Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   British hospitals prepare to euthanize 60,000 old people. Minister calls this "fantastic step forward"   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Royal College of Physicians  
•       •       •

21807 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2012 at 12:15 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



237 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-12-30 07:51:32 PM  
Last time I checked, private health insurance was available for purchase in the UK. If the public system is not enough, sell your assets and buy it. Or die. You have an option.
 
2012-12-30 08:04:55 PM  
Jesus Fark.  I'm all for the idea of not prolonging death when folks are suffering - but this... this is absolutely sinister.
 
2012-12-30 08:07:39 PM  
DEATH PANELS!!!!

This is gonna be good. Off to make popcorn.
 
2012-12-30 08:07:53 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Jesus Fark.  I'm all for the idea of not prolonging death when folks are suffering - but this... this is absolutely sinister.


it's not sinister, it's just cost effective. has capitalism taught you people nothing?
 
2012-12-30 08:27:40 PM  
 
2012-12-30 08:31:03 PM  

PacManDreaming: Why does the UK want to be like Texas?


So nobody messes with them?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-12-30 08:36:42 PM  
The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. Death typically takes place within 29 hours.

Happens in America too, and may be standard for certain types of people in hospice care.

As it was explained to me in one case, involving a person with adequate health coverage, attendants monitor breathing rate to decide when the old, sick person is suffering too much. At that point they give morphine, and death usually follows within a couple days. It seemed like euthanasia to me, though the morphine dose is not enough on its own to kill.
 
2012-12-30 08:41:48 PM  
He does look like a self satisfied git though,doesn't he?
 
2012-12-30 09:00:44 PM  

ZAZ: The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. Death typically takes place within 29 hours.

Happens in America too, and may be standard for certain types of people in hospice care.

As it was explained to me in one case, involving a person with adequate health coverage, attendants monitor breathing rate to decide when the old, sick person is suffering too much. At that point they give morphine, and death usually follows within a couple days. It seemed like euthanasia to me, though the morphine dose is not enough on its own to kill.


That's great that we have that option.  I've already talked to both of my parents (early 60's) and neither want to be hooked up to machines extending their "life".  But it is their call if they can still speak, and my call if they are unconscious.  It is not the place of a doctor to make the decision to actively end the life of a person with out legal consent.
 
2012-12-30 09:09:21 PM  
Better than them being gun deaths.
 
2012-12-30 09:11:19 PM  
Now if we could only get the Baby Boomers to off themselves we'd be in business.
 
2012-12-30 09:12:51 PM  
Greenlighting daily fail articles still a major step backwards.
 
2012-12-30 09:15:25 PM  

beautifulbob: ZAZ: The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. Death typically takes place within 29 hours.

Happens in America too, and may be standard for certain types of people in hospice care.

As it was explained to me in one case, involving a person with adequate health coverage, attendants monitor breathing rate to decide when the old, sick person is suffering too much. At that point they give morphine, and death usually follows within a couple days. It seemed like euthanasia to me, though the morphine dose is not enough on its own to kill.

That's great that we have that option.  I've already talked to both of my parents (early 60's) and neither want to be hooked up to machines extending their "life".  But it is their call if they can still speak, and my call if they are unconscious.  It is not the place of a doctor to make the decision to actively end the life of a person with out legal consent.


You don't understand 0bamacare.
 
2012-12-30 09:20:40 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: You don't understand 0bamacare.


You have a tenuous grasp on the English language.
 
2012-12-30 09:43:05 PM  
blogs.amctv.com
 
2012-12-30 09:43:40 PM  
This is the Daily Fail.  At least one key piece of information is missing here, assuming this wasn't totally distorted.
 
2012-12-30 09:59:38 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Jesus Fark.  I'm all for the idea of not prolonging death when folks are suffering - but this... this is absolutely sinister.


After a series of strokes, my mother was unresponsive and immobile, surviving via nutrition on a stomach tube for a full two years while my father "hoped for the best".  I blame chicken-shiat doctors for not giving my father a true prognosis, and money-grubbing nursing homes for putting my mother through that pain.  Two f*cking years.  In the end, they pulled the stomach tube and substituted morphine.  It was the humane thing to do.

Aside from the (alleged) lack of pain treatment, I don't see a problem with this.
 
2012-12-30 10:18:59 PM  

beautifulbob: I've already talked to both of my parents (early 60's) and neither want to be hooked up to machines extending their "life".  But it is their call if they can still speak, and my call if they are unconscious.  It is not the place of a doctor to make the decision to actively end the life of a person with out legal consent.


If only death were that clean.  You can live for years on with no cognitive function and no assistance from machinery. See my post just up there ^^^^.  Well, I hope there was no cognitive function, because otherwise she was stuck in the worst of prisons for 2 years.

That sh*t-show was a result of no doctor having the authority to tell my father that there was no reasonable hope of meaningful recovery.  It was simpler for them to just hand this breathing cadaver over to a nursing home, which was more than happy to park her in a room and shove some Ensure in a stomach tube a couple times a day and give my Dad "updates" on her "progress".

We all like to think we've cleaned up all the loose ends, and that our loved ones will make the right decisions.  But sometimes, a person who sees this professionally dozens of times a month should have an authoritative voice.
 
2012-12-30 10:32:50 PM  
www.sidkaliflicks.com
 
2012-12-30 10:39:58 PM  

Babwa Wawa: beautifulbob: I've already talked to both of my parents (early 60's) and neither want to be hooked up to machines extending their "life".  But it is their call if they can still speak, and my call if they are unconscious.  It is not the place of a doctor to make the decision to actively end the life of a person with out legal consent.

If only death were that clean.  You can live for years on with no cognitive function and no assistance from machinery. See my post just up there ^^^^.  Well, I hope there was no cognitive function, because otherwise she was stuck in the worst of prisons for 2 years.

That sh*t-show was a result of no doctor having the authority to tell my father that there was no reasonable hope of meaningful recovery.  It was simpler for them to just hand this breathing cadaver over to a nursing home, which was more than happy to park her in a room and shove some Ensure in a stomach tube a couple times a day and give my Dad "updates" on her "progress".

We all like to think we've cleaned up all the loose ends, and that our loved ones will make the right decisions.  But sometimes, a person who sees this professionally dozens of times a month should have an authoritative voice.


I pray I never get put in that position.  I can't imagine how hard it will be to pull the plug, even with their expressed desires.  I will need to rely on an authoritative opinion of a doctor.  More than one probably.  Maybe even take the condition to a panel of doctors.  But the final decision should be left to the family.  Families will make poor, emotional decisions.  But fully informed, it should be their right.  Not the right of a doctor, even if they are making the best choice for the patient.
 
2012-12-30 10:49:08 PM  

Babwa Wawa: beautifulbob: I've already talked to both of my parents (early 60's) and neither want to be hooked up to machines extending their "life".  But it is their call if they can still speak, and my call if they are unconscious.  It is not the place of a doctor to make the decision to actively end the life of a person with out legal consent.

If only death were that clean.

you want a clean death?

 
2012-12-30 10:54:55 PM  
As islands go, Britland is a decent size. Still, it can't be expanded.
So getting rid of 600K should free up a little elbow room.
 
2012-12-30 10:57:40 PM  

Babwa Wawa: Benevolent Misanthrope: Jesus Fark.  I'm all for the idea of not prolonging death when folks are suffering - but this... this is absolutely sinister.

After a series of strokes, my mother was unresponsive and immobile, surviving via nutrition on a stomach tube for a full two years while my father "hoped for the best".  I blame chicken-shiat doctors for not giving my father a true prognosis, and money-grubbing nursing homes for putting my mother through that pain.  Two f*cking years.  In the end, they pulled the stomach tube and substituted morphine.  It was the humane thing to do.

Aside from the (alleged) lack of pain treatment, I don't see a problem with this.


At that point, they were prolonging death, not prolonging life.  As I said - prolonging death is unconscionable, and I'm so sorry you and your family had to go through that.  But if what TFA said is true, and people are being euthanized simply because they're old (but they're conscious and not suffering when the decision is made to snow them under)... those cases are truly evil, to my mind.
 
2012-12-30 11:11:09 PM  

beautifulbob: Families will make poor, emotional decisions.  But fully informed, it should be their right.


Therein lies the rub.  We place the decision in the hands of those mostly likely to make poor decisions.  Popular culture barrages us with survivor mentality, teaching us to expect "miracles" and how the will of the mind/soul can overcome physical realities.  This is helpful for those who actually have hope of recovery, but it severely damages the ability of the terminally ill and their loved ones to cope with their situations.  Just today I was talking to my sister about her attempts to start a non-profit in honor of her business partner who knew he had terminal cancer for months but failed to tell his 9 year old daughter, expecting to "beat" it.

The mentality that death is unnatural is very difficult for doctors overcome.  Just like with children, there must be a mechanism for doctors to leverage when loved ones are no longer acting in the best interest of the patient.
 
2012-12-30 11:17:58 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: prolonging death is unconscionable


Then what do you do when the health care proxy (usually the spouse) is prolonging death?  Does the health care provider have an obligation to act?  If not, who does?
 
2012-12-30 11:25:09 PM  

Babwa Wawa: We place the decision in the hands of those mostly likely to make poor decisions.


I refer to that as the natural "Hold ma beer and watch this" selection we've placed upon our society. It's fun and sad to watch at the same time.

You raise a good point. We had to have that talk with my mom when grandma was on the way out. She just kept thinking we needed to try something else, but it was clear to everyone else the end was near. It was a difficult time, but I like to think we all got a little closer as a result of it. Also, we've all discussed how we'd like similar situations handled with all of us.
 
2012-12-30 11:26:00 PM  

Babwa Wawa: Benevolent Misanthrope: prolonging death is unconscionable

Then what do you do when the health care proxy (usually the spouse) is prolonging death?  Does the health care provider have an obligation to act?  If not, who does?


Not sure.  And not interested in debating you over it.  I do know that I'm very leery of a health care provider who stands to gain by someone's death being the sole determiner of when someone should die.
 
2012-12-30 11:32:35 PM  
The stupidity in this thread will be spectacular once it hits the main page. I predict this becoming a legendary thread. My amazing psychic powers also predict people with no idea of what end of life care REALLY means will be happy to tell us how it REALLY is.

I'm also willing to bet we'll get a deluge of people who are more than happy to shove Grandma and Grandpa into an underpaid, understaffed medicare-supported nursing home while visiting them once a year on the holidays, and keep them alive with a feeding tube and trach long after anything resembling them has died away.

These are the same asshats who made Terri Schiavo a household name, rather than allowing her to die with dignity.

/as a side note, "Life at Any costs" assholes like these are the reason I have an ADR/Living Will at the age of 27 and in relatively good health, and have multiple people legally designated to carry it out if another refuses.
 
2012-12-30 11:33:40 PM  
I don't know if there's a British equivalent (probably is), but when I had to pull the plug on wife #1, I had her directive to physicians at hand. But she was brain dead. Involuntary euthanasia with conscious people is probably murder.
 
2012-12-30 11:33:50 PM  

beautifulbob: But it is their call if they can still speak, and my call if they are unconscious.  It is not the place of a doctor to make the decision to actively end the life of a person with out legal consent.


And you're a complete monster if you don't follow through with THEIR wishes.
 
2012-12-30 11:37:22 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Not sure


Yeah, me neither.  But in my thinking it's sure as hell not black and white.  I'm not sure I'd entrust my end-of-life decisions to a random doctor, but I'm also not sure someone whose thinking might be clouded by emotion.

NewportBarGuy: We had to have that talk with my mom when grandma


In my experience, it's a lot easier when the death is part of an expected progression.  We all expect to bury our parents, but many of us are unprepared to bury our spouse, and burying a child is unthinkable.  The really horrifying results come with an untimely terminal illness or injury, and a doctor who is either unwilling to speak reality to the patient and family, or is ignored when they do so.
 
2012-12-30 11:46:05 PM  
The Daily Fail is making shiat up again.
 
2012-12-30 11:50:15 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I do know that I'm very leery of a health care provider who stands to gain by someone's death being the sole determiner of when someone should die.


You do realize that it's against Federal Law for a healthcare provider who stands to make a financial gain to be involved in a brain death determination, right?
 
2012-12-31 12:05:52 AM  

BronyMedic: Benevolent Misanthrope: I do know that I'm very leery of a health care provider who stands to gain by someone's death being the sole determiner of when someone should die.

You do realize that it's against Federal Law for a healthcare provider who stands to make a financial gain to be involved in a brain death determination, right?


Apparently, in Britain (where this story happens), the government (health care provider) has the right to do just that.  Which is the entire point of TFA.
 
2012-12-31 12:16:10 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Apparently, in Britain (where this story happens), the government (health care provider) has the right to do just that. Which is the entire point of TFA.


Right, but the point still stands that if you choose to do so, you can buy an additional private insurance plan if you wish to cling to life at the cost of yourself. The state healthcare system exists to provide basic and life-saving health care. If you require more than that, you're just going to have to pay for it.

I just wish we had the same system here as it at least provides a baseline of care for all citizens. We'd also have the option of the private ad-on, it would just cost a ton of money. Too bad we got this mish-mosh of a f*cked up plan that is going to be a goddamn nightmare and not do everything it could if we were all acting like rational actors. It's better than the current state of affairs, but we could have done so much better.
 
2012-12-31 12:19:26 AM  

GAT_00: This is the Daily Fail.  At least one key piece of information is missing here, assuming this wasn't totally distorted.


The full quotes:

'I would be very sad if as a result of something that is a big step forward going wrong in one or two cases we discredited the concept that we need to do a lot better to give people dignity in their final hours because it's something we haven't done well.

'Lots of people don't want to die with lots of tubes going in and out of their body - they actually want to die in a dignified way.'

He added: 'What should never happen is that people should be put on to that care pathway without patients being fully in the loop and their families and relatives being fully in the loop as well.'
 
2012-12-31 12:20:16 AM  
Euthenasia for pets. The "humane thing" to do.

