Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors

[I can't think of a name]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/27/nhs127.xml


Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and 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.


So then these people are forced to pay for a health care system that they could be potentially shut out from? But on the converse people who take care of themselves have their healthcare burdened by people who don't take care of themselves

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well y'know - these are decisions that we private citizens have to make too. My grandmother died last year - she was 93 and had cancer...she broke her hip - there are all sorts of procedures they could do on a younger person - but it made no sense to try them on her. Did it make sense for us to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a very poor risk, when even if it was successful, she'd likely only be around for a couple more years tops? It's a sad reality of life. Sigh. Well now are you happy, I've gone and bummed myself out really bad. I need **** and cartoons now.

[WarriorMonk]

watch all the liberals jump on this one...

[oldsoak]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/27/nhs127.xml



So then these people are forced to pay for a health care system that they could be potentially shut out from? But on the converse people who take care of themselves have their healthcare burdened by people who don't take care of themselves

- and just who decides if you are too old or unhealthy ? way too arbitrary with too much leeway for abuse imho. Soon the safest place for you if you are getting on will be prison - no doctor would dare suggest a prisoner be deprived of medical care because he was too old or unfit - sh*t, he'd have the human rights bods howling for his blood...

[0rphie]

Well y'know - these are decisions that we private citizens have to make too. My grandmother died last year - she was 93 and had cancer...she broke her hip - there are all sorts of procedures they could do on a younger person - but it made no sense to try them on her. Did it make sense for us to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a very poor risk, when even if it was successful, she'd likely only be around for a couple more years tops? It's a sad reality of life. Sigh. Well now are you happy, I've gone and bummed myself out really bad. I need **** and cartoons now.
I very rarely agree with you but here you nailed it. it make so much more sense to invest in healthcare for children then for older adults

[Vorian]

I wonder what you are going to say when you reach your seventies

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well my 93 year old grandmother fully understood why we made the decisions we did. She viewed it as part of her continuing responsibilities to the family. It didn't make her happy, and it sure as hell wasn't what she wanted to do. Things would obviously have been different if she were in her 60's or 70's - maybe even her 80's. But by 92 she was so old and frail that it made no sense.

This is why I laugh inside every time I hear some whining emo song on the radio, about some poor little rich kid who's unhappy with their love life. The reality people face as they age gradually changes from unhappy to downright brutal.

Facing that kind of ball-busting reality requires a big steamin' pile of grim and unblinking maturity - the kind that's able to make calculations involving years, quality of life, and huge financial burdens on those left behind.

Oh now gat dang it, it's happened again.

[afreu]

Well my 93 year old grandmother fully understood why we made the decisions we did. She viewed it as part of her continuing responsibilities to the family. It didn't make her happy, and it sure as hell wasn't what she wanted to do. Things would obviously have been different if she were in her 60's or 70's - maybe even her 80's. But by 92 she was so old and frail that it made no sense.

This is why I laugh inside every time I hear some whining emo song on the radio, about some poor little rich kid who's unhappy with their love life. The reality people face as they age gradually changes from unhappy to downright brutal.

Facing that kind of ball-busting reality requires a big steamin' pile of grim and unblinking maturity - the kind that's able to make calculations involving years, quality of life, and huge financial burdens on those left behind.

Oh now gat dang it, it's happened again.

I agree with what you say. But such decisions can only be made by the person concerned and not imposed by society.

[Moledet]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/27/nhs127.xml

So then these people are forced to pay for a health care system that they could be potentially shut out from? But on the converse people who take care of themselves have their healthcare burdened by people who don't take care of themselves
It's not some sort of a prize to be treated in a hospital, the fact that some people don't treat themselves is their own problem, they get no prize when they are treated in a hospital for their mistakes.

These doctors should re-read the doctors' oath.

P.S. nobody wants a health care system like in the US, just a few weeks ago there was one of these hysteric health care reports on the news here about how, "we are turning into the US".

