Brit doctors: don't treat people who make bad choices or get old

[Undertoad]

This'll muss up yer hair.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../27/nhs127.xml

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.

About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.

Some of our fellow Brit dwellars fit into these categories. My friends, I would do anything to get you care if you are denied it. Even if it is a financial burden, I will send you the money for a plane ticket so you can fly to Philadelphia; I will pick you up at the airport; and I will take you to the nearest hospital.

Do you know what the financial condition of your hospital is? It serves you well to find out.

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.

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.

[BrianR]

I'd chip in, too.

[Clodfobble]

To be fair, they can get treatment, they just have to pay for it themselves.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It would be closer to go to Sweden...
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

[ZenGum]

We touched on this sort of issue a few months back, in a thread about an overpopulated island. Finite resources, demand exceeding supply, hard decisions.

It isn't a case of doctors saying, we've got plenty of resources but you aren't worthy. Rather, doctors (and medical administrators really) are saying, our limited resources would be better used on this person with a better likelihood of a long and productive life afterwards, than on this other person who has a much less chance of that.

It's a very hard decision, but it is one we have to face, unless we want to greatly increase spending on health. Taxes, anyone?

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

To be fair, they can get treatment, they just have to pay for it themselves.

But, didn't they pay for it once already with their taxes?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

It's a very hard decision, but it is one we have to face, unless we want to greatly increase spending on health.

There is also the option of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. More money does not by definition mean better.

[monster]

What's the problem?

I don't believe -for example- alcoholics who refuse to give up drinking should be given a liver transplant at all if there are others in more need of the liver, even if they pay for the treatment themselves.

But they're not being refused treatment altogether -just treatment on the NHS. How would you feel about your taxes being increased so every alky in the gutter can receive a liver transplant on medicare?

The elderly are more tricky, but there are many procedures which can result in more pain and suffering that would be caused by not having them. If people refuse to take the advice of their doctor about when to stop treatment, they should do it on their own dollar.

It's no different from your insurance company dictating which procedures it will pay for, which doctors you can see.....

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by monster

It's no different from your insurance company dictating which procedures it will pay for, which doctors you can see.....

No different? Can we make that a bumper sticker?

Universal health care: no different from current insurance coverage

Actually I believe that only occasionally are there cases where people are flatly denied coverage by their insurer, and when they do, it's big news. Somebody died of it recently.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

No different? Can we make that a bumper sticker?

Universal health care: no different from current insurance coverage

Sure you can. It's not what i said, but if it makes you feel good, go right ahead.

Actually I believe that only occasionally are there cases where people are flatly denied coverage by their insurer, and when they do, it's big news. Somebody died of it recently.

Oh please. Are you trying to tell me that everyone with health insurance can get the latest most expensive fertility treatment from the provider of their choice? Even 80yo great-grannies?

You've just reminded me why I've never bothered to join in these "discussions". The American health insurance blinkers and obsession with the evil socialism rife in Europe make it pointless and impossible. You'd be bereft without Nationalised Healthcare to fear and mock. Natiionalised healthcare will never work here because no-one will ever give it a chance. So let's just forget it and carry on.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Actually I believe that only occasionally are there cases where people are flatly denied coverage by their insurer, and when they do, it's big news. Somebody died of it recently.

Remember how Briana was getting chemo, and needing anti-nausea medication? Insurer got all stingy and would only pay for one (IIRC) dose when she needed more.

Ok, not "flatly denied" but I imagine this situation is similar to what happens in Britain; a 92-year-old with emphysema is given medication to manage it, rather than a lung transplant, but they are not "flatly denied" treatment.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Remember how Briana was getting chemo, and needing anti-nausea medication? Insurer got all stingy and would only pay for one (IIRC) dose when she needed more.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

My friends, I would do anything to get you care if you are denied it.

Refresh my memory, Undertoad. Did you fall all over yourself to pay for the extra medicine Briana needed?

Or is your offer only good when you can make a cheap political point?
__________________

Just because a medical treatment can be offered, it doesn't always mean it should be offered. What we have in our current system are business entities, whose principal interest is the bottom line, deciding when to withhold treatment. In the examples you state here, you have doctors deciding when to withhold treatment. Oh, the horror. Doctors making healthcare decisions. Like no more livers for an alcoholic. Give me a break.

[Flint]

As coincidence would have it, I just recieved an invitation to this ethical seminar:

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
As a touchstone for unpacking the ethical concept of "the reality principle" this seminar considers the December 2007 refusal of Cigna to cover under its benefit schedule a liver transplant for 17 year old, Natalie Sarkisyan, and the circumstances of her death. The content of the seminar focuses on the concept of "realism as an ethical obligation," as well as a suggested ethical framework for setting limits and the socially constructed philosophical concept that grounds "the reality principle."

Now brace yourselves, I suspect that Undertoad is about to unleash a scathing criticism of the American healthcare system, and offer his personal assistance to the poor, beleaguered citizens of the USA. After all, this is about helping people, definitely not just making cheap political points.

[classicman]

Where does that system go when it gets to the point of saying " You don't contribute enough to society, so no treatment for you."?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Soylent Green.