Using extraordinary measures to keep the 90 year old senile bag of bone breathing. Also "humane"

WTF?
 
2012-12-31 12:20:42 AM  
Up to 60,000 patients die on the Liverpool Care Pathway each year without giving their consent, shocking figures revealed yesterday.
...
the Health Secretary said 'one or two' mistakes should not be allowed to discredit the entire end-of-life system.


One or two, okay, mistakes happen. 60,000, though... maybe we've crossed that line.
 
2012-12-31 12:21:18 AM  
i1121.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-31 12:21:24 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: BronyMedic: Benevolent Misanthrope: I do know that I'm very leery of a health care provider who stands to gain by someone's death being the sole determiner of when someone should die.

You do realize that it's against Federal Law for a healthcare provider who stands to make a financial gain to be involved in a brain death determination, right?

Apparently, in Britain (where this story happens), the government (health care provider) has the right to do just that.  Which is the entire point of TFA.


TFA is an outright lie.
 
2012-12-31 12:21:29 AM  

Bucky Katt: The Daily Fail is making shiat up again.


It's a day that ends in 'y' already?
 
2012-12-31 12:23:07 AM  
I'm not dead yet! I feel happy! In fact, I think I'll take a walk.
 
2012-12-31 12:24:54 AM  

OneFretAway: I'm not dead yet! I feel happy! In fact, I think I'll take a walk.


get back on the cart!
 
2012-12-31 12:24:59 AM  
This reminds me, I still haven't signed a Living Will. One would think my laziness would bow to my desire not to be kept on machines or in a vegetative state. Given my hobbies, this is kinda important.
 
2012-12-31 12:26:26 AM  
Fine with me. Old people are ugly.
 
2012-12-31 12:27:23 AM  
Pass the soylent green please !
 
2012-12-31 12:28:00 AM  

L.D. Ablo: [blogs.amctv.com image 560x330]


Covered.....

/RENEW!
 
2012-12-31 12:29:27 AM  
Why not? Doctors do it all the time in the usa. Patient not responding..lingering in pain, no hope, they give too much meds, or withhold them, knowing that the patient will die. It's merciful. They just dont TALK about it openly.
 
2012-12-31 12:29:33 AM  
I know, let's spend hundreds of millions of dollars so that they can live a few more months.
Money well spent.

On a more serious note we need a serious discussion about end of life care in the US that we are not having, and we need to have it before the Boomers bankrupt us all. Just because something can be done for a patient doesn't mean it should.
 
2012-12-31 12:29:39 AM  
Care Pathways shower facility:

img2u.info

Here, next of kin, these are your beloved relative's ashes, or at least some of it probably is, it costs less if we simply pile all the bodies into the incinerator at once and shovel this stuff out afterwards.
 
2012-12-31 12:29:52 AM  
100% of people die without giving consent.
 
2012-12-31 12:30:01 AM  

GAT_00: This is the Daily Fail.  At least one key piece of information is missing here, assuming this wasn't totally distorted.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-31 12:31:41 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: I know, let's spend hundreds of millions of dollars so that they can live a few more months.
Money well spent.

On a more serious note we need a serious discussion about end of life care in the US that we are not having, and we need to have it before the Boomers bankrupt us all. Just because something can be done for a patient doesn't mean it should.


Good Christ, THIS. In large, flaming letters visible from space.
 
2012-12-31 12:32:19 AM  
Just because you have a right to live, doesn't mean you should.
 
2012-12-31 12:33:16 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: On a more serious note we need a serious discussion about end of life care in the US that we are not having, and we need to have it before the Boomers bankrupt us all. Just because something can be done for a patient doesn't mean it should.


We tried to. The teahadists called them "Death Panels." Didn't go over very well.
 
2012-12-31 12:34:23 AM  

ModernLuddite: 100% of people die without giving consent.


Zombie Jack disagrees

img2u.info

I don't have a problem with terminal patients or older people whose quality of life is increasingly worse, who give their permission, being allowed to end their lives on their own terms... but not getting consent? That's a dick move any way you cut it, and it is a huge ethical problem.

I doubt the Queen or any member of the royal family would ever be considered for this... and they certainly are on the public dole.
 
2012-12-31 12:34:43 AM  
Happens all the time. My mother-in-law was in the last stages of lung cancer (although she was a non-smoker) and in agony. The doctor turned up her morphine drip to put her down.
 
2012-12-31 12:36:14 AM  
Life has a 100% fatality rate.

Well, unless you're a jellyfish.
 
2012-12-31 12:36:30 AM  

duffblue: Now if we could only get the Baby Boomers to off themselves we'd be in business.


No such luck. They are determined to burn it all down before they finally check out.
 
2012-12-31 12:36:36 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

Good Carrousel tonight!
 
2012-12-31 12:38:45 AM  
So when's the queen scheduled to die? She has to be one of the oldest bastards on that island.
 
2012-12-31 12:38:55 AM  
"It found that in 44 per cent of cases when conscious patients were placed on the pathway, there was no record that the decision had been discussed with them."

If this is true, it's outright murder.
 
2012-12-31 12:40:14 AM  

Matrix Flavored Wasabi:

He added: 'What should never happen is that people should be put on to that care pathway without patients being fully in the loop and their families and relatives being fully in the loop as well.'



I don't believe that should be the standard. The key question is: who gets to decide? Legally, who has jurisdiction? I don't believe that jurisdiction belongs with the people who have the most to benefit from it; there is too much potential for self-dealing. To draw an further analogy with the law: there is a reason why we divide up the roles of prosecutor and the judge.

Now, whether the assertion in the article is true as a matter of fact, I don't know. But if it is I agree with BM that it is an act of evil.
 
2012-12-31 12:40:25 AM  

unclecrazy99: Pass the soylent green please !


Came for this, time for dinner
 
2012-12-31 12:41:11 AM  
"Good news Mr. Johnson! You will be out of here in a couple of days."
 
2012-12-31 12:41:26 AM  
Oblig

img2-cdn.newser.com
 
2012-12-31 12:42:38 AM  
FTA: "Up to 60,000 patients die on the Liverpool Care Pathway each year without giving their consent, shocking figures revealed yesterday."

Well, I don't consent to death. Take that.

i.dailymail.co.uk

Come on, she's gonna be just fine. Whattaya mean she wasn't consulted about her care despite being clearly "conscious." Keep spending a shiatload on palliative care and life support just to keep her organs fuctioning for as long as possible. Life is sacred!
 
2012-12-31 12:45:07 AM  
It can cost upwards of $15,000 or MORE per MONTH to keep old people in assisted living. How much do you think it costs to to keep them alive in hospice care? Less??
 
2012-12-31 12:45:51 AM  

Bucky Katt: The Daily Fail is making shiat up again.


Yes it is.
 
2012-12-31 12:46:09 AM  
Sorry but when your Health Secretary looks like this:

i135.photobucket.com">

You are going to have problems, probably zombies too.
 
2012-12-31 12:47:13 AM  
Why so dour?
thefunambulistdotnet.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-31 12:47:22 AM  

justtray: It can cost upwards of $15,000 or MORE per MONTH to keep old people in assisted living. How much do you think it costs to to keep them alive in hospice care? Less??


Yes, much less. An at home nurse doing nothing but switching out oxygen tanks, changing diapers and controlling morphine output for a few hours a day if that is much cheaper than 24/7 nursing home hooked up to god knows what.
 
2012-12-31 12:48:29 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Jesus Fark.  I'm all for the idea of not prolonging death when folks are suffering - but this... this is absolutely sinister.


I can tell you've never been to visit anyone in a nursing home.
 
2012-12-31 12:50:24 AM  
Well, this sounds like a slippery slope. There are so many degrees of suffering, quality of life, potential of recovery and so forth.
People who are obviously and very palliative generally would rather die quickly and easily rather than dragging out an extra week-month of suffering and struggling.Many won't even be coherant enough to make an informed decision.But it does vary from person to person.

In the meantime, I'm ordering a soylent cola, so I'm getting a kick....
 
2012-12-31 12:51:15 AM  

brandent: Bucky Katt: The Daily Fail is making shiat up again.

Yes it is.


FTA: "The national audit by Marie Curie and the RCP examined a representative sample of 7,058 deaths between April and June last year. The figures were scaled up to give a national picture."

It's pretty indefensible math to get to 60K for sure.

Here's the question for me, though. What's the threshold? If it's ONLY about economics, you could sure make some good arguments about how expensive it is to keep other types of people around. Somewhere you could make the argument that if you or your family cannot afford to pay, you cannot afford to live. There are those in the past who have successfully argued that those who don't produce are not worth keeping around...

Note here I'm asking you to identify the threshold, not yammer on about a slippery slope.
 
2012-12-31 12:53:20 AM  
Everyone wants to go to heaven,It paradise , much better and earth, But no one want to die to get there.
 
2012-12-31 12:53:49 AM  

Pribar: Sorry but when your Health Secretary looks like this:

[i135.photobucket.com image 634x418]">

You are going to have problems, probably zombies too.


He looks like a Doctor Who villain.
 
2012-12-31 12:54:53 AM  
This is what I learned - the doctors/nurses who will care for you will not KNOW you.

This is what I did on my 30th b-day - called my mother and made her cry. "Mom? I am writing my wishes, having it notarized and telling you..................your turn"

It took 5 years but, at the end of it? we knew what we wanted and we know to drill health care providers to the floor to be as frank and honest as we learned to be with each other.

Death is hard - trying to hide it just makes it cheap and, i think, makes for cynical health care providers. If you make them face you about the hard parts you've already agreed to with those you love its better for everyone.
 
2012-12-31 12:56:24 AM  

justtray: It can cost upwards of $15,000 or MORE per MONTH to keep old people in assisted living. How much do you think it costs to to keep them alive in hospice care? Less??


The bigger problem is: WHY THE FARK ARE HOSPITALS SO DAMN EXPENSIVE?!?!?!??!?

Why does my Mom's overnight stay cost $3000, for... let's see, an on-call doctor (shared between her and 100 other patients), 3 duty nurses (for each 8 hour shift), shared between 20 patients in 10 rooms, 3 aides (again, 3 shifts) shared between 10 patients. So, approx $120 goes to pay those people... call it another $20 for support people "shared" by all the patients. Forget the meds and stuff, that's billed extra (and exorbitantly, why do a handful of aspirins cost $150?!?). The hospital has been standing for almost 20 years, so beyond maintenance, I can't see anything justifying $3000/night. She had no MRIs or CAT Scans (those are also billed on their own).

Hospitals are a huge rip-off. Most "second world" countries provide similar quality hospital stays at a fraction of the cost.

There is simply no reason why it should cost that much to care for somebody. Until that gets fixed, health care will always be hopelessly broken.
 
2012-12-31 12:58:31 AM  
My father passed away in a Taiwanese hospital this February. I don't know if he was unconscious for the last three days, but he certainly wasn't moving. One morning, he just kind of faded out.

Almost every day since then, I've wondered if I farked up bad by believing he was going to get better and thereby prolonged his suffering. He had suffered a stroke due to his liver tumor pressing against a major vein, but was almost fully recovered when I got to the hospital to see him. Then, one night, he took a turn for the worse and we had to start feeding him through a tube. I thought he would get better, but he didn't. The end came ridiculously fast (three weeks) -- until his stroke, he was the image of elderly Asian vitality. Sharp, active, a better tennis player than me, and acting more like 50 than 70.

For the last few days, the hospital staff suggested we move him to the hospice and to stop giving him emergency revival care. I was furious, but my mom made the call. She probably made the right decision, but I have so many doubts and I wonder if we could have fought. The hospital never said we had to leave the ward, though they strongly implied they could use the bed.

The point of this story is that I now have dust in my room. Also, Taiwanese has full-on state-owned and operated healthcare and things didn't go too bad for us at all. We still had to foot a bill for the hospice (I don't know why it wasn't covered -- it wasn't much nicer), but it added up to next to nothing.

Xaneidolon: "It found that in 44 per cent of cases when conscious patients were placed on the pathway, there was no record that the decision had been discussed with them."

If this is true, it's outright murder.


It could, also, simply mean a lack of paperwork. 44 percent of the time, no discussion is on record. That does not mean that no discussion was had.
 
2012-12-31 01:03:38 AM  

the_chief: Just because you have a right to live, doesn't mean you should.


Just because you can pay to have some poor soul murdered and harvest their organs so you can live, doesn't mean you should.
 
2012-12-31 01:06:58 AM  
i135.photobucket.com
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-31 01:08:02 AM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: It could, also, simply mean a lack of paperwork. 44 percent of the time, no discussion is on record. That does not mean that no discussion was had.


Rule #1 of medical documentation: if you don't write it down, it didn't happen.
 
2012-12-31 01:09:39 AM  

beautifulbob: I pray I never get put in that position. I can't imagine how hard it will be to pull the plug, even with their expressed desires. I will need to rely on an authoritative opinion of a doctor. More than one probably. Maybe even take the condition to a panel of doctors. But the final decision should be left to the family. Families will make poor, emotional decisions. But fully informed, it should be their right. Not the right of a doctor, even if they are making the best choice for the patient.


in my mother's case she wanted nothing extraordinary. the doctors said the feeding tube wasn't so they wouldn't take it out. although she had been pulling everything she could out. once she realized her life was going to be to lie there only barely responsive while the doctors did the very minimum she gave up and died.
 
2012-12-31 01:10:26 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: I know, let's spend hundreds of millions of dollars so that they can live a few more months.
Money well spent.

On a more serious note we need a serious discussion about end of life care in the US that we are not having, and we need to have it before the Boomers bankrupt us all. Just because something can be done for a patient doesn't mean it should.


Absolutely correct. That said, I find your youthful arrogance disgusting.

/Boomer
//Will leave my children much more than my parents left me.
///Plans in place for my demise.
////So fark you.
 
2012-12-31 01:11:21 AM  

Xaneidolon: brandent: Bucky Katt: The Daily Fail is making shiat up again.

Yes it is.