[Herrmannek]

2Sheeds I hope You at least didn't leave your grandpa lying on the curb where she broke her hip. If you would go broke or family as a whole couldn't rise the needed amount for the expensive surgery. I see no problem. But IMHO its family responsibility to organize help, maybe bring here home and hire someone to look after her. My parents took disabled(stroke) grandma home, hired a palliative care nanny and it was very smooth. Nothing that would put huge stress on the family. It didn't affect our every day life almost at all.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I agree with what you say. But such decisions can only be made by the person concerned and not imposed by society.

Well I think that's hooey. Any health-care system anywhere in the world that decided to do everything that could be done would be insolvent within a matter of weeks. Human life is an exercise in diminishing returns - the older one gets - the more it costs to maintain - and the less resulting benefit there is. Doctors for the most part already know this, and will generally say "there's nothing that can be done" thereby relieving the system of the responsibility of administratively doing the same thing.


2Sheeds I hope You at least didn't leave your grandpa lying on the curb where she broke her hip. If you would go broke or family as a whole couldn't rise the needed amount for the expensive surgery. I see no problem. But IMHO its family responsibility to organize help, maybe bring here home and hire someone to look after her. My parents took disabled(stroke) grandma home, hired a palliative care nanny and it was very smooth. Nothing that would put huge stress on the family. It didn't affect our every day life almost at all.

Yeah well jeez I'm not saying that we should abandon people. People are entitled to reasonable care - I just don't support spending every dollar that can be spent. Because health-care is a for-profit business...and they will oblige if you insist upon spending down to your last dollar.

We were caring for grandma_Jackson at home with hospice (an end-of-life program that helps patients and their families through the death process). But then when she broke her hip, her prognosis was very poor, and she was difficult to care for - so we had her in a nursing home type facility. Thankfully it was only 5 minutes from the house so the family went in to bug her 3 times a day. She only lasted a few weeks after that. :-(

[Herrmannek]

Yeah well jeez I'm not saying that we should abandon people.
Jeez I never said you had said that :)

[seraosha]

My dad and I went through the same kind of scenario when he was dying of a brain tumor...at the point he was at, he would have been a paraplegic at best after a risky and expensive operation with a very low probability of success.

It was hard, but he left enough inheritance for my daughter to get the care she needed, as well as help me out as a single dad. It was something we talked about, and while we weren't exactly thrilled about it, it was the best decision.

But if the State came in and made the decision for us, well that's a different matter. I guess thats what they mean by "Cradle to Grave Healthcare".

[Kilgor]

I don't see why doctors should treat the self inflicted ill before luckless individuals.

Fatties, smokers, alcoholics, drug abusers - back of the line. Unfortunately thats a extremely large % of the population.

I don't know how hospitals will be able to cope with the continuous decline of public health standards. Darwinism has stopped in human evolution in the west.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I don't see why doctors should treat the self inflicted ill before luckless individuals.

Fatties, smokers, alcoholics, drug abusers - back of the line. Unfortunately thats a extremely large % of the population.

I don't know how hospitals will be able to cope with the continuous decline of public health standards. Darwinism has stopped in human evolution in the west.

Well that's a very good point. We're artificially propping up vast numbers of people who natural selection is trying to kill off.

[afreu]

Well that's a very good point. We're artificially propping up vast numbers of people who natural selection is trying to kill off.

Was this meant ironically?

[deagle]

i think there's some argument for smokers, who are supposedly aware of health risks that they assume and are also reinforced by tobacco industry of dangers, might be hard or expensive to get medical care. but to deny them outright, maybe not i guess.

[Laconian]

This is a concern for socialized medicine. It is up to the patient, their doctor and the family to reach a decision about treatment, not some civil servant looking at an actuary table or punching numbers into a computer program.

There comes a time when we all must face the inevitable - we're all gonna take a dirt nap at some point.

