|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 31, 2022 22:03:47 GMT
Well you accept that we have limited resources along with technical advances that will cost more and more . Phase 1..There needs to be a public conversation regarding the aims and philosophy of the NHS first . Do we frame the cost of the NHS around a set if aims and philosophy or do we fit the aims and philosophy around a set budget? By aims and philosophy I mean ..philosophy…does the NHS restrict its activities to relief of pain , curing illness etc or does it include lifestyle choices ie IVF, gender reassignment etc ( my examples , others might disagree).…..Aims …. who to treat and how much resources we aim at a problem. Phase 2 . Audit and assess how we can use our resources the most efficiently to achieve the aims agreed by the public conversation. Ill stop there . I think we'd need to look at the things that cost the most. IVF and gender reassignment might be easy targets (Though less so for those needing them) but the single biggest cost by a country mile is the prolonging the life of the elderly. Should we stop everything beyond palliative care for those aged over 90? I am of that age when my mum and my wife's mum are both in their nineties, both would be happy to pass over, both are kept alive by a cocktail of drugs to control heart failure etc etc (Old age) For years we have tip toed around assisted suicide for the terminally ill, but I think with all the wonder drugs of today the conversation needs to move onto just allowing folks to end their life with dignity when they want to. There is a thing called DNR where the doctors set in place an agreement not to resuscitate. I think the future will bring in a lot of these types of agreements . As an aside , my Aunt told me about her husband who had cancer of the genitals . She made a tactic agreement with a nurse ( or a doctor , can’t remember ) to give my uncle a shot to finish him off. She gave the impression that it wasn’t uncommon . This was in the 50s . Maybe we should do that now . On the other hand the treatment of old people in care homes is a scandal so perhaps we need to be careful not to see old people as disposable. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 31, 2022 22:05:34 GMT
I agree with zany - in my personal experience far too much energy is expended on trying to keep old people alive whatever their quality of life. It's as though some doctors take someone dying as a personal insult.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 31, 2022 22:21:01 GMT
I agree with zany - in my personal experience far too much energy is expended on trying to keep old people alive whatever their quality of life. It's as though some doctors take someone dying as a personal insult. It’s there job to keep people alive . When their job includes killing people then we will be living in a different society. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 31, 2022 22:37:06 GMT
I think we'd need to look at the things that cost the most. IVF and gender reassignment might be easy targets (Though less so for those needing them) but the single biggest cost by a country mile is the prolonging the life of the elderly. Should we stop everything beyond palliative care for those aged over 90? I am of that age when my mum and my wife's mum are both in their nineties, both would be happy to pass over, both are kept alive by a cocktail of drugs to control heart failure etc etc (Old age) For years we have tip toed around assisted suicide for the terminally ill, but I think with all the wonder drugs of today the conversation needs to move onto just allowing folks to end their life with dignity when they want to. There is a thing called DNR where the doctors set in place an agreement not to resuscitate. I think the future will bring in a lot of these types of agreements . As an aside , my Aunt told me about her husband who had cancer of the genitals . She made a tactic agreement with a nurse ( or a doctor , can’t remember ) to give my uncle a shot to finish him off. She gave the impression that it wasn’t uncommon . This was in the 50s . Maybe we should do that now . On the other hand the treatment of old people in care homes is a scandal so perhaps we need to be careful not to see old people as disposable. Yes I know about DNR. Many of my family are in the medical profession (My wife was a neurological specialist radiographer for 30 years so many of our friends are NHS as well. (just for background) Anyway DNR is not the same as end of life care. DNR simply means that if the drugs stop working and you die, then don't attempt resuscitation. End of life is the withdrawal of treatment beyond those needed to control pain and anxiety. But neither simply allows you to decide you want to stop now. Can't move without a frame, can't go out, pain from advanced arthritis, done everything you wanted to, don't want to do anything new. Just had enough. 30 years ago that wasn't an issue most people died sooner than they wanted to. Now drugs keep you alive for an extra decade and more. And every year that extends. You can refuse drugs, but that just means dying in a horrible painful way. I would like to be able to ask for the two little tablets (maybe have to go through a process) but for me to decide. For me its when I get to the point where I can't remember my children or grand children, can't hold a conversation (Speak to clever folks like yourself  ) Anyway, if we're talking about stopping the growing costs of the NHS that's the biggy. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 31, 2022 22:45:34 GMT
