Medical Forum / General / General / February 2008
Don't Treat The Old And Unhealthy, Say Progressive British Doctors
|
|
Thread rating:  |
(David P.) - 03 Feb 2008 16:11 GMT http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1960224/posts
UK: Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors
The Telegraph, 1/26/08 Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.
The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Assn & campaign groups describing the recommendations from family & hospital doctors as "outrageous" & "disgraceful".
About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.
Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.
The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050.
Obesity costs the British taxpayer L7 billion/year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer & heart disease, & to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations.
Meanwhile, L1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade.
Among the survey of 870 family & hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone & that some individuals should pay for services.
One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements.
Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's ethics committee, said it would be "outrageous" to limit care on age grounds. Age Concern called the doctors' views "disgraceful".
Gordon Brown promised this month that a new NHS constitution would set out people's "responsibilities" as well as their rights, a move interpreted as meaning restrictions on patients who bring health problems on themselves. The only sanction threatened so far, however, is to send patients to the bottom of the waiting list if they miss appointments.
The survey found that medical professionals wanted to go much further in denying care to patients who do not look after their bodies.
Ninety-four per cent said that an alcoholic who refused to stop drinking should not be allowed a liver transplant, while one in five said taxpayers should not pay for "social abortions" and fertility treatment.
Paul Mason, a GP in Portland, Dorset, said there were good clinical reasons for denying surgery to some patients. "The issue is: how much responsibility do people take for their health?" he said.
"If an alcoholic is going to drink himself to death then that is really sad, but if he gets the liver transplant that is denied to someone else who could have got the chance of life then that is a tragedy." He said the case of George Best, who drank himself to death in 2005, 3 years after a liver transplant, had damaged the argument that drinkers deserved a second chance.
However, Roger Williams, who carried out the 2002 transplant on the former footballer, said doctors could never be sure if an alcoholic would return to drinking, although most would expect a detailed psychological assessment of patients, who would be required to abstain for 6 months before surgery.
Prof Williams said: "Less than 5 per cent of alcoholics who have a transplant return to serious drinking. George was one of them. It is actually a pretty successful rate. I think the judgment these doctors are making is nothing to do with the clinical reasons for limiting such operations and purely a moral decision."
Katherine Murphy, from the Patients' Assn, said it would be wrong to deny treatment because of a "lifestyle" factor. "The decision taken by the doctor has to be the best clinical one, and it has to be taken individually. It is morally wrong to deny care on any other grounds," she said.
Responding to the survey's findings on the treatment of the elderly, Dr Calland, of the BMA, said: "If a patient of 90 needs a hip operation they should get one. Yes, they might peg out any time, but it's not our job to play God." . . -
no surrender - 04 Feb 2008 13:26 GMT > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1960224/posts > [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] > they should get one. Yes, they might peg out any > time, but it's not our job to play God." ******* Under a pug-ugly socialist medical system, that is what happens continually to justify the taxes needed to run it. Yet, there are still misguideds here who espouse such a montrosity. Someday, hopefully, they learn the free market and competition are the only ways to achieve truly equal health care.
Dennis
> . > - (David P.) - 04 Feb 2008 16:53 GMT > > UK: Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > learn the free market and competition are the > only ways to achieve truly equal health care. If you want to solve big problems, you have to look at the big picture! The big picture is NOT just the living. It includes everybody and everything, past present & future, as far as you can see! And if you can't see very far, your opinion ain't worth much! . . --
no surrender - 04 Feb 2008 21:45 GMT > > > UK: Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > And if you can't see very far, your > opinion ain't worth much! ***** That's often the propblem with "big Picture" types...they can't see the forest for all those damned trees that inconveniently get in the way of their clear vision for all those around them. I mean, how the hell are they supposed to see for all the others when they can't see for themselves because all those damned trees get in the way...God dammit?
Dennis
> . > . > -- Jerry Okamura - 04 Feb 2008 17:07 GMT >> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1960224/posts >> [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > market and competition are the only ways to achieve truly equal health > care. Yep.... Someday, some of these people will discorver that they will show up to receive this "free" benefit, and will be turned away. And in time, there will be more and more of them.
no surrender - 04 Feb 2008 21:46 GMT > > "(David P.)" <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:44960611-22e1-4c42-8019-5bdff4f87afe@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1960224/posts > >> [quoted text clipped - 138 lines] > to receive this "free" benefit, and will be turned away. And in time, > there will be more and more of them. **** Oh yeah, the ultimate in "buyer's remorse."
Dennis
Kris Baker - 07 Feb 2008 02:00 GMT > Yep.... Someday, some of these people will discorver that they will show > up to receive this "free" benefit, and will be turned away. And in time, > there will be more and more of them. My FIL sounds like you, and gets mad when he's reminded that he's alive ONLY due to Medicare.
Just who are you politically against, anyway?