[eskachig]

This is obviously a sad situation, but I understand where they are coming from. Socialized medicine can only go so far to extend life at extreme before the expense literally results in lost lives. Private health care is an option for those that can afford it, but otherwise this is just one of those sad situations.

For those saying that it's unfair that a person could pay into the system and be shut out - at least they received a lifetime's worth of medical care up to that point.

[atl]

This seems to be a conflict of opinions of different countries from what is submitted so far. If so, here is my take. In the US there is obesity that has gone out of control. In the EU there is rampant smoking and drinking, even more so than the US that I have noticed in my travels. Neither one in my opinion deserves federal support for your own misguided direction in life. I smoke, I drink, (and I rock), and I should definately be behind the list for a new liver of some schmuck who got diabetes for no good reason and never touched a Big Mac in his life. Healthcare is not free under any circumstances. Taxes are always paid by someone. In the case of 2sheds, I would opine that they did the right thing as my wife manages healthcare for the elderly, and she contends that the stress of surgery for people in that age bracket is more detrimental than helpful. Plus, she's smarter than me and her heart bleeds a lot more than mine.

[martinexsquaddie]

to be honest a 93yr old is unlikely to survive an hip replacement operation.
there is always going to be some health rationing.
Bit dubious about self inflicted injurys be barred.
NHS is far from perfect but treats all uk citizens which is better than the US model

[Skutatos]

to be honest a 93yr old is unlikely to survive an hip replacement operation.
there is always going to be some health rationing.
Bit dubious about self inflicted injurys be barred.
NHS is far from perfect but treats all uk citizens which is better than the US model

It may treat them, but how effectively:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/21/ncancer121.xml

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I don't see why doctors should treat the self inflicted ill before luckless individuals.

Fatties, smokers, alcoholics, drug abusers - back of the line. Unfortunately thats a extremely large % of the population.

I don't know how hospitals will be able to cope with the continuous decline of public health standards. Darwinism has stopped in human evolution in the west.

Why should a person suffering from mental problems which can cause alcohol and drug problems, eating disorders, anxiety, depression and so forth be treated any differently?

[Calanen]

This is why I laugh inside every time I hear some whining emo song on the radio, about some poor little rich kid who's unhappy with their love life. The reality people face as they age gradually changes from unhappy to downright brutal.


Can do. But then there are people like my grandad, 97, still lives at home, does his shopping and is in perfect health. Course, he could drop dead tomorrow or in his sleep. But hes not in any pain, watches the cricket, goes for walks and does alright. So its not inevitable.

He also never drank or smoke, rode his bicycle to work long before it was fashionable to do so, and the family predominantly ate vegetables because they could not afford to buy meat. That had to help, but I think the main card he played was good genetics.

[Atlantic Friend]

Well y'know - these are decisions that we private citizens have to make too. My grandmother died last year - she was 93 and had cancer...she broke her hip - there are all sorts of procedures they could do on a younger person - but it made no sense to try them on her. Did it make sense for us to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a very poor risk, when even if it was successful, she'd likely only be around for a couple more years tops? It's a sad reality of life. Sigh. Well now are you happy, I've gone and bummed myself out really bad. I need **** and cartoons now.

It is a decision I'd rather want to make myself, or at the very least leave to my family, not to some H&HS policymaker.

[budgie]

watch all the liberals jump on this one...

What are you, Rush Limbaugh or something?

[WarriorMonk]

What are you, Rush Limbaugh or something?

no, it's just the wording of the article title makes it, and anyone who believes it, a giant PR target.

[PsychoMantis]

The thing is,where would we draw the line for ending healthcare to peopel? Smokers,Obesity,Addicts,the old,Aids Victims and Terminally Ill people,Winos...We cant do much for these people but what about retards or people with mental disorders..how far do we go? Do we implement a psuedo-Eugenics program or something?

[Shadowstorm]

It is a decision I'd rather want to make myself, or at the very least leave to my family, not to some H&HS policymaker.
Yeah, I agree. It should be your decision not the government, doctors or anybody else.

