Prescriptions

[Alarm]

But everyday at the local surgery!

 

[alumni]

All issues eventually come down to 'yes' or 'no'. The UK is bust - that's just a fact, not my opinion. Simples.

And here's me thinking the thread was about oldtimers and pills.

In one simple post, you move it to economics.

Now, simple answer, yes or no. This daughter of yours, goes down with a potentially life threatening disease that requires an extensive course of expensive medication.

Give us your simple answer. Should she have it?

Yes or no.

Yes, while she's young. When she's in her 80s - then no.

Oh, so your being selective now. Nope not good enough.
Yes or no, that's what it all comes down to - your words.

And i notice you slipped in another qualifier, in her eighties.
Yet you started the thread by moaning your t1ts off about the over 60's.

Hypocritical simpleton!!!

 

[jackfoley]

Nope. Dad is dead and Mum is 90. If she gets cancer at that age then let her die. Me too. You too. That's the way the future MUST be. We are bust. The whole world is bust. Too many people and too few resources. If you have the means to pay privately then fine - you do that. Otherwise just go.

Maybe a ninety year old has paid contributions all his life, why should he be refused care?

I'd rather not treat HIV infested immigrants who have paid nothing in the system ever. Have a look at the nhs budget for HIV infections for the years 2003 - 2010........

 

[Susiejb]

Going back to the OP, it is probably right that we do in fact take too many pills, many of us have parents and grandparents who lived to a ripe old age without them.

Regarding who should receive treatment..... when my mother in law died she was first taken to hospital in the April, extremely frail and to all intents and purpose dying.The medical staff however decided 'in their wisdom' to fill her full of antibiotcs and prolong her life.
She then went on to endure four months of living hell, frail, unable to move, with legs so ulcerated they were like raw meat, screaming in pain if you even went near to them, she eventually literally 'starved to death'.

Medical science has not done the human race any favours by its desire to prolong life 'at all costs'.
Quality of life should always be taken into account at any age.
There is a time to live and a time to die....the medical profession should accept that.

 

[alumni]

I would argue it is not medical science at fault, more the ethical side along with the Law. Just where do the medical staff 'draw the line' on treatment?

There is no simple solution to this dilemma (well, only in Joe's world). Compassion and understanding is required - from all parties involved. What we don't need is cold, heartless decision makers.

Not an easy one to solve but sometimes 'letting the go' can be the best thing for the patient.

 

[joe-90]

All issues eventually come down to 'yes' or 'no'. The UK is bust - that's just a fact, not my opinion. Simples.

And here's me thinking the thread was about oldtimers and pills.

In one simple post, you move it to economics.

Now, simple answer, yes or no. This daughter of yours, goes down with a potentially life threatening disease that requires an extensive course of expensive medication.

Give us your simple answer. Should she have it?

Yes or no.

Yes, while she's young. When she's in her 80s - then no.

Oh, so your being selective now. Nope not good enough.
Yes or no, that's what it all comes down to - your words.

And i notice you slipped in another qualifier, in her eighties.
Yet you started the thread by moaning your t1ts off about the over 60's.

Hypocritical simpleton!!!

Make that pension age then. It's already happening anyway - delaying treatment and waiting for them to die.

 

[joe-90]

Nope. Dad is dead and Mum is 90. If she gets cancer at that age then let her die. Me too. You too. That's the way the future MUST be. We are bust. The whole world is bust. Too many people and too few resources. If you have the means to pay privately then fine - you do that. Otherwise just go.

Maybe a ninety year old has paid contributions all his life, why should he be refused care?

I'd rather not treat HIV infested immigrants who have paid nothing in the system ever. Have a look at the nhs budget for HIV infections for the years 2003 - 2010........

I agree. Immigrants here less than ten years (in work and naturalised) should be sent back to their own country for treatment.

 

[Alarm]

Jump on the bandwagon by all means.
At least give a reasonable argument as to why you hold your views.


Now for all, say this "debt" crisis gets worse. They decide the rules have to be changed slightl.
At what age do we say life is to be extinguished, as opposed to be assisted?

 

[joe-90]

Dunno, but those that neither drink, smoke or are fat and make the effort to look after themselves should be given priority in health matters. If you don't look after yourself - why should the rest of society pay to look after you?

 

[Alarm]

So what your now saying is the taxes and NI Payments we all ( another debate, but lets leave that for another time), make are for nothing.

So we should not pay tax and NI contributions. Go private! Then the NHS will bloom and become the best in the world again. All without our contributions. And of course the YOUR 55 AND SLIGHTLY FAT SO FOOK OOF selection process.


Damn, your a genius. Solved the whole process of public health care in one thread. Can I shake your hand?

 

[conny]

Only if you've used a sterilising gel.
Can't be spreading germs around willy-nilly.

 

[Alarm]

I made an error. I meant shake his neck, and who cares about gloves.
What a pathetic argument, yet he wants his wrinkly mother to survive.
Better off she lives longer than him !

And before the puncuation lords drop in, too tired to be correct.
Just off to bed after a BBQ with old and young peeps that pay their way.

 

[joe-90]

It's just schoolboy economics mate. There is NO MONEY IN THE POT. We can't afford to keep the old alive - which is why operations are being delayed in the hope that the patient dies. It's happening NOW - right this minute. It was on the news just last week. Wake up, mate, smell the coffee.

 

[joinerjohn]

Lets face it, National Insurance, isn't used to pay for the NHS, nor pensions in later life. It's just another TAX on earnings. When it was introduced, it was supposed to pay for pensions and the NHS, but that was all part of the con to raise taxation.

 

[Susiejb]

You just cannot possibly make at statement that suits all.

My father in law (sorry family again) is 89 .... just started to take four tablets a day, first time ever .... he still rides his bike and does an allotment....with great difficulty, but admirable all the same.
Should the doctor just leave him to die.....refuse life enhancing tablets, it would be totally unacceptable.

Judge every case on its merits .....certainly not by age....