There is a thing called DNR where the doctors set in place an agreement not to resuscitate. I think the future will bring in a lot of these types of agreements . As an aside , my Aunt told me about her husband who had cancer of the genitals . She made a tactic agreement with a nurse ( or a doctor , can’t remember ) to give my uncle a shot to finish him off. She gave the impression that it wasn’t uncommon . This was in the 50s . Maybe we should do that now . On the other hand the treatment of old people in care homes is a scandal so perhaps we need to be careful not to see old people as disposable. Yes I know about DNR. Many of my family are in the medical profession (My wife was a neurological specialist radiographer for 30 years so many of our friends are NHS as well. (just for background) Anyway DNR is not the same as end of life care. DNR simply means that if the drugs stop working and you die, then don't attempt resuscitation. End of life is the withdrawal of treatment beyond those needed to control pain and anxiety. But neither simply allows you to decide you want to stop now. Can't move without a frame, can't go out, pain from advanced arthritis, done everything you wanted to, don't want to do anything new. Just had enough. 30 years ago that wasn't an issue most people died sooner than they wanted to. Now drugs keep you alive for an extra decade and more. And every year that extends. You can refuse drugs, but that just means dying in a horrible painful way. I would like to be able to ask for the two little tablets (maybe have to go through a process) but for me to decide. For me its when I get to the point where I can't remember my children or grand children, can't hold a conversation (Speak to clever folks like yourself ) Anyway, if we're talking about stopping the growing costs of the NHS that's the biggy. The point was that the decision was taken by the family not the patient. The patient can refuse treatment . My father in law did just that and he didn’t die in a horrible way ( as far as that’s possible with cancer ) he died in a controlled way in palliative care . my daughter is a district nurse if you want to post top trumps afaik she gets closer to the dying patient than a radiologist..but I digress. What you seem to want is a mandatory death sentence to people who the NHS deem to warrant it . Does this apply to people who are deemed to be in a permanent coma ? Where do you think this will end ? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 31, 2022 23:10:34 GMT
Yes I know about DNR. Many of my family are in the medical profession (My wife was a neurological specialist radiographer for 30 years so many of our friends are NHS as well. (just for background) Anyway DNR is not the same as end of life care. DNR simply means that if the drugs stop working and you die, then don't attempt resuscitation. End of life is the withdrawal of treatment beyond those needed to control pain and anxiety. But neither simply allows you to decide you want to stop now. Can't move without a frame, can't go out, pain from advanced arthritis, done everything you wanted to, don't want to do anything new. Just had enough. 30 years ago that wasn't an issue most people died sooner than they wanted to. Now drugs keep you alive for an extra decade and more. And every year that extends. You can refuse drugs, but that just means dying in a horrible painful way. I would like to be able to ask for the two little tablets (maybe have to go through a process) but for me to decide. For me its when I get to the point where I can't remember my children or grand children, can't hold a conversation (Speak to clever folks like yourself ) Anyway, if we're talking about stopping the growing costs of the NHS that's the biggy. 1, The point was that the decision was taken by the family not the patient. 2, The patient can refuse treatment . My father in law did just that and he didn’t die in a horrible way ( as far as that’s possible with cancer ) he died in a controlled way in palliative care . 3, my daughter is a district nurse if you want to post top trumps afaik she gets closer to the dying patient than a radiologist..but I digress. 4, What you seem to want is a mandatory death sentence to people who the NHS deem to warrant it . Does this apply to people who are deemed to be in a permanent coma ? Where do you think this will end ? 1, Unfortunately that's not true. The decision is made by the medical team, they decide when DNR can take place and then ask the relatives if they agree. 2, Apologies, yes if you have an illness that will kill you that is an option, but what if you don't? What is you are as I described? 3, That was not my intent. It was to show you you don't need to explain things like DNR to me. 4, Where did you fetch mandatory from? I specifically stated it was the individuals choice and even built in a safety net. With people permanently in a coma the decision falls again to the medical team. I think it will end where we decide, just as it does at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Dec 31, 2022 23:21:32 GMT