FTA: "The national audit by Marie Curie and the RCP examined a representative sample of 7,058 deaths between April and June last year. The figures were scaled up to give a national picture."

It's pretty indefensible math to get to 60K for sure.

Here's the question for me, though. What's the threshold? If it's ONLY about economics, you could sure make some good arguments about how expensive it is to keep other types of people around. Somewhere you could make the argument that if you or your family cannot afford to pay, you cannot afford to live. There are those in the past who have successfully argued that those who don't produce are not worth keeping around...

Note here I'm asking you to identify the threshold, not yammer on about a slippery slope.


Doesn't matter how many. It probably is 60,000. The lies are the manner in which they describe it. It's only for dying patients in their final hours. It standardizes the care to provide comfort. It's very similar to the way it is done in nursing homes in the US. Think hospice here (wife worked in hospice for years). The patient is in their final day or two, they cannot breathe, eat, drink, etc on their own (some subset of those). Typically their lungs will start to fill up and they have difficulty breathing (if not on a respirator). This is just a way to give them morphine to kill the pain, while discontinuing other treatment and removing the feeding tube. It's exactly how it is done hundreds of thousands of times per year in the US. If you do a little google you will see the whole complaint about the family not knowing is actually "wasn't given a pamphlet". Most of the characterization of the procedure, the general success of it, etc is grossly mischaracterized in the article. Prior to adopting this set of procedures, medical facilities tended to keep people alive unnaturally well past the natural point of death without clear guidance on how to proceed.

Here are the specific "accusations":

• In 44 per cent of cases when conscious patients were placed on the pathway, there was no record that the decision had been discussed with them.

• For 22 per cent of patients on the pathway, there was no evidence that comfort and safety had been maintained while medication was administered.

• One in three families of the dying never received a leaflet they should have been given to explain the process.

Item 1: It didn't say the patient disagreed or their wishes weren't consulted. It said there wasn't documentation. Someone didn't write it down.

Item 2: How does one record comfort and safety being maintained when you inject morphine? They are simply sedating the patient to keep them comfortable from what presumably is an agonizing death that they already were going to go through. Adoption of the ability to sedate the patient simply makes the death humane. Again though clerical issue. No claim of mistreatment.

Item 3: Doesn't say they didn't discuss/engage the families. Simply said they weren't given a pamphlet. I've done this with both parents, an in law, and a grandparent and never received a pamphlet. Again administratively lax. No evidence they disregarded the patient or the family.

So yes the daily fail is full of crap. Not because of the 60,000 number but because of the substance of the article/accusation.
 
2012-12-31 01:11:39 AM  
The hospital that treated my dad for his "exploded heart" tried this shiat. Dad lived anyway. Fark anyone that tells you death panels are a myth.

Dad is doing very well.
 
2012-12-31 01:12:46 AM  
One should never let morality get in the way of common sense.
 
2012-12-31 01:13:20 AM  
Been said once or twice before, but I bet it's the Daily Fail getting shiat wrong again, as they often do.
 
2012-12-31 01:15:36 AM  

GAT_00: This is the Daily Fail.  At least one key piece of information is missing here, assuming this wasn't totally distorted.


THIS. the Fail is only slightly more reliable that FOX News.


i135.photobucket.com

Wow, I had no idea Johnny Rotten had gotten into politics.
 
2012-12-31 01:16:31 AM  
There is almost nothing in this revolting article that in any way represents the truth, which is hard-working caring people in the health service working to make peoples dying days as pain-free and comfortable as possible, while respecting their wishes as much as the law allows. I really do actually hate the journalists and editors of this evil rag.
 
2012-12-31 01:20:47 AM  

LesserEvil: justtray: It can cost upwards of $15,000 or MORE per MONTH to keep old people in assisted living. How much do you think it costs to to keep them alive in hospice care? Less??

The bigger problem is: WHY THE FARK ARE HOSPITALS SO DAMN EXPENSIVE?!?!?!??!?

Why does my Mom's overnight stay cost $3000, for... let's see, an on-call doctor (shared between her and 100 other patients), 3 duty nurses (for each 8 hour shift), shared between 20 patients in 10 rooms, 3 aides (again, 3 shifts) shared between 10 patients. So, approx $120 goes to pay those people... call it another $20 for support people "shared" by all the patients. Forget the meds and stuff, that's billed extra (and exorbitantly, why do a handful of aspirins cost $150?!?). The hospital has been standing for almost 20 years, so beyond maintenance, I can't see anything justifying $3000/night. She had no MRIs or CAT Scans (those are also billed on their own).

Hospitals are a huge rip-off. Most "second world" countries provide similar quality hospital stays at a fraction of the cost.

There is simply no reason why it should cost that much to care for somebody. Until that gets fixed, health care will always be hopelessly broken.


Because that's what they can bill to the insurance companies.

Last trip to the ER was billed at almost $3K for a couple of x-rays and some steroids. They gave us a "no-insurance" discount that dropped the price to $750. You think they're losing money on that lower bill? Doubt it. Why bill out only $750 and make a (pulls number out of ass) 30% profit when you can bill out $3K and make that much more?

Same reason college tuition is through the farking roof. You can charge a student (pulls another number out of ass) $2k/year or you can charge them $20K a year knowing they can hit up Uncle Sam for nice cushy loans.
 
2012-12-31 01:22:41 AM  
Written it appears by a graduate of the Byzantine School of Journalism. Makes one wonder if perhaps the author had some kind of agenda. Oh wait! The Daily Mail! The Diogenes of newspapers! Distortion? Unpossible!
 
2012-12-31 01:24:31 AM  

gaspode: There is almost nothing in this revolting article that in any way represents the truth, which is hard-working caring people in the health service working to make peoples dying days as pain-free and comfortable as possible, while respecting their wishes as much as the law allows. I really do actually hate the journalists and editors of this evil rag.


Yeah it's pretty awful. My wife has worked in hospice and nursing homes for 20 years. ALL of her patients die. She has exactly a 0% survival rate.
 
2012-12-31 01:24:31 AM  
Ah, here it is, right at the bottom:

It found that in 44 per cent of cases when conscious patients were placed on the pathway, there was no record that the decision had been discussed with them.

For 22 per cent, there was no evidence that comfort and safety had been maintained while medication was administered.

And it also revealed that one in three families did not receive a leaflet to explain the process.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255054/60-000-patients-death- pathway-told-minister-says-controversial-end-life-plan-fantastic.html# ixzz2Gbjvtbyn
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Huge headlines about 60,000 sent to die without being told, but all that's actually been found is that there wasn't specific records about whether it was discussed or not. Basically, despite the large sensationalist headlines, they're actually complaining about the book keeping. Yes, these things should be discussed with the patient/family, and from the sounds of it, they're supposed to be, but that doesn't mean that in some or even most cases it was not discussed with them.

Daily Fail flails again.
 
2012-12-31 01:26:07 AM  

crabsno termites: Uchiha_Cycliste: I know, let's spend hundreds of millions of dollars so that they can live a few more months.
Money well spent.

On a more serious note we need a serious discussion about end of life care in the US that we are not having, and we need to have it before the Boomers bankrupt us all. Just because something can be done for a patient doesn't mean it should.

Absolutely correct. That said, I find your youthful arrogance disgusting.

/Boomer
//Will leave my children much more than my parents left me.
///Plans in place for my demise.
////So fark you.


Don't take it personally. It's nice you have plans for after death but you can't possibly deny the drain on the economy? If we don't figure out something, everything you leave your children will be for nothing.
 
2012-12-31 01:28:44 AM  

maddermaxx: Huge headlines about 60,000 sent to die without being told, but all that's actually been found is that there wasn't specific records about whether it was discussed or not. Basically, despite the large sensationalist headlines, they're actually complaining about the book keeping. Yes, these things should be discussed with the patient/family, and from the sounds of it, they're supposed to be, but that doesn't mean that in some or even most cases it was not discussed with them.


I kinda agree with this, but if they couldn't be bothered to do basic paperwork, how do we know they did the notifications?
 
2012-12-31 01:37:46 AM  
Bob was your uncle.
 
2012-12-31 01:40:29 AM  

Boojum2k: maddermaxx: Huge headlines about 60,000 sent to die without being told, but all that's actually been found is that there wasn't specific records about whether it was discussed or not. Basically, despite the large sensationalist headlines, they're actually complaining about the book keeping. Yes, these things should be discussed with the patient/family, and from the sounds of it, they're supposed to be, but that doesn't mean that in some or even most cases it was not discussed with them.

I kinda agree with this, but if they couldn't be bothered to do basic paperwork, how do we know they did the notifications?


Ask for better book keeping then, that's all good. The Doctors I know all hate all the paperwork they have to do already, but this is important enough to justify a better process.

However, this does not justify the Daily Fails headlines, or their insinuation that 60000 old people are going to be unknowingly and involuntarily euthanized while conscious.

Basically, the Daily Mail just sucks. The Fox News of tabloids.
 
2012-12-31 01:45:32 AM  

Bonanza Jellybean: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x584]

Come on, she's gonna be just fine. Whattaya mean she wasn't consulted about her care despite being clearly "conscious." Keep spending a shiatload on palliative care and life support just to keep her organs fuctioning for as long as possible. Life is sacred!


What part of "posed by a model" don't you understand?

/don't really care which side of the argument you're on, publishing the Fail's propaganda images is a no no.
 
2012-12-31 01:47:11 AM  

maddermaxx: Ask for better book keeping then, that's all good.


I'd think doing the paperwork they are already required to do would be sufficient. Only new requirement would be "do the job, or be fired." Start with administrators and other upper management, it'll filter down.

And I've seen a lot of noise in the thread about Daily Mail and Fox News. It's fallacial arguing, find counter-evidence or otherwise present a rational argument, as you did. But the whining over the source is childish and pointless.
 
2012-12-31 01:51:26 AM  
images.cafepress.com
 
2012-12-31 01:51:37 AM  

LesserEvil: The bigger problem is: WHY THE FARK ARE HOSPITALS SO DAMN EXPENSIVE?!?!?!??!?

Why does my Mom's overnight stay cost $3000, for... let's see, an on-call doctor (shared between her and 100 other patients), 3 duty nurses (for each 8 hour shift), shared between 20 patients in 10 rooms, 3 aides (again, 3 shifts) shared between 10 patients. So, approx $120 goes to pay those people... call it another $20 for support people "shared" by all the patients. Forget the meds and stuff, that's billed extra (and exorbitantly, why do a handful of aspirins cost $150?!?). The hospital has been standing for almost 20 years, so beyond maintenance, I can't see anything justifying $3000/night. She had no MRIs or CAT Scans (those are also billed on their own).

Hospitals are a huge rip-off. Most "second world" countries provide similar quality hospital stays at a fraction of the cost.

There is simply no reason why it should cost that much to care for somebody. Until that gets fixed, health care will always be hopelessly broken.


I think part of that issue is that there are many, shall we say "lower class" patients who occupy hospital facilities with all range of illnesses real and imagined and never have any intention of paying. The money that pays for those people comes from the rest of you.
 
2012-12-31 01:54:40 AM  

ZAZ: The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. Death typically takes place within 29 hours.

Happens in America too, and may be standard for certain types of people in hospice care.


The difference is that with hospice care, the person who is dying chooses that option. In the UK death panels, some bureaucrat makes the decision, not the patient or their family.

Also I find it ironic that those who protested in favor of legalized abortion 40 and 50 years ago are now at the age where they will be subject to this policy.
 
2012-12-31 01:55:44 AM  

zerkalo: [images.cafepress.com image 350x350]


Hope you complete soon
 
2012-12-31 01:57:30 AM  

Boojum2k: maddermaxx: Ask for better book keeping then, that's all good.

I'd think doing the paperwork they are already required to do would be sufficient. Only new requirement would be "do the job, or be fired." Start with administrators and other upper management, it'll filter down.

And I've seen a lot of noise in the thread about Daily Mail and Fox News. It's fallacial arguing, find counter-evidence or otherwise present a rational argument, as you did. But the whining over the source is childish and pointless.


Rational arguments are the right course, yes, but I disagree about complaining about the source. The Daily Mail continually distorts, misinforms or simply makes shiat up, and if there is any correct redeeming information, it's always hidden in the bottom paragraph, a long way down the page from the sensationalist headline and hyperbolic introductions that they always use.

When a source has shown they will stoop to lying and distortion to get the angle they want, it's quite fine to call them a bullshiat source - because that's what they are. Like a stopped clock, or perhaps like the boy who cried wolf, they can be right on occasion - doesn't stop them from being a bullshiat source, and doesn't stop me from calling them that. Much better to get your news from a reliable source, rather than raking the dregs of the worst bullshiat hoping to find diamonds.
 
2012-12-31 02:02:49 AM  
We still seem to be a bit light on Futurama references.

/"You are now dead, please take your receipt."
//Not helpful.
 
2012-12-31 02:03:02 AM  

maddermaxx: When a source has shown they will stoop to lying and distortion to get the angle they want, it's quite fine to call them a bullshiat source - because that's what they are.


All news sources do that. Every last one of them. So now your option is to reject them all out of hand, or look around and compare stories and see what adds up. The blind partisan does the first to all except those that confirm their biases, the rational critical thinker does the second. Sometimes news providers don't cover something because it makes their arguments look weak. It's cowardly and reprehensible, but again, they all do it, no exceptions.

Says something about the quality of people who become journalists. Or maybe just the quality of people.
 
2012-12-31 02:03:50 AM  

Xaneidolon: brandent: Bucky Katt: The Daily Fail is making shiat up again.

Yes it is.

FTA: "The national audit by Marie Curie and the RCP examined a representative sample of 7,058 deaths between April and June last year. The figures were scaled up to give a national picture."

It's pretty indefensible math to get to 60K for sure.

Here's the question for me, though. What's the threshold? If it's ONLY about economics, you could sure make some good arguments about how expensive it is to keep other types of people around. Somewhere you could make the argument that if you or your family cannot afford to pay, you cannot afford to live. There are those in the past who have successfully argued that those who don't produce are not worth keeping around...

