• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sentenced to death on the NHS

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,041
Reaction score
33,367
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Published: 10:00PM BST 02 Sep 2009

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.
But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.
As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.
“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.
“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."
Is there any question about the type of healthcare models being considered in the Obama Administration? They talk about Europe like it's a panacea.
 
Link


Is there any question about the type of healthcare models being considered in the Obama Administration? They talk about Europe like it's a panacea.

Um... yes. To answer your question.

Apples/Oranges...
 
Link


Is there any question about the type of healthcare models being considered in the Obama Administration? They talk about Europe like it's a panacea.

How would this be any different with private insurance?

Again people seem to not understand how the english and canadian health care systems differ and how the proposed system differs from both.

In England the doctors are both paid by the government and work for the government. In Canada private practitioners are reimbursed by the government through a single payer system. In the US we're talking about a public insurance subsidized by the government and a private insurance which people can buy. The doctors stay private. So again what's the point of posting all these articles about England when no one is proposing a socialized health care system like england
 
How would this be any different with private insurance?

Again people seem to not understand how the english and canadian health care systems differ and how the proposed system differs from both.

In England the doctors are both paid by the government and work for the government. In Canada private practitioners are reimbursed by the government through a single payer system. In the US we're talking about a public insurance subsidized by the government and a private insurance which people can buy. The doctors stay private. So again what's the point of posting all these articles about England when no one is proposing a socialized health care system like england

It keeps people fearful and prevents them from being pragmatic and thoughtful in their analysis of the proposed health care reform.

What is describe in the article is how people die under hospice paid by Medicare. Free of pain and with their dignity.

Feeding tubes, life support machines have their place. But postponing death when a person has no quality of life is cruel and selfish.
 
Link


Is there any question about the type of healthcare models being considered in the Obama Administration? They talk about Europe like it's a panacea.

Actually, our NHS definetly has its flaws, but its the backbone of the country. Its a complete success story in terms of offering healthcare to everybody in the country at no cost. This crisis is one i have not yet heard of, and sounds like it is on a small scale. Otherwise, the NHS has been miracolous at saving lives and offering health care opportunities and jobs across the country. Sometimes it can be tedious to wait for something as simple as a scan...but when you find yourself in need of an Op, us Britons are ever so glad it exists. I dont think we could imagine a UK without it.

So stop using the NHS's faults as a terror tactic for your own governments plans. I agree, it will be very difficult and very costly in a country as large as America. Obama will likey legislate the American Health Care System in such a way that will be a burden for your middle class American taxpayer in one way or another, you may believe it will reduce quality. But here in Britain, our system is just fine, so leave it alone.
 
Last edited:
No that's bullshiat! There's no such thing as no cost. Are the doctors and nurses working for free? I guess they eat at soup kitchens right?
 
It keeps people fearful and prevents them from being pragmatic and thoughtful in their analysis of the proposed health care reform.

What is describe in the article is how people die under hospice paid by Medicare. Free of pain and with their dignity.

Feeding tubes, life support machines have their place. But postponing death when a person has no quality of life is cruel and selfish.
We'll remembe that when it's your turn. In your case we might jerk the tube early out of niceness.
 
We'll remembe that when it's your turn. In your case we might jerk the tube early out of niceness.

American, can you explain to us what this issue in the OP has to do with the system argued over in the US?

After all, the doctors in the UK are not withdrawing food & water because of cost reasons but because of ethical reasons regarding quality of life.

So given that, what are you trying to tell us?
 
We'll remembe that when it's your turn. In your case we might jerk the tube early out of niceness.

Yeah and I'm sure when you get to the point in your life where you want out we'll keep fighting to keep you alive terri schiavo style. Regardless of how far gone your body and mind are
 
No that's bullshiat! There's no such thing as no cost. Are the doctors and nurses working for free? I guess they eat at soup kitchens right?

Was that post for me? I didnt say there was no costs. We pay for the healthcare we recieve through tax. But that comes back to us when we are in need of medical attention. The taxes are reasonable and ensure the best quality health care, and when we need it, we recieve the sufficient attention we need, without having to worry about soaring debts compromising our lifestyle as a result. Healthcare is a service we have the right to. In the long run it works out better to pay an extra tax than pay huge bills when in need of medical attention.