So? Maybe if the fucking woke lefty management put more effort into employing staff at the front end rather than diversity parasites and cut down on the over abundance of their like it would help. Do you have a drink problem? Nope. Do you? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 31, 2022 23:24:18 GMT
1, The point was that the decision was taken by the family not the patient. 2, The patient can refuse treatment . My father in law did just that and he didn’t die in a horrible way ( as far as that’s possible with cancer ) he died in a controlled way in palliative care . 3, my daughter is a district nurse if you want to post top trumps afaik she gets closer to the dying patient than a radiologist..but I digress. 4, What you seem to want is a mandatory death sentence to people who the NHS deem to warrant it . Does this apply to people who are deemed to be in a permanent coma ? Where do you think this will end ? 1, Unfortunately that's not true. The decision is made by the medical team, they decide when DNR can take place and then ask the relatives if they agree. 2, Apologies, yes if you have an illness that will kill you that is an option, but what if you don't? What is you are as I described? 3, That was not my intent. It was to show you you don't need to explain things like DNR to me. 4, Where did you fetch mandatory from? I specifically stated it was the individuals choice and even built in a safety net. With people permanently in a coma the decision falls again to the medical team. I think it will end where we decide, just as it does at the moment. 1 Indeed . The final decision is by the relatives . 2 Well if death is imposed on an unwilling patient …..good luck with that . 3 Ok I was being a bit shitty there..apologies. 4 That’s what it will amount to. Afaik doctors will pull the plug but it is not an easy decision . If there is a arbitrary point where the ‘ two tablets ‘ are administered then there is no decision to make ie mandatory. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 31, 2022 23:59:50 GMT
1, Unfortunately that's not true. The decision is made by the medical team, they decide when DNR can take place and then ask the relatives if they agree. 2, Apologies, yes if you have an illness that will kill you that is an option, but what if you don't? What is you are as I described? 3, That was not my intent. It was to show you you don't need to explain things like DNR to me. 4, Where did you fetch mandatory from? I specifically stated it was the individuals choice and even built in a safety net. With people permanently in a coma the decision falls again to the medical team. I think it will end where we decide, just as it does at the moment. 1 Indeed . The final decision is by the relatives . 2 Well if death is imposed on an unwilling patient …..good luck with that . 3 Ok I was being a bit shitty there..apologies. 4 That’s what it will amount to. Afaik doctors will pull the plug but it is not an easy decision . If there is a arbitrary point where the ‘ two tablets ‘ are administered then there is no decision to make ie mandatory. 1, But nanna doesn't get to choose when nanna dies. Even if nanna instructs her family they still can't instruct the medical team. 2, Why would anyone do that. 3, Okies. 4, We seem to be confused. I am talking about a reasonably healthy person being allowed to end their lives. You are talking about someone in a coma having their life ended. The whole coma thing is a bit of a distraction really because the decision on whether to withdraw treatment is usually based on brain activity and chance of survival without machine assistance. I have never known anyone switched off who might reasonably survive and my wife dealt with a lot of head injuries. Happy new year. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 1, 2023 1:14:30 GMT
1 Indeed . The final decision is by the relatives . 2 Well if death is imposed on an unwilling patient …..good luck with that . 3 Ok I was being a bit shitty there..apologies. 4 That’s what it will amount to. Afaik doctors will pull the plug but it is not an easy decision . If there is a arbitrary point where the ‘ two tablets ‘ are administered then there is no decision to make ie mandatory. 1, But nanna doesn't get to choose when nanna dies. Even if nanna instructs her family they still can't instruct the medical team. 2, Why would anyone do that. 3, Okies. 4, We seem to be confused. I am talking about a reasonably healthy person being allowed to end their lives. You are talking about someone in a coma having their life ended. The whole coma thing is a bit of a distraction really because the decision on whether to withdraw treatment is usually based on brain activity and chance of survival without machine assistance. I have never known anyone switched off who might reasonably survive and my wife dealt with a lot of head injuries. Happy new year. 1 think the patient can choose not to be resuscitated. 2 So only patients who wish to commit suicide would be subject to the two pills ? Are you sure that they would not be pressured to take them? 4 Maybe . I am talking about an arbitrary point where the doctors ( or someone else )decide that life has no quality to the patient. Are you taking about assisted suicide by a healthy person ? I thought you was talking about a new approach to ending life ..not what you have known in the past . Happy new year . Hope it’s a good one . |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 1, 2023 7:17:37 GMT