Note here I'm asking you to identify the threshold, not yammer on about a slippery slope.


gooooo on....
 
2012-12-31 02:04:20 AM  

justtray: It can cost upwards of $15,000 or MORE per MONTH to keep old people in assisted living. How much do you think it costs to to keep them alive in hospice care? Less??


For my Mum it was $1836 per day she was there for 39 days
 
2012-12-31 02:05:33 AM  
All of you that think this article is actually right, let me ask you a question... if the person died within 3 days most commonly, where the hell was their family not to have noticed these people dying? I know that when my Grandfather passed he was not left alone in the hospital for longer than it took to get a meal and he was in there for almost a month solid. Someone was around him every day, whether my Grandmother or a grandchild or a daughter. He was NEVER alone for more than the over night (when my Grandmother couldn't sleep there) or the meal during the day.

While this is a CSB, where were the families that should have been notified? The only way it makes sense is that there was not a family to notify or no one from the family was willing to talk to the doctors. For whatever reason. But please stop taking a source known for making things up at face value.
 
2012-12-31 02:05:37 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Babwa Wawa: We place the decision in the hands of those mostly likely to make poor decisions.

I refer to that as the natural "Hold ma beer and watch this" selection we've placed upon our society. It's fun and sad to watch at the same time.

You raise a good point. We had to have that talk with my mom when grandma was on the way out. She just kept thinking we needed to try something else, but it was clear to everyone else the end was near. It was a difficult time, but I like to think we all got a little closer as a result of it. Also, we've all discussed how we'd like similar situations handled with all of us.


My 95 year old grandmother was in a car accident (actually her SECOND in two years) but we didn't know at the time that she had a DNR, so they treated her immediately while my dad made the ~11 hour drive to Indy. After we found out, she was seemingly making progress so he had them keep trying some stuff, but over the course of two weeks it was so up and down that finally we all agreed to stop, so I drove out too (I had just started a new job so was hoping not to have to travel so soon). The night I got there I went straight to the hospital and we spent several hours with her, after they'd moved her out of the regular areas and to more of a hospice type room, with just morphine. I don't know if she ever really knew I was there, but I think maybe. We went to the house at 3 am, and got the call at 5. I feel bad that we caused her to have to hang on and be in pain for so long, but I was grateful to get to see her that last time.

A friend's grandfather got very sick and ended up in the ICU, but her family had no concept of terminal medical situations, plus he had previously expressed the wish they keep trying before he could no longer respond. They went for weeks on the same roller coaster, with my friend the only person having any idea that this was probably it. She got SO much shiat from the rest of the family for advocating they end treatment, it was unbelievable. They couldn't even claim she was trying to get his money or anything, since she was at the far end of the inheritance line, if at all, but they still gave her hell. It took a hospital specialist to finally convince them they were only prolonging the inevitable and making it more painful for him.

I thought I had a point here but I'm not really sure what it was. Maybe just, try and be realistic, and talk to your family before you end up unable to do so. That, and make a will...
 
2012-12-31 02:08:29 AM  

GAT_00: This is the Daily Fail.  At least one key piece of information is missing here, assuming this wasn't totally distorted.


This. The idea that 60,000 people are being medically terminated in Britain without their consent and nobody seems to give a rat's ass sounds HIGHLY unlikely to me.
 
2012-12-31 02:09:42 AM  

Pribar: Sorry but when your Health Secretary looks like this:

[i135.photobucket.com image 634x418]">

You are going to have problems, probably zombies too.


I had a flashback to the movie "They Live " When I saw his picture.
 
2012-12-31 02:11:31 AM  

Gyrfalcon: GAT_00: This is the Daily Fail.  At least one key piece of information is missing here, assuming this wasn't totally distorted.

This. The idea that 60,000 people are being medically terminated in Britain without their consent and nobody seems to give a rat's ass sounds HIGHLY unlikely to me.


60,000 per year, from 130,000 per year put on "the pathway" total. As noted, it's more that the required paperwork to go with the notifications wasn't done, but then there's no evidence at all that they did them.

Also, argument from incredulity. A favorite for creationists. Ad hominem and shoot the messenger get tired and leave?
 
2012-12-31 02:12:32 AM  

Boojum2k: maddermaxx: When a source has shown they will stoop to lying and distortion to get the angle they want, it's quite fine to call them a bullshiat source - because that's what they are.

All news sources do that. Every last one of them. So now your option is to reject them all out of hand, or look around and compare stories and see what adds up. The blind partisan does the first to all except those that confirm their biases, the rational critical thinker does the second. Sometimes news providers don't cover something because it makes their arguments look weak. It's cowardly and reprehensible, but again, they all do it, no exceptions.

Says something about the quality of people who become journalists. Or maybe just the quality of people.


Both sides are bad so vote Daily Mail?

No, I'll call bullshiat on the idea that each source is as bad as the next, unless you think infowars and storm front are just as reliable and accountable as the BBC or NYT. While any paper/media outlet can fark up, you can still sort the ones that deliberately fark up all the time from the ones that are mostly reliable and useful sources that fark up on occasion.

So while I'll still look at multiple sources to find what's happening (and I read widely, trust me), I'm not going to read the Daily Fail and say "oh look, it's just as good as any other news source because all news sources are made equal, and I'll give it equal credit'. No, I'll call it a bullshiat source, because, as I said, it is one.

And from this Bullshiat source comes this bullshiat story, with a headline and opening lines meant to deliberately mislead, and the pertinent information, that paper work needs to be improved and pamphlets need to be handed out more often, are lost in the very bottom lines. This is why I call it the Daily Fail.
 
2012-12-31 02:18:06 AM  

unamused: Better than them being gun deaths.


Maybe I am crazy but I would much prefer a clean shot through the head rather than dehydrate to death. horrid.
/time to find a cave far away.
//insane, the whole of humanity is insane.
 
2012-12-31 02:19:01 AM  

Soylent Green is people!

 
2012-12-31 02:20:23 AM  

maddermaxx: No, I'll call bullshiat on the idea that each source is as bad as the next, unless you think infowars and storm front are just as reliable and accountable as the BBC or NYT.


I was counting major news sources, there are always conspiracy nut sites but they don't even get stopped clock status. But yes I've seen the BBC and NYT heavily slant coverage in favor of a side. And Fox, and CNN, and the WaPo, and CBS, and NBC, MSNBC, and on and on.

maddermaxx: Both sides are bad so vote Daily Mail?


Not what I said at all. Got a link to BBC's article on the subject? Be interesting to see what they have to say, especially if they have evidence Daily Mail manufactured the entire story.

I took a journalism course way back, just to fill out some credit hours, and the part that stuck with me was the effort to avoid any bias in your writing, straight from the AP playbook. And then we couldn't find a single example of any story above neighborhood level where those rules weren't violated. From slanting to loaded words to burying the lede, every single story we picked through had it. It's hard to be a good journalist, and apparently they gave up.
 
2012-12-31 02:21:25 AM  

Boojum2k: Gyrfalcon: GAT_00: This is the Daily Fail.  At least one key piece of information is missing here, assuming this wasn't totally distorted.

This. The idea that 60,000 people are being medically terminated in Britain without their consent and nobody seems to give a rat's ass sounds HIGHLY unlikely to me.

60,000 per year, from 130,000 per year put on "the pathway" total. As noted, it's more that the required paperwork to go with the notifications wasn't done, but then there's no evidence at all that they did them.

Also, argument from incredulity. A favorite for creationists. Ad hominem and shoot the messenger get tired and leave?


So you're telling me that 60,000 notifications for euthanasia just didn't get done and somehow that's not a problem either? It's not the deaths themselves I find unlikely, it's the general lack of hue&cry. 60K is a lot of people to be killed and no one--not the public, not the doctors, not the FAMILY members--to be even a little bit upset. Not even one quote from a bereaved daughter or son that granny was killed and they didn't get the proper notice in the mail?

I have to call b/s on this one until there's another article from a better source than the Daily Mail, which isn't exactly known for it's unbiased quality writing. An argument from incredulity isn't invalid if the claim being presented is so incredible it can be rejected out of hand.
 
2012-12-31 02:24:59 AM  
I'll also note I have family in Britain, and I'm not worried about their medical care or end-of-life arrangements, and some of them are pretty old. The system there works well, but if they are failing to document their notifications, that implies other failures and it needs to be straightened out.

I'll take some of the heat of the various journalists I've been slamming by noting that maybe sometimes you have to push something hard just to get the small correction needed. Maybe. Probably be better for a scathing editorial than a slanted article purporting to be straight reporting.
 
2012-12-31 02:29:22 AM  

LesserEvil: j
The bigger problem is: WHY THE FARK ARE HOSPITALS SO DAMN EXPENSIVE?!?!?!??!?

Why does my Mom's overnight stay cost $3000, for... let's see, an on-call doctor (shared between her and 100 other patients), 3 duty nurses (for each 8 hour shift), shared between 20 patients in 10 rooms, 3 aides (again, 3 shifts) shared between 10 patients. So, approx $120 goes to pay those people... call it another $20 for support people "shared" by all the patients. Forget the meds and stuff, that's billed extra (and exorbitantly, why do a handful of aspirins cost $150?!?). The hospital has been standing for almost 20 years, so beyond maintenance, I can't see anything justifying $3000/night. She had no MRIs or CAT Scans (those are also billed on their own).

Hospitals are a huge rip-off. Most "second world" countries provide similar quality hospital stays at a fraction of the cost. There is simply no reason why it should cost that much to care for somebody.



You have to pay for all the broke bastards with no insurance, that's why.

Many California hospitals went out of business and closed cos of all the broke ass illegals pouring in.
 
2012-12-31 02:29:45 AM  

Gyrfalcon: So you're telling me that 60,000 notifications for euthanasia just didn't get done and somehow that's not a problem either? It's not the deaths themselves I find unlikely, it's the general lack of hue&cry. 60K is a lot of people to be killed and no one--not the public, not the doctors, not the FAMILY members--to be even a little bit upset. Not even one quote from a bereaved daughter or son that granny was killed and they didn't get the proper notice in the mail?


60,000 notifications weren't properly recorded, and possibly not done. Given British attitudes, the lack of outrage is unsurprising. And the article is definitely slanted, it's basically an end of care not outright euthanisia.

My takeaway on it is that one, the have a requirement to document that they've provided proper notification to those on the pathway and their families, and they aren't meeting that requirement in a sizable percentage. How do you get them to correct the mistakes and improve?
 
2012-12-31 02:30:42 AM  

Boojum2k: My takeaway on it is that one, the have a requirement to document that they've provided proper notification to those on the pathway and their families, and they aren't meeting that requirement in a sizable percentage. How do you get them to correct the mistakes and improve?


There was going to be a "two" there but the statement covered it all. I'm not the best writer at this time of night.
 
2012-12-31 02:33:08 AM  
a.tgcdn.net
 
2012-12-31 02:35:26 AM  

Boojum2k: maddermaxx: No, I'll call bullshiat on the idea that each source is as bad as the next, unless you think infowars and storm front are just as reliable and accountable as the BBC or NYT.

I was counting major news sources, there are always conspiracy nut sites but they don't even get stopped clock status. But yes I've seen the BBC and NYT heavily slant coverage in favor of a side. And Fox, and CNN, and the WaPo, and CBS, and NBC, MSNBC, and on and on.
maddermaxx: Both sides are bad so vote Daily Mail?

Not what I said at all. Got a link to BBC's article on the subject? Be interesting to see what they have to say, especially if they have evidence Daily Mail manufactured the entire story.

I took a journalism course way back, just to fill out some credit hours, and the part that stuck with me was the effort to avoid any bias in your writing, straight from the AP playbook. And then we couldn't find a single example of any story above neighborhood level where those rules weren't violated. From slanting to loaded words to burying the lede, every single story we picked through had it. It's hard to be a good journalist, and apparently they gave up.


On the contrary, that's exactly what you're saying. I'm saying not every news source is equal, and if one is continually and deliberately distorting stories and making up bullshiat, you can call it out on that. You're saying calling a bullshiat source bullshiat is wrong, because other sources can be biased on occasion. I very much disagree. The BBC, Australian Broadcasting Corp, and NYT are not perfect, no one is, but they're a hell of a lot better than the Daily Mail.

As for whether they're following this story? Not that I can see as of yet. However, this isn't the first time they've been loose with the truth in relation to the Liverpool Care Pathway apparently:

Daily Mail article on LCP 'highly misleading' says BMJ editor - update December 11 2012

The editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Dr Fiona Godlee, has released a public letter to the Daily Mail claiming that it is "misleading readers by publishing a highly inaccurate article on the care of severely disabled newborn babies".

The Daily Mail's front page story - Now sick babies go on death pathway: Doctor's haunting testimony reveals how children are put on end-of-life plan - was based on a piece from the 'personal view' section of the BMJ entitled How it feels to withdraw feeding from newborn babies.

In her letter Dr Godlee voices concern that the Mail's report did not reflect that the anonymous doctor who wrote the piece in the BMJ does not practise in the UK or in Europe. She highlights also that the doctor did not mention the Liverpool Care Pathway.

The Mail's article included the following quote: "One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone". In fact, the doctor in question said that such situations were "very rare", having occurred 10 times in 13 years of practice in a large specialist hospital.

The doctor who wrote the BMJ article is quoted as saying: "To juxtapose the article with pictures of healthy babies misrepresents the clinical situation entirely. Some babies are born without intestines or with other abnormalities that make oral feeding physically impossible. Others have such catastrophic medical conditions that continued artificial hydration would only prolong the dying process. One would never undertake a decision to forgo artificial feeding if it could in any way benefit the child. Parents request cessation of this treatment, and the health team deliberates about this extensively before any action is taken, not the other way round."
 
2012-12-31 02:36:17 AM  

the_chief: Just because you have a right to live, doesn't mean you should.


I like this. Let's practice on liberals. We seem to have a few too many around. You can toss in a few rapeublicans as well for good measure.
 