Kris
Jerry Okamura - 07 Feb 2008 18:07 GMT >> Yep.... Someday, some of these people will discorver that they will show >> up to receive this "free" benefit, and will be turned away. And in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Just who are you politically against, anyway? I believe this third party payment system for medical care, will create more problems than it solves. It is not a political thing at all, since no one in either party shares my concern.
mg - 04 Feb 2008 22:31 GMT If you read the article, you will see that some doctors are merely advocating the withholding of some types of surgery. They are not advocating withholding all treatment.
The title of the article and the title of your post are both misleading.
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1960224/posts > [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] > they should get one. Yes, they might peg out any > time, but it's not our job to play God." Kris Baker - 04 Feb 2008 22:39 GMT > If you read the article, you will see that some doctors are merely > advocating the withholding of some types of surgery. They are not > advocating withholding all treatment. > > The title of the article and the title of your post are both > misleading. That was his purpose, since he's trying to make a political statement. Kind of like those new versions of the "Barack Obama is a muslim" hoax emails that link to snopes.com's rebuttal page , knowing that people who believe that kind of thing, don't click the link and check for themselves.
But I support some form of treatment withholding, like with my elderly Alzheimers-ridden MIL a few years ago, whose husband insisted that she have full treatment for diabetes, arthritis, and even a lasik surgery after cataracts treatment.....because, after all, if she could see better, maybe she'd remember who she was. Finally she started crying "I want to die, I hurt", she was put on hospice and meds removed, and she died within a week.
Kris
mg - 05 Feb 2008 15:48 GMT > > If you read the article, you will see that some doctors are merely > > advocating the withholding of some types of surgery. They are not [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Kris Nobody would want to give a 90-year-old smoker, with a dozen things wrong with him, a heart-lung transplant, for instance. This is simply another example of right-wingers setting up a straw man, so they can get their jollies off by tearing it apart with great indignation.
(David P.) - 05 Feb 2008 16:22 GMT > > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1960224/posts > > UK: Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The title of the article and the title of your post are both > misleading. What will the world be like with 9 billion people? Is it fair to future generations to have to live under 50% more crowded conditions, and 50% greater demand for food, fuel, clean air, clean water, and everything else? . . --
Ken Johnson - 05 Feb 2008 18:54 GMT > What will the world be like with 9 billion people? > Is it fair to future generations to have to live > under 50% more crowded conditions, and 50% greater > demand for food, fuel, clean air, clean water, and > everything else? You can be reasonably certain that the Americans won't suffer anything like 50% more crowded conditions. Certainly not the white Americans. The bulk of the overcrowding will be in the poor countries of Asia and south America, with just enough left over to fill Virgin Trains.
Ken Johnson
(David P.) - 05 Feb 2008 21:08 GMT > > What will the world be like with 9 billion people? > > Is it fair to future generations to have to live [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You can be certain that Americans won't suffer anything > like 50% more crowded conditions. You didn't answer the questions! . . --
kirkus vomit - 05 Feb 2008 22:20 GMT >> > What will the world be like with 9 billion people? >> > Is it fair to future generations to have to live [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You didn't answer the questions! ... solution: require everyone to die... oh wait a minute, nevermind
b
> . > . > -- California Poppy - 06 Feb 2008 00:20 GMT Interesting thread. I agree with the doctors and think that we need to ration some procedures for some people. But, I don't agree with their idea to fail to give abortions for "social reasons". I would favor making abortions available to everyone who requested them. I see so many old people every day who are living miserable lives. I think we should consider the quality of life for the person who is incapable of choosing for themselves. I think of those with dementia, for instance. We need research to know more about what causes it and what could cure it.
(David P.) - 06 Feb 2008 03:19 GMT > we need to ration some procedures for some people. > I think we should consider the quality of life > for the person who is... What about future generations? Why should they have to live in more crowded conditions? . . --
Gilchrist - 06 Feb 2008 07:11 GMT > > we need to ration some procedures for some people. > > I think we should consider the quality of life [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > . > -- A nation should be judged on how it treats its poorest citizens.
(David P.) - 09 Feb 2008 23:10 GMT > > What about future generations? Why should > > they have to live in more crowded conditions? > > A nation should be judged on > how it treats its poorest citizens. A nation's poorest citizens are the not-yet-born! They can't speak or vote! . . --
kirkus vomit - 05 Feb 2008 22:17 GMT >> What will the world be like with 9 billion people? ... um,i'm gonna go with crowded? <did i win something?
b
> Ken Johnson (David P.) - 14 Feb 2008 20:43 GMT > >> What will the world be like with 9 billion people? > > ... um,i'm gonna go with crowded? It's crowded _now_! Are you saying there'll be _no_ difference, Peckerwood? Is that your _final_ answer?!? . . --
zzbunker@netscape.net - 15 Feb 2008 17:02 GMT > > What will the world be like with 9 billion people? > > Is it fair to future generations to have to live [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The bulk of the overcrowding will be in the poor countries of Asia and > south America, with just enough left over to fill Virgin Trains. With 50% more idiots Americans and their cars the road, America will just spontaneously disintegrate at that much sooner. So the only people who wpuld care are just the idiot Cities.
> Ken Johnson
|
|
|