And in your posting of this article, it is evident you have no clue about our NHS system, hence your attempt at a comparison between the British national health care and the American to-be national healthcare, as they are totally different systems (legistlated and strucutured totally differently).
 
Actually, our NHS definetly has its flaws, but its the backbone of the country. Its a complete success story in terms of offering healthcare to everybody in the country at no cost. This crisis is one i have not yet heard of, and sounds like it is on a small scale. Otherwise, the NHS has been miracolous at saving lives and offering health care opportunities and jobs across the country. Sometimes it can be tedious to wait for something as simple as a scan...but when you find yourself in need of an Op, us Britons are ever so glad it exists. I dont think we could imagine a UK without it.

So stop using the NHS's faults as a terror tactic for your own governments plans. I agree, it will be very difficult and very costly in a country as large as America. Obama will likey legislate the American Health Care System in such a way that will be a burden for your middle class American taxpayer in one way or another, you may believe it will reduce quality. But here in Britain, our system is just fine, so leave it alone.


Bull Pucky. “Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."

No thinking, rational Person wants the "State" to decide when their Life is to End. :roll:
 
Bull Pucky. “Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."

No thinking, rational Person wants the "State" to decide when their Life is to End. :roll:

This scheme is for people who have terminal illness anyway.
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.

It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.

It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.

Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.

They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.

Sentenced to death on the NHS - Telegraph

Possibly the more important thing is that when worries are found or things are wrong they are brought out in the open so that they can be dealt with if need be.
 
Actually, our NHS definetly has its flaws, but its the backbone of the country. Its a complete success story in terms of offering healthcare to everybody in the country at no cost.

This is probably the most fundamental misconception about socialized health care... that it's free.

When the poster begins her argument with such a basic error, why even read on?

:2wave:
 
This is probably the most fundamental misconception about socialized health care... that it's free.

When the poster begins her argument with such a basic error, why even read on?

:2wave:

he meant 'at the point of delivery'. It's simply a mistake when writing.
 
Last edited:
he meant 'at the point of delivery'. It's simply a mistake when writing.

I'm not buying it, sorry. People who advocate government programs often view government services as 'free services.' This is a large part of the appeal. It's 'free.'

These folks also make the mistake of assuming that government programs are free of 'profit motive.' Anyone who understands how government bureaucracies function knows that the bickering over funding within state agencies on every level, and the associated waste involved, is far more intense, and more destructive, than 'profit motive' of private sector players.

There's a reason we pay hundreds of dollars for a hammer or a toilet seat in the military. Government programs by their very nature are wasteful and inefficient. Yet we are to believe these same governments are capable of providing health services more efficiently.


:shock:
 
Link


Is there any question about the type of healthcare models being considered in the Obama Administration? They talk about Europe like it's a panacea.

Let's use Afghanistan's model of democracy to prove whether or not democracy is efficient.

Nope. Not efficient, so we shouldn't have a democracy.

Great argument!
 
I'm not buying it, sorry. People who advocate government programs often view government services as 'free services.' This is a large part of the appeal. It's 'free.'

These folks also make the mistake of assuming that government programs are free of 'profit motive.' Anyone who understands how government bureaucracies function knows that the bickering over funding within state agencies on every level, and the associated waste involved, is far more intense, and more destructive, than 'profit motive' of private sector players.

There's a reason we pay hundreds of dollars for a hammer or a toilet seat in the military. Government programs by their very nature are wasteful and inefficient. Yet we are to believe these same governments are capable of providing health services more efficiently.


:shock:

What you are saying would make sense if he had been talking about funding. However he was rather referring to the drama of this thread and talking about that.

You were not the first person to come back at him on this and in post 10 he replies.

Like I say if it were funding which had been being discussed, I would agree with you but I think his attention was simply on other things.
 
How would this be any different with private insurance?

Again people seem to not understand how the english and canadian health care systems differ and how the proposed system differs from both.

In England the doctors are both paid by the government and work for the government. In Canada private practitioners are reimbursed by the government through a single payer system. In the US we're talking about a public insurance subsidized by the government and a private insurance which people can buy. The doctors stay private. So again what's the point of posting all these articles about England when no one is proposing a socialized health care system like england


That was short, and yet one of the most coherent health care posts I have seen ! The ignorance and misinformation about health care insurance reform proposals has wearied my spirit !