2012-12-31 02:41:41 AM  

Delecrious: Don't take it personally. It's nice you have plans for after death but you can't possibly deny the (Boomer) drain on the economy?



You mean the economy that the Boomers built?

/god forbid that any of it should be spent on them by their ungrateful kids when they are old.
 
2012-12-31 02:43:14 AM  

PacManDreaming: Why does the UK want to be like Texas?


Blessed Lady Eir. I had  no  idea. That's a bit scary to me. I was in a bad car accident when I was 13 and didn't wake up for over two weeks. I'm in my 40's now. If that had been around in California back then, I'd be dead. I may not always be walking on sunshine or anything, but I do enjoy my life to a large degree.

Yikes.
 
2012-12-31 02:45:38 AM  

maddermaxx: The BBC, Australian Broadcasting Corp, and NYT are not perfect, no one is, but they're a hell of a lot better than the Daily Mail.


Only one of those I haven't seen slant a story just as badly is Austrailian Broadcasting Corp., and that's possibly because I don't usually check them. The list for both the BBC and the NYT in a google search, ignoring WND, blogs, and other such drivel, about matches your list for the Daily Mail. There are likely many more you haven't listed, but my point still stands that journalists are pretty terrible at reporting.
 
2012-12-31 02:49:47 AM  
cant trust people to check there mirrors/blind spots when there turning right, left. and you think you can trust them to make sure your not a vegetable.

let alone that australian article i read on fark where the mental patient walked out, the police arrested someone who looked like him, and the staff said "yep thats the guy" until he had a bad reaction to the meds they gave him, sent him to hospital, and the original mental health patient returned.

not to mention the umpteen fark ups that occur in hospitals world wide on a daily basis.

wow lol, just wow. how can you trust someone to make a decision like that. let alone so many of them! statistically you know they farked up atleast once! wow!
 
2012-12-31 02:50:25 AM  
Well if it's in the Daily Mail, it must be true!
 
2012-12-31 02:50:37 AM  

Boojum2k: maddermaxx: The BBC, Australian Broadcasting Corp, and NYT are not perfect, no one is, but they're a hell of a lot better than the Daily Mail.

Only one of those I haven't seen slant a story just as badly is Austrailian Broadcasting Corp., and that's possibly because I don't usually check them. The list for both the BBC and the NYT in a google search, ignoring WND, blogs, and other such drivel, about matches your list for the Daily Mail. There are likely many more you haven't listed, but my point still stands that journalists are pretty terrible at reporting.


And my point, that the Daily Mail reporters are far worse on average than other major news sources, with more blatant deception, bias and sensationalism, still stands as well.
 
2012-12-31 02:52:54 AM  

maddermaxx: And my point, that the Daily Mail reporters are far worse on average than other major news sources, with more blatant deception, bias and sensationalism, still stands as well.


You know what, I'll concede that point. News in general sucks, but Daily Mail sucks more.
 
2012-12-31 02:56:31 AM  

Delecrious: crabsno termites: Uchiha_Cycliste: I know, let's spend hundreds of millions of dollars so that they can live a few more months.
Money well spent.

On a more serious note we need a serious discussion about end of life care in the US that we are not having, and we need to have it before the Boomers bankrupt us all. Just because something can be done for a patient doesn't mean it should.

Absolutely correct. That said, I find your youthful arrogance disgusting.

/Boomer
//Will leave my children much more than my parents left me.
///Plans in place for my demise.
////So fark you.

Don't take it personally. It's nice you have plans for after death but you can't possibly deny the drain on the economy? If we don't figure out something, everything you leave your children will be for nothing.


That's pretty much the problem. The only reasonable solution that I can think of is that the end of life care shouldn't be on the shoulders of insurance companies or the public. If you personally can afforc to spend several million dollars to extend your life a few months great, but the public shouldn't be drained to do so.  It's an awful solution I know, but what better is there? Lots of people are going to die anyway, and dropping that money into a pit to keep them alive a tiny bit longer doesn't really benefit anyone.
 
2012-12-31 02:57:20 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: But if what TFA said is true, and people are being euthanized simply because they're old


Funnily, that's not what the article says at all. Despite the Daily Fail's attempt to spice the issue up, what it actually says is:

It found that in 44 per cent of cases when conscious patients were placed on the pathway, there was no record that the decision had been discussed with them.

For 22 per cent, there was no evidence that comfort and safety had been maintained while medication was administered.


What this means is that's it's more likely a failure of paperwork than an actual failure. It seems some people have forgotten that in a bureaucracy you document everything if for no other reason that to cover your own butt. In healthcare, lack of evidence is evidence of lack. A nurse may have checked the catheter, but if she didn't write down that she checked the catheter, it didn't happen. Especially if something goes wrong.

It sounds like this is a new hospice-style process rolled out in hospitals and the staff aren't used to making sure they have appropriately documented the process. I'm sure some sort of itemised check list will be issued to fix it.
 
2012-12-31 03:02:00 AM  
Kinda ironic that this picture is at the bottom of the article. i.mol.im
 
2012-12-31 03:02:50 AM  

Alleyoop: Kinda ironic that this picture is at the bottom of the article. [i.mol.im image 154x115]


Hope she gets better soon. She deserves a break.
 
2012-12-31 03:03:58 AM  

mizchief: NewportBarGuy: Last time I checked, private health insurance was available for purchase in the UK. If the public system is not enough, sell your assets and buy it. Or die. You have an option.

That's a great idea until you consider that the high tax rates everyone is forced to pay in order to fund the public plan will prohibit a large portion of the middle class from obtaining that private insurance they may otherwise been able to afford.

This is just collectivism at it's finest, the individual subjects have no rights, so killing an old person who no longer is capable of producing for the royal class to keep a young person with many years of slave-like labor left makes perfect sense.

I'm sure if the subjects feel overly oppressed they can revolt using whatever pointy objects they are still allowed to own.


It is really not that difficult to see how much a good public health insurance system is both ethically superior and more cost-efficient, and provides therefore better results for a lower cost to both individuals and society as whole. It is very simple economics.

As some people pointed out, you end up paying for the people with no insurance anyway unless you have no problems with letting them rot on the street. You can either choose for the American system where hospital bills /insurance premiums are incredibly high so in order to pay for the people that show up without insurance.

In system A, a large proportion of the population doesnot contribute anything to the system because they cannot afford the high insurance prices, so they have to rely on either the goodwill of hospital or others, or indebt themselves to pay for medical bills. This creates a vicious circle where more and more people cannot afford insurance causing premiums to rise further. And I doubt that those without insurance get really the best care available. So you have a system that is cost-inefficient and creates a stark differences between haves and have nots and only the insurance companies end up profiting.

Or you can have a system like in most civilized countries, where everybody can afford basic insurance (or where basic insurance is covered by taxes) In system B, almost everybody is able to contribute a part of their income, also the poor who in system A wouldnot have been able to afford healthcare, so the participation rate is much higher, making overall costs of hospitals and insurance lower and making basic healthcare available for everyone. Those who can afford it are free to pay more for extra care.
 
2012-12-31 03:06:21 AM  

mraudacia: cant trust people to check there mirrors/blind spots when there turning right, left. and you think you can trust them to make sure your not a vegetable.

let alone that australian article i read on fark where the mental patient walked out, the police arrested someone who looked like him, and the staff said "yep thats the guy" until he had a bad reaction to the meds they gave him, sent him to hospital, and the original mental health patient returned.

not to mention the umpteen fark ups that occur in hospitals world wide on a daily basis.

wow lol, just wow. how can you trust someone to make a decision like that. let alone so many of them! statistically you know they farked up atleast once! wow!


When my dad died many years ago, I was, and still am, convinced he died needlessly. They said he had lung cancer and I'm pretty sure their diagnosis came from the fact that he was a smoker as the docs put that opinion out there without even doing a biopsy first. We found out later, while he was still alive, he did not have lung cancer, he had a very bad case of pneumonia and one of his lungs had hardened (calcified, I think they called it) and had to be removed. He died of post surgical complications. If he had been treated for the appropriate malady right away, he'd probably still be alive, but NOOOO. They had to dick around with the whole "he smokes, so it's lung cancer" BS.

I'm sure my very strong aversion to doctors isn't doing me any favors, but I just don't trust them for the most part, especially since I'm pretty sure they killed my Dad.

/had one ask me how long I'd been doing heroin after seeing my blood work
//I've  never done heroin, EVAR
///I just avoid them now unless I have absolutely no other choice
 
2012-12-31 03:07:02 AM  

BronyMedic: The stupidity in this thread will be spectacular once it hits the main page. I predict this becoming a legendary thread. My amazing psychic powers also predict people with no idea of what end of life care REALLY means will be happy to tell us how it REALLY is.
...


You make some good points. In multiple threads I see you hold forth from on high.

But you're 27 yo. You don't know anything like what you think you know. Could you please focus on being a little less of an asshole?
 
2012-12-31 03:07:45 AM  
Having worked in acute healthcare and having elderly relatives in nursing homes, I fully understand the article and agree more attention needs to paid to advance directives and end-of-life care. But when I first read that article I thought it was from the Onion.
 
2012-12-31 03:33:15 AM  

The Man Who Laughs:

I think part of that issue is that there are many, shall we say "lower class" patients who occupy hospital facilities with all range of illnesses real and imagined and never have any intention of paying. The money that pays for those people comes from the rest of you.


No, that is a tiny portion, the money goes to profit for the corp running the hospital and the corp running the insurer. Dont fall for their bullshiat.
 
2012-12-31 03:56:45 AM  
The whole end of life argument will never die down until people will drop the right to life belief. I've always thought that sometimes death is a better method depending on the quality of life for some instead of keeping them alive because death is evil and the attachment to life is too much to give up.

People forget cases like Terri Schivo in situations like this.
 
2012-12-31 04:13:41 AM  

RabidJade: The whole end of life argument will never die down until people will drop the right to life belief. I've always thought that sometimes death is a better method depending on the quality of life for some instead of keeping them alive because death is evil and the attachment to life is too much to give up.

People forget cases like Terri Schivo in situations like this.


Actually, I've been yelled at before for bringing her up all these years later. Some of us don't forget, but some others don't seem to care that if you're not there, you're not there. "Right to life" only can take you so far. "Right to death" is just as valid, IMO. Why people ignore that is beyond me.

/has seen too many friends and family suffer, considering I'm only in my 40's
//I made it even after I was unplugged, but if I hadn't, would have been better than being Schiavo'd.
 
2012-12-31 04:27:53 AM  

Delecrious: Don't take it personally. It's nice you have plans for after death but you can't possibly deny the drain on the economy? If we don't figure out something, everything you leave your children will be for nothing.


The best thing about this is, when the smoke clears and the Generation Whiners realize to their shock that the Baby Boomers they just euthanized were actually the source of their wealth instead of a drain on it, they will be so fundamentally incapable of admitting that they made any mistake that they'll simply turn on each other, blaming every other member of their own generation and all the generations that come after for the fact that killing the geese that laid the golden eggs never produced the expected flood of new wealth.

/your slacker, hipster friends will be on your doorstep with shotguns, screaming that since all the Boomers are dead, YOU must have stolen all the money
//at least, the ones you haven't killed yourself, for stealing all the money
 
2012-12-31 04:45:32 AM  
Elspeth Chowdharay-Best of Alert?

Ouch.
 
2012-12-31 04:57:12 AM  
Put them in the movies

Bill Hicks
 
2012-12-31 05:21:19 AM  

duffblue: Now if we could only get the Baby Boomers to off themselves we'd be in business.


As long as we can take a couple of dozen of you Gen Nothings with each of us, I'm OK with that. Shiathead.
 
2012-12-31 05:26:13 AM  
As an American, I know that whenever I want accurate information regarding current events in the United Kingdom, I can always rely on the Daily Mail.................................................................. .......

to poop on.
 
2012-12-31 05:28:14 AM  
The Daily Mail is as reputable as Fox News and The Sun
 
2012-12-31 05:50:32 AM  

LesserEvil: The bigger problem is: WHY THE FARK ARE HOSPITALS SO DAMN EXPENSIVE?!?!?!??!?


Simple - Multiple insurance company and other regulatory paperwork, plus assorted middlemen all want to take their cut.

Plus all that time trying to shake people down for payment isn't cheap.
 
2012-12-31 05:51:21 AM  
EUthanize
 
2012-12-31 06:00:53 AM  
I only have a problem with this if I am being denied the right to choose when I die at the same freakin time! How can you say "We have the right to choose when you die but you do not"

Both or neither.
 
2012-12-31 06:01:18 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Last time I checked, private health insurance was available for purchase in the UK. If the public system is not enough, sell your assets and buy it. Or die. You have an option.


.
But the government took all of my assets, for the greater good they said.
 
2012-12-31 06:06:06 AM  

RabidJade: The whole end of life argument will never die down until people will drop the right to life belief


No. I have a right to life AND a right to choose the manner of my own death (barring accidents or disease)

fark your false dichotemy.
 
2012-12-31 06:20:36 AM  
Where's Harold Shipman when you need him?
 
2012-12-31 06:44:00 AM  
Something isn't true about this article.
60,000 people put on the "care pathway" in Liverpool in 1 year?
I think those Liverpudlians would notice 12.5% of their population being euthanized.


But seriously 484,367 deaths in England and Wales source (where LCP is presumably practiced) and ~60,000 are unauthorized euthanizations? I think there would be more hysterical reactions in Hospital.
 
2012-12-31 06:54:45 AM  
Hate to break it to you, but this is how it works everywhere, including the US. When my grandmother got really old and stopped working right, they told us that while it was certainly possible to use machines to extend her life if we wanted to waste a hundred thousand dollars, they were just going to give her morphine and that we should let her pig out on ice cream so she would slip into a diabetic coma and die.

Literally told us to kill her.... but I mean... you have to go, and some ways are better than others.
 
2012-12-31 07:12:49 AM  

ZAZ: The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. Death typically takes place within 29 hours.

