ridiculous! You have no evidence that these doctors have any government backing whatsoever; I suppose if they’d said something that you agree with then this conjectured government source would magically disappear.

reply to post by Mike_A

NHS doctors are indeed employed by the government.

reply to post by EvanB


I never said they weren’t.

If you’re referring to my reply to Randy I’m talking about government backing to come to the conclusion that they have. There is no evidence of that and I don’t think all the researchers who contributed to the report are NHS doctors.

Originally posted by PapaEmeritus

So you have to take what the governemnt offers, so right now if the govenment doesnt want to pay for you, they wont. How much does the average tax payer spend on medical per month in the uk?

Ok gods, not this one again! No of course you don't have to take what the government gives you. There are plenty of private medical insurances you can take out if you wish. You're not forced to take anything, but if you can't afford private, the NHS will treat you, and treat you very well.
As for how much we pay: A % of your wages is taken as National Insurance, roughly 5%. Then, all you pay is a small prescription charge for minor ailments treated by your doctor (I get my repeat prescription for less than £7 for a 3 month supply). And as stated above, small fees for dental work.

How much is your health insurance per month? Will it pay out no matter what your ailment, or will you have to fight tooth and nail to get your bill approved? Can you go to any hospital you choose or does it have to be one that has agreements with your insurance provider?
'So you have to take what your insurance cover offers, so right now if the insurance assessor doesnt want to pay for you, they wont' There, fixed that sentence for the American model

You may also want to find out how many of your tax $ go towards providing Medicare and Medicaid before bagging on our system

reply to post by Mike_A


To tell you the truth Mike. It does depend on exactly what you said. Yes you're right.
And yes I've becme cynical of every mother lov'in government on the planet.
Yes I'm unemployed in America.
Yes I'm to the point of fear
Yes I curse everyday
Yes I feel like I'm gonna snap
Yes this completely sucks
Sorry Mike, yes you're rifght

Sentenced To Death On the NHS

It seems that death panels are already a government owned legal and unregulated chance to save a few quid

reply to post by EvanB


Where did you get the idea that this was just to save a few quid?

From the article...

The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.

Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.

...

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “Even the tiniest things that happen towards the end of a patient’s life can have a huge and lasting affect on patients and their families feelings about their care.

“Guidelines like the LCP can be very helpful but healthcare professionals always need to keep in mind the individual needs of patients.

...

A spokesman for Marie Curie said: “The letter highlights some complex issues related to care of the dying.

“The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient was developed in response to a societal need to transfer best practice of care of the dying from the hospice to other care settings.

...

The pathway also includes advice on the spiritual care of the patient and their family both before and after the death.

The article strongly suggests that this was developed to provide better palliative care not to kill off costly patients. In fact it was developed by a charity whose goals run counter to that very idea.

Saying that it is unregulated is also a huge stretch; certainly nowhere in the article does it state this.

Not saying it's a good system, I don't know, but to just make up a motive for its implementation helps no one.

Well selected mate

You forgot to mention the fact that treatment had been withdrawn from their loved ones without their knowledge...

I dont know what your beef is but you had better believe that if a drug meant my mom spending Christmas with her family which is the usual goal placed on such people and families then if the NHS removes funding to make that happen, then their heads will be on the next spike that becomes available... There is a VERY thin lne between barbarism and the west... A very hypocritical line...