As to the original post, yes, there is more than a question. What you posted about has nothing to do with what is being proposed by Obama, or by any of the House committees and/or Senate committees.
 
he meant 'at the point of delivery'. It's simply a mistake when writing.

IA, I had no trouble understanding what was meant.
 
I'm not buying it, sorry. People who advocate government programs often view government services as 'free services.' This is a large part of the appeal. It's 'free.'

These folks also make the mistake of assuming that government programs are free of 'profit motive.' Anyone who understands how government bureaucracies function knows that the bickering over funding within state agencies on every level, and the associated waste involved, is far more intense, and more destructive, than 'profit motive' of private sector players.

There's a reason we pay hundreds of dollars for a hammer or a toilet seat in the military. Government programs by their very nature are wasteful and inefficient. Yet we are to believe these same governments are capable of providing health services more efficiently.


:shock:

I set that straight already.

Kaya to American said:
Was that post for me? I didnt say there was no costs. We pay for the healthcare we recieve through tax. But that comes back to us when we are in need of medical attention. The taxes are reasonable and ensure the best quality health care, and when we need it, we recieve the sufficient attention we need, without having to worry about soaring debts compromising our lifestyle as a result. Healthcare is a service we have the right to. In the long run it works out better to pay an extra tax than pay huge bills when in need of medical attention.

And in your posting of this article, it is evident you have no clue about our NHS system, hence your attempt at a comparison between the British national health care and the American to-be national healthcare, as they are totally different systems (legistlated and strucutured totally differently).

Though i agree on the notion that government programmes can be ineffective and wasteful, i cant help but ask, what if that programme is structured and legislated so that it can be just as competitive and as wasteful as your private sector? We have managed to achieve that balance in the NHS here in Britian. Im sorry your government is incapable of doing so.

You need to educate yourself more on the British NHS before you can begin to compare the two, completely different systems. The fact you are comparing the two goes to show your lack of knowledge on our own system which is actually very efficient and effective at providing the right health care to all the classes of the UK.

And nobody sees it as a free service. Do you have proof to back up such an absurd assertion?
 
Last edited:
Actually, our NHS definetly has its flaws, but its the backbone of the country. Its a complete success story in terms of offering healthcare to everybody in the country at no cost. This crisis is one i have not yet heard of, and sounds like it is on a small scale. Otherwise, the NHS has been miracolous at saving lives and offering health care opportunities and jobs across the country. Sometimes it can be tedious to wait for something as simple as a scan...but when you find yourself in need of an Op, us Britons are ever so glad it exists. I dont think we could imagine a UK without it.

So stop using the NHS's faults as a terror tactic for your own governments plans. I agree, it will be very difficult and very costly in a country as large as America. Obama will likey legislate the American Health Care System in such a way that will be a burden for your middle class American taxpayer in one way or another, you may believe it will reduce quality. But here in Britain, our system is just fine, so leave it alone.
I agree with you about the general benefits of the NHS even if I think it is not quite so miraculous and could do with a few changes. But it is always worth pointing out it is certainly not at no cost, although maybe that was simply vague wording and you meant at point of access.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately this thread was started on an idiotic premise and therefore it does no one any good to continue to debate over it.
 
Doctors make mistakes in small cases? Holy ****, really? I thought the NHS delegated its angelic power of healing to these doctors to make them completely omniscient. Christ, guys, was I ever wrong.

I honestly think there's a about 0.1% of Britain that want to abolish the NHS. It's one of our national achievments.
 
I set that straight already.

And yet your original post still stands for all to see...

kaya said:
Its a complete success story in terms of offering healthcare to everybody in the country at no cost.

What you and other socialized medicine advocates do is rather like car salesmen who advertise to sell vehicles 'interest free.' It's a gimmick that sounds great on its face. Of course when we read the fine print we realize that we'll be paying more under the 'interest free' program. Similarly, there's no such thing as 'no cost' health care. Yet you'll continue to spread that line proudly, then cover yourself with your 'fine print' explanations later.

:doh
 
And yet we pay less than the American private system for better healthcare. Lord Mighty it's a miracle!
 
Back
Top Bottom