Happens in America too, and may be standard for certain types of people in hospice care.

As it was explained to me in one case, involving a person with adequate health coverage, attendants monitor breathing rate to decide when the old, sick person is suffering too much. At that point they give morphine, and death usually follows within a couple days. It seemed like euthanasia to me, though the morphine dose is not enough on its own to kill.



As I understand it when you go into hospice you agree that it is a last stop.

The problem here is that many of these people and their families put on the "Care pathway" (BTW what a farked up name) were not informed.
 
2012-12-31 07:19:08 AM  
You know, there's a lot of sense in this article. However, it's buried under the sensationalist leads. The same leads that too many eedjits in here are using as springboards for their bootstrappy nanny state song and dance nonsense.

Being an adult means being able to make tough choices under constraints. Not simply borrowing more money, not hiding from the issue, and not cloaking it in some emotional anecdotal crap.

In the USA, politicians are unable to make decent policy in no small part because everything becomes an emotional argument. First, the system in the USA was like this:

1. one side presents a reasonable argument based on numbers and careful analysis.
2. the other side, having no response but being the other side, throws up some anecdotal BS meant to skew the issues. this side wins.

now, we just cut straight to the chase:

1. one side presents an emotional anecdotal case to press for their policy position
2. the other side retaliates with more of the same.
ad infinitum.

I wish the US had the responsible grown ups in government that the UK does.
 
2012-12-31 07:29:14 AM  

Alonjar: Hate to break it to you, but this is how it works everywhere, including the US. When my grandmother got really old and stopped working right, they told us that while it was certainly possible to use machines to extend her life if we wanted to waste a hundred thousand dollars, they were just going to give her morphine and that we should let her pig out on ice cream so she would slip into a diabetic coma and die.

Literally told us to kill her.... but I mean... you have to go, and some ways are better than others.


The reason they are complaining is because that didn't happen.
 
2012-12-31 07:37:55 AM  

ZAZ: The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. Death typically takes place within 29 hours.

Happens in America too, and may be standard for certain types of people in hospice care.

As it was explained to me in one case, involving a person with adequate health coverage, attendants monitor breathing rate to decide when the old, sick person is suffering too much. At that point they give morphine, and death usually follows within a couple days. It seemed like euthanasia to me, though the morphine dose is not enough on its own to kill.


Hospice is optional not mandatory.
So, the British have a final solution now...

/off to the ovens grandma
 
2012-12-31 07:39:22 AM  

LesserEvil: justtray: It can cost upwards of $15,000 or MORE per MONTH to keep old people in assisted living. How much do you think it costs to to keep them alive in hospice care? Less??

The bigger problem is: WHY THE FARK ARE HOSPITALS SO DAMN EXPENSIVE?!?!?!??!?

Why does my Mom's overnight stay cost $3000, for... let's see, an on-call doctor (shared between her and 100 other patients), 3 duty nurses (for each 8 hour shift), shared between 20 patients in 10 rooms, 3 aides (again, 3 shifts) shared between 10 patients. So, approx $120 goes to pay those people... call it another $20 for support people "shared" by all the patients. Forget the meds and stuff, that's billed extra (and exorbitantly, why do a handful of aspirins cost $150?!?). The hospital has been standing for almost 20 years, so beyond maintenance, I can't see anything justifying $3000/night. She had no MRIs or CAT Scans (those are also billed on their own).

Hospitals are a huge rip-off. Most "second world" countries provide similar quality hospital stays at a fraction of the cost.

There is simply no reason why it should cost that much to care for somebody. Until that gets fixed, health care will always be hopelessly broken.


I live in Canada, just paying my taxes and showing my health care card will cover all hospital stays or emergency medical clinic walk ins or doctor's appointments.
Living here rocks.
 
2012-12-31 07:41:01 AM  

Alonjar: Hate to break it to you, but this is how it works everywhere, including the US. When my grandmother got really old and stopped working right, they told us that while it was certainly possible to use machines to extend her life if we wanted to waste a hundred thousand dollars, they were just going to give her morphine and that we should let her pig out on ice cream so she would slip into a diabetic coma and die.

Literally told us to kill her.... but I mean... you have to go, and some ways are better than others.


So, what flavor did you get?
 
2012-12-31 07:46:12 AM  
^ Sorry, that was a farked up thing to say :P
 
2012-12-31 07:48:41 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Jesus Fark.  I'm all for the idea of not prolonging death when folks are suffering - but this... this is absolutely sinister.


Coming soon to America.
 
2012-12-31 08:02:50 AM  
Article is very one sided and it really plays on people's fears. It is obvious that they are describing withholding tube feeds, not regular meals but the article leaves that part out. Many people think that impossibly frail sick elderly patients with terminal illnesses will continue to survive as long as you pump enough tube feed in their peg tubes. The fact is, they continue to lose weight because their bodies can't process the nutrition and they constantly get aspiration pneumonia and urinary infections and their skin breaks down. This is not a a more comfortable way to care for the dying.

They also don't point out they they are talking about withholding IV fluids, not refusing to let people drink water. Giving IV fluids in the final days of life, as the organs start to shut down, is the cruelest thing you can do to someone. The body cannot process the excess fluid, which collects in the lungs and drowns the patient and goes in the spaces between the cells and starts leeching out through the skin.

The real failure of their system is the lack of teaching they are doing with the families of their terminal patients. Since some parts of the article are so skewed, I'm not sure how much to trust the other parts. If the patient and the family understands what is happening with the disease process and the reasons behind why certain treatments have to be withheld, there is much less fear and they maintain a sense of control, which is really important. If the UK system isn't involving the patient and family every step of the way, they need to be horsewhipped.

--a hospice nurse
 
2012-12-31 08:06:21 AM  

kinkkerbelle: Article is very one sided and it really plays on people's fears. It is obvious that they are describing withholding tube feeds, not regular meals but the article leaves that part out. Many people think that impossibly frail sick elderly patients with terminal illnesses will continue to survive as long as you pump enough tube feed in their peg tubes. The fact is, they continue to lose weight because their bodies can't process the nutrition and they constantly get aspiration pneumonia and urinary infections and their skin breaks down. This is not a a more comfortable way to care for the dying.

They also don't point out they they are talking about withholding IV fluids, not refusing to let people drink water. Giving IV fluids in the final days of life, as the organs start to shut down, is the cruelest thing you can do to someone. The body cannot process the excess fluid, which collects in the lungs and drowns the patient and goes in the spaces between the cells and starts leeching out through the skin.

The real failure of their system is the lack of teaching they are doing with the families of their terminal patients. Since some parts of the article are so skewed, I'm not sure how much to trust the other parts. If the patient and the family understands what is happening with the disease process and the reasons behind why certain treatments have to be withheld, there is much less fear and they maintain a sense of control, which is really important. If the UK system isn't involving the patient and family every step of the way, they need to be horsewhipped.

--a hospice nurse


media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-31 08:28:27 AM  

liam76: ZAZ: The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. Death typically takes place within 29 hours.

Happens in America too, and may be standard for certain types of people in hospice care.

As it was explained to me in one case, involving a person with adequate health coverage, attendants monitor breathing rate to decide when the old, sick person is suffering too much. At that point they give morphine, and death usually follows within a couple days. It seemed like euthanasia to me, though the morphine dose is not enough on its own to kill.


As I understand it when you go into hospice you agree that it is a last stop.

The problem here is that many of these people and their families put on the "Care pathway" (BTW what a farked up name) were not informed.


HindiDiscoMonster: kinkkerbelle: Article is very one sided and it really plays on people's fears. It is obvious that they are describing withholding tube feeds, not regular meals but the article leaves that part out. Many people think that impossibly frail sick elderly patients with terminal illnesses will continue to survive as long as you pump enough tube feed in their peg tubes. The fact is, they continue to lose weight because their bodies can't process the nutrition and they constantly get aspiration pneumonia and urinary infections and their skin breaks down. This is not a a more comfortable way to care for the dying.

They also don't point out they they are talking about withholding IV fluids, not refusing to let people drink water. Giving IV fluids in the final days of life, as the organs start to shut down, is the cruelest thing you can do to someone. The body cannot process the excess fluid, which collects in the lungs and drowns the patient and goes in the spaces between the cells and starts leeching out through the skin.

The real failure of their system is the lack of teaching they are doing with the families of their terminal patients. Since some parts of the article are so skewed, I'm not sure how much to trust the other parts. If the patient and the family understands what is happening with the disease process and the reasons behind why certain treatments have to be withheld, there is much less fear and they maintain a sense of control, which is really important. If the UK system isn't involving the patient and family every step of the way, they need to be horsewhipped.

--a hospice nurse

[media.tumblr.com image 400x400]


I'm okay with that. There is so much false information out there about how end of life care decisions are made by health professionals, I took a chance.
 
2012-12-31 08:30:00 AM  
They ought to be called "Death Committees" instead of "panels."

"Committee" just sounds more like there's some thoughtful discussion occurring.

And in Great England where they talk funny, they can call them "Expiry Councils."
 
2012-12-31 08:35:05 AM  

kinkkerbelle: I'm okay with that. There is so much false information out there about how end of life care decisions are made by health professionals, I took a chance


Ok with missing the point (and just wanting to educate peopel), or ok with families not being informed?

If it is the first, I get it.

If it is the second, go fark yourself.
 
2012-12-31 08:38:45 AM  
This story is in a British tabloid. I don't believe a word of it.
 
2012-12-31 08:43:31 AM  
Very well said kinkkerbelle
 
2012-12-31 08:46:47 AM  

Bucky Katt: The Daily Fail is making shiat up again.


Actually they're NOT making shiat up in this case. A Google search for Liverpool Care Pathway yields all kinds of other (more reliable) sources.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for quality palliative care. I just believe that patients and families have a right to be involved in the decision making process.

As for people who trust physicians to make wise decisions: What do they call the person who graduated at the bottom of their class in medical school: Doctor.
 
2012-12-31 08:47:31 AM  
Kinda surprised no one's offered the link to the Behind the News article:

What is the Liverpool Care Pathway

The NHS is quite open about practices and reviews, and 'wtf happened here' panels.

In the US I never knew as much about my local services as I do in the UK.
 
2012-12-31 08:49:38 AM  

duffblue: Now if we could only get the Baby Boomers to off themselves we'd be in business.


Sorry, bud...we're not yet done spending the rest of your money.
 
2012-12-31 09:04:45 AM  

i45.photobucket.com

That makes me moist.

 
2012-12-31 09:09:12 AM  

GAT_00: This is the Daily Fail.  At least one key piece of information is missing here, assuming this wasn't totally distorted.


It always saddens me when people seriously debate something from a rag that wishes it were as respectable as the National Enquirer.
 
2012-12-31 09:13:07 AM  

nursedude: Bucky Katt: The Daily Fail is making shiat up again.

Actually they're NOT making shiat up in this case. A Google search for Liverpool Care Pathway yields all kinds of other (more reliable) sources.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for quality palliative care. I just believe that patients and families have a right to be involved in the decision making process.

As for people who trust physicians to make wise decisions: What do they call the person who graduated at the bottom of their class in medical school: Doctor.


Families are supposed to be informed and involved in the decision. Look at the bottom paragraph for the sum total of the information the daily fail is basing the entire article on. According to a (legitimate) study, one third of people weren't given a pamphlet about the Liverpool Care Pathway, the daily mail decided that meant that one third of people weren't informed at all about it, which is a blatant misrepresentation. There might be some cases where the family/patient isn't fully informed, and that's what the official inquiry is about, but the Daily Mail's take on it is patently rediculous and designed to give you the impression that health professionals are just saying 'we'll kill that one off today, hahahaha' and murdering 60000 patients.

The Daily Mail can go fark itself.
 
2012-12-31 09:19:22 AM  

ZAZ: ...though the morphine dose is not enough on its own to kill.


The morphine IS the killer, it suppresses breathing and other autonomous function until you die... saying the morphine doesn't kill you is like saying the pillow over your head didn't kill you.

When you have a patient in hospice there is no limit to the morphine dose and no one questions the dosages given. If you have a conscious patient you simply up the dosages slowly... that continues while they're unconscious and then they die.

It's a quiet form of euthanasia administered by the families of people suffering from cancer. One school of thought is that this is just preventing needless suffering of both family and patient by bringing a faster end to something that is inevitable... another is that you should die when you die, not when you're drugged to death.

I'm in favor of latter, many are in favor of the former... when you have two in the same family who are close to the decision making process it can lead to some serious disagreements, some of which will never heal.

When someone is in bad shape it's easy to say they're suffering and that it should end... but having watched someone go from deaths door to being happy, walking, laughing, etc... I say let it happen when it will happen on its own, do not accelerate it by removing treatment or introducing escalating levels of morphine.
 
2012-12-31 09:21:57 AM  
i.dailymail.co.uk

Why yeth, my boy friend'th cock ith thith long! Oh Rudy!
 
2012-12-31 09:27:52 AM  

sithon: He does look like a self satisfied git though,doesn't he?


You sayin' he's a wanker?
 
2012-12-31 09:32:05 AM  
That guy FTFA face looks really punchable.

/really
 
2012-12-31 09:40:40 AM  

L.D. Ablo: [blogs.amctv.com image 560x330]


This. Why wait 'til they're oldsters? Off them when they're soon-to-be-no-longer-cute-and-capable-of-working-on-that-report-overni ght.
 
2012-12-31 09:44:26 AM  
this is the future of healthcare in the USA.
 
2012-12-31 09:47:30 AM  
I'll Hazzard a guess and say that the British government Linda hand to the US's own Pathway program.
 
2012-12-31 09:48:25 AM  
On the other hand, sometimes death is not as inevitable as the doctors think.
My brother's wife had an aneurysm several years ago & was in coma for months. The doctors told him her brain was so severely damaged she would never really recover & would likely never awaken. Taking her off life-support was presented as a serious option.

Happy to report the doctors were quite wrong. She is now pretty much fully recovered and enjoying her grandchildren.