[Mastermind]

Sports enthusiasts, fire works dalliers, air plane joy riders, bikers, shooters, runners with sore ankles, weight lifters with compressed discs, twinkee eaters, McDonald's customers...hell, there really is no end to the lifestyle controll the government would have with socialized medical care. That movie Brazil gave me the creeps with their air conditioing underground repairmen....when the government assumes responsibility for every aspect of your life, you are truly fcuked!

[Antwnia]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/27/nhs127.xml



So then these people are forced to pay for a health care system that they could be potentially shut out from? But on the converse people who take care of themselves have their healthcare burdened by people who don't take care of themselves



Thats moraly and ethicaly wrong! After all when those people where young and healthy they did pay all their taxes!!!! So its their HUMAN RIGHT to be provided by the NHS! Becides..... if you really think about it ......why should they provide health assistance to the alchool addicts and/or the drug addicts?!?!?!!?

As for the Young ones that might be in favour of such a ridiculous decision let me remind you something and with your hand on your heart answer this " How would you feel if you were old and left un-treated" ?!?!?!?! And remember where these people are today we will be there in the future, Respecting ones self, gains him/her Respect of others!!!

[eskachig]

Here's an article that sheds some light on why the authors of the report have no idea what they are talking about :)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/05/healthy_tax_burden/



Healthy? You're a burden on the state

Smoke cigarettes, die young, save NHS money

By Lester Haines (http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2008/02/05/healthy_tax_burden/) → More by this author (http://search.theregister.co.uk/?author=Lester%20Haines)
Published Tuesday 5th February 2008 15:23 GMT
Green Computing - Where do you stand? (http://go.theregister.co.uk/c/td/toptl/http%3A//www.theregister.co.uk/Page/greenit200802)
Dutch researchers have confirmed what fat smokers have waited years to hear - that healthy people are actually a greater burden on the state, because they live longer and oblige the taxpayer to deal with the cost of "lingering diseases of old age like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s".
That's according to the Netherlands’ National Institute for Public Health and Environment, which found that while "a person of normal weight costs on average £210,000 over their lifetime", a smoker clocks up just £165,000 and the obese run up an average £187,000 bill.
The team's findings, published in the Public Library of Science (PLoS), are based on modelling "three hypothetical populations from the age of 20, to see how much they would cost in medical bills throughout the different stages of their lives", the Telegraph explains.
The study states: “The underlying mechanism is that there is a substitution of inexpensive, lethal diseases towards less lethal, and therefore more costly diseases.”
It adds: “Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.”
The scientists did, however, concede their research "did not look at the total costs of obesity and smoking, just the narrowly-prescribed health costs". Report co-author professor Klim McPherson, of Oxford University, warned: “It would be wrong to interpret the findings as meaning that public-health prevention, for example to prevent obesity, has no benefits.
“Quite apart from health-care costs, the other costs to society from obesity are also greater because of absences from work due to illness and employment difficulties; these costs amount to considerably more than health-care costs.”
In the end, then, the actual cost of fag-puffing overweights appears to be a matter for debate. While obesity is already apparently costing the NHS £1bn a year, we wouldn't be the first to point out that smokers (and drinkers, for that matter) contribute vast sums of tax to the exchequer every year by resolutely sticking to their deadly vices.

[Invisigoth]

Here's an article that sheds some light on why the authors of the report have no idea what they are talking about :)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/05/healthy_tax_burden/

Just when you think it can't get better. How you like that healthy people? p-)

[Mastermind]

State run health management is just another way to gain control over people. Just as welfare does, just as social security does..."Do as we tell you or you don't get services."

Seat belt laws, and helmet laws were passed based on the amount of tax burdern injuries cost...then smoking bans came next for the same reason...but, notice here in the states how little of the tobacco settlement money goes into medical services...most went into ad agencies and teacher salaries (read NEA support).