No they are not, they are manning picket lines. I needed some medical advice, my NHS surgery is manned by rude, ill educated uncouth women whose aim it is to prevent any form of medical care being dispensed. I booked an on line private GP appointment and saw a charming and helpful doctor this morning (saturday) for a 30 minute consultation who provided me with all I needed. His fee was less than my chimney sweep charges for an annual clean of my sitting room chimney. The NHS is staffed by lazy idle leftie spoungers, the sooner it is dismantled and replaced by a functioning health care system the better it will be. But we can't do that because it is free, and something however rubbish that is free must be better than paying for a decent service. It is our fault, and again demonstrates how our society has been brainwashed into its own downfall.Half the NHS is made up of pig ignorant lefty free-loaders who wouldn't survive in the real world. Just like half the poits we have in our country non of them know what a real days work is. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 1, 2023 7:43:52 GMT
I agree with zany - in my personal experience far too much energy is expended on trying to keep old people alive whatever their quality of life. It's as though some doctors take someone dying as a personal insult. It’s there job to keep people alive . When their job includes killing people then we will be living in a different society. Nobody is talking about killing people - just letting nature take its course.. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 1, 2023 7:58:34 GMT
It’s there job to keep people alive . When their job includes killing people then we will be living in a different society. Nobody is talking about killing people - just letting nature take its course..They have ways of speeding it up in care homes when there is no alternative or hope. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 1, 2023 8:12:49 GMT
1, But nanna doesn't get to choose when nanna dies. Even if nanna instructs her family they still can't instruct the medical team. 2, Why would anyone do that. 3, Okies. 4, We seem to be confused. I am talking about a reasonably healthy person being allowed to end their lives. You are talking about someone in a coma having their life ended. The whole coma thing is a bit of a distraction really because the decision on whether to withdraw treatment is usually based on brain activity and chance of survival without machine assistance. I have never known anyone switched off who might reasonably survive and my wife dealt with a lot of head injuries. Happy new year. 1 think the patient can choose not to be resuscitated. 2 So only patients who wish to commit suicide would be subject to the two pills ? Are you sure that they would not be pressured to take them? 4 Maybe . I am talking about an arbitrary point where the doctors ( or someone else )decide that life has no quality to the patient. Are you taking about assisted suicide by a healthy person ? I thought you was talking about a new approach to ending life ..not what you have known in the past . Happy new year . Hope it’s a good one . 1, Yes I think you're right. 2, Yes. And that is the current argument, but I think it would be possible to put safety measures in. The flip side of that coin is those who have had enough of their lives cannot end them, they do not even have the ability to throw themselves off a bridge supposing they were brave enough to do so. I agree its a tricky one that. 4, I am in away. I'm looking at a new approach to what end of life means, one in which it is not left to the body to decide when you die but yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 1, 2023 8:21:00 GMT
Nobody is talking about killing people - just letting nature take its course..They have ways of speeding it up in care homes when there is no alternative or hope. There are now much tighter rules on the amount of morphine etc you can give patients to aid their pain. Further there are dozens more specific pain drugs available. The days when your doctors would quietly increase your dosage until you went are gone. It took my dad 2 months to die after he was permanently sedated. His mind had gone completely and he lived in a permanent state of terror, his heart was only working at 20% his liver and kidney (only had 1) failing. He spent the last 10 months of his life in misery, scared and confused and in pain. Now my dad was not a nice man, but I would not wish that on anyone. |
|
)