/csb
 
2012-12-31 10:13:30 AM  

maglite: ZAZ: ...though the morphine dose is not enough on its own to kill.

The morphine IS the killer, it suppresses breathing and other autonomous function until you die... saying the morphine doesn't kill you is like saying the pillow over your head didn't kill you.

When you have a patient in hospice there is no limit to the morphine dose and no one questions the dosages given. If you have a conscious patient you simply up the dosages slowly... that continues while they're unconscious and then they die.

It's a quiet form of euthanasia administered by the families of people suffering from cancer. One school of thought is that this is just preventing needless suffering of both family and patient by bringing a faster end to something that is inevitable... another is that you should die when you die, not when you're drugged to death.

I'm in favor of latter, many are in favor of the former... when you have two in the same family who are close to the decision making process it can lead to some serious disagreements, some of which will never heal.

When someone is in bad shape it's easy to say they're suffering and that it should end... but having watched someone go from deaths door to being happy, walking, laughing, etc... I say let it happen when it will happen on its own, do not accelerate it by removing treatment or introducing escalating levels of morphine.


When someone is dying they often become acidotic from rising C02 levels in the blood. They have an increased respiratory rate because they body tries to return to homeostasis by "blowing off" the extra C02. A normal respiratory rate is 10-20 breaths per minute. When people reach this state in the dying process, we see respiratory rates of up to 40 breaths per minute. The patient has to use extra muscles to breathe because of "air hunger." I've seen people move their entire bed with each breath due to this process. The morphine does slow down the respiratory rate but the goal is to slow it to near normal so that the patient is more comfortable and doesn't simply die from the exhaustion of breathing in that manner over several days. Morphine hides the "air hunger" from the patient and they don't feel the effects of not getting enough air. It's like being forced to run in a marathon and you can't stop running until you die. Morphine isn't used to kill people, it is given because letting that process go on for days or even weeks is torture to the patient. The morphine isn't killing the patient, the terminal disease process is killing the patient.
 
2012-12-31 10:15:35 AM  
Next up, suicide education for grade schoolers. Can kids teach their parents to off themselves like they can teach their parents to recycle?
 
2012-12-31 10:20:02 AM  

Babwa Wawa: The mentality that death is unnatural is very difficult for doctors overcome.


It should be. That mentality is the entire reason they exist at all.
 
2012-12-31 10:30:45 AM  
cf.drafthouse.com
 
2012-12-31 10:40:45 AM  
Benevolent Misanthrope:

Jesus Fark.  I'm all for the idea of not prolonging death when folks are suffering - but this... this is absolutely sinister.

The problem I have is that is not really euthanasia: they're still being left to die slowly, instead of being finished off with a nice injection like I'd choose for myself if it's available.

And they ought to get the full 17 minutes.
 
2012-12-31 10:48:31 AM  
Old people are going to bankrupt the US
 
2012-12-31 10:50:10 AM  
kinkkerbelle:

The morphine isn't killing the patient, the terminal disease process is killing the patient.

That is the problem I have with it. Why not give a big dose of morphine (or some sedative) all at once and get it over with quickly and humanely? If it took a cancerous ferret that long to be "euthanized" I'd just decapitate the poor bugger myself with one good whack from a machete or a .22 to the back of the head like I'd do when a cat brought in a mouse and tried to torture it slowly.
 
2012-12-31 10:52:40 AM  
maudibjr:

Old people are going to bankrupt the US

And obese people. And stupid people who vote.

And the rich avoiding taxes. Killing all the old & fat people won't put the USA in the black: the rich will still not pay their fair share.
 
2012-12-31 11:04:35 AM  
kinkkerbelle:
When someone is dying they often become acidotic from rising C02 levels in the blood. They have an increased respiratory rate because they body tries to return to homeostasis by "blowing off" the extra C02. A normal respiratory rate is 10-20 breaths per minute. When people reach this state in the dying process, we see respiratory rates of up to 40 breaths per minute. The patient has to use extra muscles to breathe because of "air hunger." I've seen people move their entire bed with each breath due to this process. The morphine does slow down the respiratory rate but the goal is to slow it to near norma ...

My point was that often that level of diagnosis is not being made correctly, or at all.

I can give several anecdotes where a family member was effectively told "you are going to die, give up" and proceeded to choose to live rather than take the easy way out.

In one case it was many happy months spent at home with relatives visiting... in another it was for seven years of independent living and enjoying life. In third case I'm happy to say it is TEN YEARS and counting.

Morphine takes away pain AND the ability to fight. When it's inevitable, it's inevitable, so in a situation as you say it's just prolonging suffering... but my point is not to jump to a conclusion when things look bleak, you only get one shot at staying alive and my personally decision is to endure end of life pain if there is a chance I can rally for a few days, weeks or months
 
2012-12-31 11:23:48 AM  

glennizen: ou make some good points. In multiple threads I see you hold forth from on high.

But you're 27 yo. You don't know anything like what you think you know. Could you please focus on being a little less of an asshole?


I started working in a nursing home at 16. I first worked as an EMT at 18 on a Basic unit doing primarily nursing home transports as my paid gig.

Come see what life at any cost gets you, and you'll understand completely why I'm an asshole about this topic. Moralistic, life-at-any-cost busybodies who are content to let their loved one die a slow, horrific and painful death from infection in a nursing home while Alzheimer takes their minds, or families unwilling to follow the wishes of their sons and daughters while they lay there in a vegetative state dependent on a trach and a g-tube to survive with no quality of life anger me.

I've seen what happens when you get a Cardiac Arrest back after 50 minutes, and they don't survive neuro intact. I've seen what happens when a massive stroke is ignored and goes beyond the treatment window. I've seen what dementia and Parkinsons does to a human body.

That is NOT life to me. It's pointless, endless suffering that will only get worse.

10 years ago I thought I could never uphold a DNR. Now I think anyone who doesn't do so is a complete monster.
 
2012-12-31 11:27:26 AM  
Obummer is wringing his hands in anticipation, cause you know...if England does something, we should do the same thing.
 
2012-12-31 11:32:00 AM  

kinkkerbelle: When someone is dying they often become acidotic from rising C02 levels in the blood. They have an increased respiratory rate because they body tries to return to homeostasis by "blowing off" the extra C02. A normal respiratory rate is 10-20 breaths per minute. When people reach this state in the dying process, we see respiratory rates of up to 40 breaths per minute. The patient has to use extra muscles to breathe because of "air hunger." I've seen people move their entire bed with each breath due to this process. The morphine does slow down the respiratory rate but the goal is to slow it to near normal so that the patient is more comfortable and doesn't simply die from the exhaustion of breathing in that manner over several days. Morphine hides the "air hunger" from the patient and they don't feel the effects of not getting enough air. It's like being forced to run in a marathon and you can't stop running until you die. Morphine isn't used to kill people, it is given because letting that process go on for days or even weeks is torture to the patient. The morphine isn't killing the patient, the terminal disease process is killing the patient.


THIS.

We have to do a yearly pain control update class in our system for all nursing and AH providers (EMT/Ps, Nurses, Therapists), and this was one of the main talking points about end of life care and poor pain control, in that everyone is afraid to give the "last dose" because of the massive amounts of Morphine these patients are prescribed for comfort. One of the best points I've ever seen made about it was that even if a person dies after getting their morphine dose, the provider isn't the one that killed them in end-of-life care settings, the disease is. The provider only made them comfortable.

maglite: I say let it happen when it will happen on its own, do not accelerate it by removing treatment or introducing escalating levels of morphine.


And this attitude right here is the reason so many people with terminal illnesses die in pain and suffering. The whole point of introducing escalating levels of morphine is not to hasten death. It's to treat pain in a patient which is rapidly becoming unable to process opiate pain killers into their effective pro-drug due to the physiologic process of dying. I've taken terminal cancer patients home to die on long-distance transports who are literally on Morphine 30mg IVP max every HOUR. In-patient hospice settings may have them where there is no max dose per hour.

maglite: Morphine takes away pain AND the ability to fight. When it's inevitable, it's inevitable, so in a situation as you say it's just prolonging suffering... but my point is not to jump to a conclusion when things look bleak, you only get one shot at staying alive and my personally decision is to endure end of life pain if there is a chance I can rally for a few days, weeks or months


That's nice. Don't force your opinions or life philosophy about dying on others. Especially those who have to endure pain far beyond what you could ever understand just by breathing.
 
2012-12-31 11:50:33 AM  
Part of a formal description of the LCP from an article linked earlier:

"...while legal consent is not required to place a patient on the LCP, the fact that the plan is being considered should always be discussed with a relative or carer and, if possible, the patient themselves."

How can EVERYONE not have a problem with this? The hospital literally does not HAVE to tell anyone, nor have any form of consent. Depending on how this decision is made it really is either death panels or Dr. Death. Either way, it is not the proper way to handle this kind of thing.

The LCP is a set of standards of care and notification. It is a fantastically good idea to have such standards and I am glad they do. But as long as the decision requires NO form of consent and even notification is not required under penalty of legal or financial punishment they will continue to have non-notification issues. You can't make that kind of think voluntary for the doctor or nursing staff because human nature will result in many instances of people not being notified when they "should".
 
2012-12-31 12:02:51 PM  

faeriefay: unamused: Better than them being gun deaths.

Maybe I am crazy but I would much prefer a clean shot through the head rather than dehydrate to death. horrid.
/time to find a cave far away.
//insane, the whole of humanity is insane.


I was being a smartass about the way the Brits screech about their low gun deaths.  Well, hell yeah, you're killing them all in the hospitals.
 
2012-12-31 12:10:17 PM  

duffblue: Now if we could only get the Baby Boomers to off themselves we'd be in business.


You first, asshole.
 
2012-12-31 12:16:59 PM  
Look for it in the USSA in 3. . . . . . .2. . . . . . 1. . . . . . .
 
2012-12-31 12:19:04 PM  
Man, the UK beat the US to the death panels on this one.

To be fair, the US had no plans to ever institute death panels, so now the Republitards have someone to biatch about across the pond.
 
2012-12-31 12:22:52 PM  
Minister Dick Lamm nods in agreement, says "They have a duty to die."

Minister Dick Lamm (D)
 
2012-12-31 12:28:57 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: kinkkerbelle: Article is very one sided and it really plays on people's fears.
--a hospice nurse
[media.tumblr.com image 400x400]


You dislike someone posting who actually knows what (s)he's talking about?

Death and dying are ugly. Few of us would choose to be around it for a career, so all that's left is for us to criticize everyone who has to make decisions like this every damn day. It makes us feel protected from the ugliness somehow. And we too will die, maybe in a very ugly way. That's life.
 
2012-12-31 12:38:39 PM  

BronyMedic:

Come see what life at any cost gets you, and you'll understand completely why I'm an asshole about this topic....

10 years ago I thought I could never uphold a DNR. Now I think anyone who doesn't do so is a complete monster.


Can you try being a little more idiotic? You still don't rate being ignored completely.
 
2012-12-31 12:50:37 PM  

ZAZ: The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. Death typically takes place within 29 hours.

Happens in America too, and may be standard for certain types of people in hospice care.

As it was explained to me in one case, involving a person with adequate health coverage, attendants monitor breathing rate to decide when the old, sick person is suffering too much. At that point they give morphine, and death usually follows within a couple days. It seemed like euthanasia to me, though the morphine dose is not enough on its own to kill.


As an anecdote, my father died this way. He had Lou Gehrig's disease (progressive paralysis) and was totally paralyzed except for a few small muscles. His breathing was pretty bad and they were soon to put him on a respirator. He went into hospice for two days to give my mom a break so she could get some sleep (24/7 awake care is hard on a person). They gave him morphine to help him sleep since he was there, and he was dead within hours. To be fair, when I asked, they said he was in Cheyne-Stokes respiration for a few hours before they gave him the morphine, and he was begging not to have the respirator.

Assisted suicide is sadly illegal, or he would have done it months ago. I challenge one person who is against it to ingest puffer fish toxin (with a medical team standing by) and see if they can do a few hours of total paralysis without changing their minds...now imagine living like that forever.
 
2012-12-31 12:56:15 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Last time I checked, private health insurance was available for purchase in the UK. If the public system is not enough, sell your assets and buy it. Or die. You have an option.


But death panel talk is all racist, since any argument against Obama is fuled by racism.

It's almost like this validates everything we have been saying.  Even Sarah Palin is smarter than you. How does that feel?
 
2012-12-31 01:02:48 PM  
Can't be said enough, so repost repost repost. Every last stupid person needs to be told this 60 times per day, and maybe after a few years they'll realize its true.

maddermaxx: Boojum2k: maddermaxx: When a source has shown they will stoop to lying and distortion to get the angle they want, it's quite fine to call them a bullshiat source - because that's what they are.

All news sources do that. Every last one of them. So now your option is to reject them all out of hand, or look around and compare stories and see what adds up. The blind partisan does the first to all except those that confirm their biases, the rational critical thinker does the second. Sometimes news providers don't cover something because it makes their arguments look weak. It's cowardly and reprehensible, but again, they all do it, no exceptions.

Says something about the quality of people who become journalists. Or maybe just the quality of people.

Both sides are bad so vote Daily Mail?

No, I'll call bullshiat on the idea that each source is as bad as the next, unless you think infowars and storm front are just as reliable and accountable as the BBC or NYT. While any paper/media outlet can fark up, you can still sort the ones that deliberately fark up all the time from the ones that are mostly reliable and useful sources that fark up on occasion.

So while I'll still look at multiple sources to find what's happening (and I read widely, trust me), I'm not going to read the Daily Fail and say "oh look, it's just as good as any other news source because all news sources are made equal, and I'll give it equal credit'. No, I'll call it a bullshiat source, because, as I said, it is one.

And from this Bullshiat source comes this bullshiat story, with a headline and opening lines meant to deliberately mislead, and the pertinent information, that paper work needs to be improved and pamphlets need to be handed out more often, are lost in the very bottom lines. This is why I call it the Daily Fail.

 
2012-12-31 01:12:28 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Jesus Fark.  I'm all for the idea of not prolonging death when folks are suffering - but this... this is absolutely sinister.


Damn straight such a thing should not be permitted with out the family or the patient if he or she is still of sound mind signing off on it.
 
2012-12-31 01:29:17 PM  

fusillade762: DEATH PANELS!!!!

This is gonna be good. Off to make popcorn.


Popcorn is bad for you. Better insurance up while you can.
 
2012-12-31 01:31:00 PM  
It seems that with modern medicine we have reached a point where we are able to extend life for several years beyond what is in a normal capacity. It is exceedingly common to see end of life care in a comatose-bedridden state, completely senile, with no observable cognitive thinking processes whatsoever. But as long as the client is paying, the end of life care can be extended for what seems like perpetuity.

In American hospices, it is practically axiomatic that the patient never dies with a full bank account. Their death always hits when their bank account does. Then the medications change up that create the conditions of the end of life to accelerate, then they switch to morphine which collapses their breathing rate and end of life becomes only days away.

It is really a sick, disturbing cycle, yet the families of those are so completely blinded by the "THEY MUST HANG ON!!!!" that nobody ever calls it out for what it is.

In my own family, I saw my grandmother bed ridden with Alzheimer for about 5-10 years, the last 2 she had practically no human functions to speak of. When her bank account clicked the switch to morphine came about, and the "controversy" in our family was that the hospice "killed our mother". Her estate came out to be about $2,500 per child. Yet in never occurred to anybody the even more daunting prospect, that their mother was kept alive needlessly and artificially for no utilitarian-life purpose, but reduced to a vegetative blank slate for no other reason to provide expensive monthly double digit hospice care for.

This appears to be an incongruous with modern medicine. Quite frankly, people need to start taking living wills seriously (if not legally mandatory) and early on in life, when they are cognitive to make such decisions. Destroying your family wealth for no reason to sit and in a bed staring at the ceiling while drooling and pooping yourself for years and years in a personal hell is not a decision I would think any sane and rational person would make.

And it when it comes to collective health responsibility these decisions need to be made maturely and frankly. And if the majority of people become poutraged at mentioned accelerating the end-of-life process for their loved ones, well then I fully support lying to them.
 
2012-12-31 01:56:40 PM  
But something is happening, some kind of cleft in the moral life that is being widened, channeled out by torrents of small images that invite us to enjoy suffering or think ill of others. If all of this is widening the canyon between our better and worse selves, on which side of this chasm will we end up standing?

The current technology came upon us all in a rush within just a few decades. It went from science fiction to fact in the blink of an eye. Even as it was 'settling out' and still developing (LOTUS v/s Microsoft) folks were finding all sorts of ways to commercialize it, abuse it and twist it along lines the majority of us never thought of.

Remember the old 'Star Trek' mantra? They never give primitive civilizations technologies they have not grown in to? To do so meant more than likely they'd abuse them and turn them towards war.

Computers, the Internet and scores of other technologies came from military inventions. Others, developed for commercial use, were turned into military weapons.

Now, you live in a time where greed is good, predatory business practices are acceptable and there are innumerable bright guys out there who spend their time trying to find new and profitable uses for technologies without regard to the long term results.

Such as your cell phone and computer spying on you, keeping a record of where you surf, where you physically go and what you say. Along came some guy who figured out a way to turn on your computer camera remotely to look around your house. Another discovered how to tap into your wireless security system and even baby monitors and told everyone else how to do it.

Prior to that, companies decided to lodge tracking cookies on your systems to gather your information which they sold. SPAM popped up nearly as soon as E-mail did, sponsored by companies which paid the SPAMMER and laws were cut to basically hang the spammer but ignore the companies who paid him.

Don't forget that nearly as soon as the PC and Internet appeared, up popped hackers -- a previously unknown subset of society, which quickly warped into a serious problem. Following them, up popped security companies, selling you costly software to protect your computers -- and many using those free tests on line to determine if your system needed protecting or cleaning -- and rigging the results so it always did. They could sell more product that way. Who would know?

Over the years we've seen enough cell phone ads, boasting about all manner of new functions and 'app's' until you pretty much want to hurl, yet you must have them.

Humans can f**k up anything. It is understood that with every new invention, someone will actively work to find a way to make major bucks off it, usually in ways it was not intended to be used.

Others will simply abuse the technology just because they can. Like powerful laser pointers and incoming aircraft. Landlords and tiny spy cam's. Your neighbors and increasingly inexpensive video surveillance systems. Night vision.

Cablevision had to push Congress to make stealing cable a felony since it was so easy to do so. Plus folks built and sold tunable cable boxes.

The invention of graphics editing software just opened the door for a whole new area of easy abuse. So did the instantaneous video and imaging programs. You see it. You alter it. You post it for millions to view. Youtube has a mess of nearly expertly faked videos, most created 'just because they could'.

Within a few years of the Internet opening up, porn took advantage of it, developing a whole new set of programs which would drag you into their lascivious clutches whether you wanted to go there or not. Since no one had laws banning this action, it flourished.

Search engines popped up, giving you the ability to research nearly anything -- and to feed that somewhat perverted side you never let anyone see.
Also, in a remarkably short time, the media and advertising agencies found this to be virgin territory, where they could push the boundaries since, again, no one had developed many laws to govern it.

Like those annoying little commercials that pop up on your TV in the middle of a good movie and take up about a quarter of the screen. A kid's channel developed those which would interact with the ongoing show, -- annoying the krap out of the viewers.

Now, TV can cram in more commercials than ever before, legally.

Consider the Writers Strike over TV and movies. Consider also that this resulted in entertainment companies creating the 'Reality Show' -- which needed no script. So, no writers.

Again, within a remarkably short time, Reality TV went into exploitation mode (nearly everyone yelling and fighting with everyone else) and you're now stuck with things like 'The Honey BooBoo Show' (which ought to make you puke) and an assortment of 'Ghost Hunters', who never really discover anything but claim they do.

So, as you gave technology to society to transcend morality and laws, it morphed into an accepted thing, actually altering society.

Like suing the krap out of Dr.s who stopped to help at accidents eventually wound up opening the door for lawsuits previously considered too stupid to bother with and created the litigious society we have today. It also resulted, somewhat, in folks not bothering to help those in trouble -- which forced the creation of 'Good Samaritan' laws.

That, kind of, resulted in TV creating the 'Captured on Video' shows, where we all get to watch people behaving badly and the worse, the better. To make it more interesting, we'll add fading movie stars and actors to make 'witty' comments in the background.

Now, this isn't all of the influences that have created the 'Final Solution' but these have certainly been major players.

Toss in the economy, rising health care costs, massive population increases and major land development. (The new technology now enables you to get doom and gloom news faster than ever before and gives the Lunatic Fringe an open format. Gossip now travels at light speed.)

Plus, we're trying real hard to stop having major wars like in the past, which would kill off multi-millions of 'surplus' population, stabilize economies and diminish over crowding. Though medical advances learned in wars eventually contributed to extending the average life span by decades.

Too bad it hasn't done much to keep the body from falling apart and the mind from deteriorating.

In brief: We've done it to ourselves.
 
2012-12-31 02:34:23 PM  

BronyMedic: I've seen what happens when you get a Cardiac Arrest back after 50 minutes, and they don't survive neuro intact. I've seen what happens when a massive stroke is ignored and goes beyond the treatment window. I've seen what dementia and Parkinsons does to a human body.


Have you watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate? All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.


Sorry, good piece you wrote, it just made me think of Roy's soliloquy.
 
2012-12-31 02:50:38 PM  
Death panels. The right-wing always accuses their opponents of the evil shiat that they, themselves actually believe in or do.
 
2012-12-31 03:04:38 PM  
Holly Distortions, Batman!

I particularly like how they quoted their own stories as a way to support an "unfolding scandal". No, it's not a scandal, it's a policy. And it's not a secret policy if you don't choose to read the shiat they send you about your benefits. People die. It sucks, but it's the one proven constant in the world. Personally I think we should have more say in the matter of when we die so we can go out with some class and not be dicks to our kids, but that's just me.
 
2012-12-31 03:50:50 PM  

The One True TheDavid: Can you try being a little more idiotic? You still don't rate being ignored completely.


Exactly what did I write that was idiotic? Or did you just decide to threadshiat and troll in an attempt to look cute?

The fact of the matter is people are perfectly happy shoving Grandma and Grandpa to cling to a heartbeat for 10-20 years on the border of biological life and death while their minds turn to swiss cheese, and they are completely dependant on some underpaid, understaffed nursing aid to make sure they don't linger in their own piss and feces while getting nutrition from a tube, and they'll visit them once or twice every year to make themselves feel good about keeping a person who actually died a long time ago alive.

The best argument for end of life planning is a visit to your local nursing home.

And it's the truth. When my grandmother and her doctors thought she had dementia and she made an end of life plan and DNR for herself 10 years ago, I told my mother I could never uphold that. Now, if she were to die and I were here, I'd wait till they had that paperwork in hand before calling anyone. And I'd pray that if we couldn't find it, they never got her back.

It's quality of life, you asshole, not quantity.
 
2012-12-31 03:52:23 PM  
ChuDogg:

Quite frankly, people need to start taking living wills seriously (if not legally mandatory) and early on in life, when they are cognitive to make such decisions. Destroying your family wealth for no reason

So that's your objection? No money left over for the heirs?


to sit and in a bed staring at the ceiling while drooling and pooping yourself for years and years in a personal hell is not a decision I would think any sane and rational person would make.

Welcome to Fark.
 
2012-12-31 03:59:32 PM  
Rik01:

Search engines popped up, giving you the ability to research nearly anything -- and to feed that somewhat perverted side you never let anyone see.

+"married couple" +"missionary position" +procreation
 
2012-12-31 04:06:46 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Why not? Doctors do it all the time in the usa. Patient not responding..lingering in pain, no hope, they give too much meds, or withhold them, knowing that the patient will die. It's merciful. They just dont TALK about it openly.


This is a load of horse-puckey and you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading this kind of crap.
 
2012-12-31 04:06:56 PM  
An American doctor who was practicing in Britain called a talk show to say he had a patient, 68 years old, who needed 3 days in the ICU to recover.

He was over 65 so the bureaucrats said no. He died as a result.

On another show, a brain surgeon called in to say he was instructed to provide "comfort care" to people who were too old and needed the therapy to cure them.

When ordinary Farkers flame and troll, I tend to blow it off as rhetoric. When certified doctors speak, I tend to listen.
 
2012-12-31 04:21:52 PM  

BronyMedic: The One True TheDavid:

Can you try being a little more idiotic? You still don't rate being ignored completely.

Exactly what did I write that was idiotic?


NOTHING. Not in this thread. That's the problem: you make a point of popping up to publicly declare that you disagree with me on subject after subject, but then on certain issues that I think are very very important you post perfectly sensible stuff like this -- which can even be well-written too. Sometimes you even post something I didn't already know, or state a position I also hold so ably and persuasively that I'm tempted to steal it for use elsewhere. You might eventually cause me to change my mind on something, which is a very rare ability on Fark. Dammit. Hence see above.

So. Is it that I can't write with "irony" or is your meter broken?
 
2012-12-31 05:03:34 PM  

The One True TheDavid: NOTHING. Not in this thread. That's the problem: you make a point of popping up to publicly declare that you disagree with me on subject after subject, but then on certain issues that I think are very very important you post perfectly sensible stuff like this -- which can even be well-written too. Sometimes you even post something I didn't already know, or state a position I also hold so ably and persuasively that I'm tempted to steal it for use elsewhere. You might eventually cause me to change my mind on something, which is a very rare ability on Fark. Dammit. Hence see above.

So. Is it that I can't write with "irony" or is your meter broken?


Well, if you're ignoring people because they disagree with you, I think the problem lies deeper than they disagree with you. I personally ignore people for being contributionless trolls, and there are plenty of those around.

You could have stated that a little more clearer, and the statement you made wouldn't have been taken as it was. :P
 
2012-12-31 05:21:11 PM  
Here we go again, the "preachy right" against late late late late late term abortions.
 
2012-12-31 05:57:13 PM  

baronvonzipper: fusillade762: DEATH PANELS!!!!

This is gonna be good. Off to make popcorn.

Popcorn is bad for you. Better insurance up while you can.


When did popcorn become bad for you? You must work for the peanut lobby...
 
BHK
2012-12-31 06:52:12 PM  

some_beer_drinker: Benevolent Misanthrope: Jesus Fark.  I'm all for the idea of not prolonging death when folks are suffering - but this... this is absolutely sinister.

it's not sinister, it's just cost effective. has capitalism taught you people nothing?


It's not capitalism, it's progressivism. These people are now useless to the state and, since they can't vote, they are no good in their role as a dependent class. It is better to funnel the money to other programs that make healthier people dependent, compliant, submissive sheep.
 
2012-12-31 07:49:09 PM  
So we have the euthanasia side and keep them alive beyond all reason side. You want the hospice nurse side?

Unless you have broken the ribs of a terminally ill person, most often a child or an elder, while trying to do fruitless CPR because the law requires it because they have no DNR you have no farking idea what horror is.

You feel little bird bones crack under your hands while the tears run down your cheeks, knowing that you are bringing them back. You know that it isn't CPR that is bringing them back, it is the PAIN of what you are doing to them that is bringing them back. You kick in the fight or flight, the adrenalin response by causing them the pain. I've had people who have stopped breathing come back simply because a family member yells at them and shakes them and begs not to die. Terminal patients have a lot more control over their own deaths than most people think. They die when they relax and decide to go or when they are simply too exhausted to fight for another breath.

Most people don't realize that it is really hard to die if you are uncomfortable. People fight pain and fear, it is very difficult to die when you are fighting. People die when you control the pain because they can relax long enough to choose to let go. If not, they get stuck in a days-long purgatory of suffering and we do it to them because we love them. You don't have to euthanize a patient for them to die relaxed, comfortable and at peace, all you have to do is control their symptoms and let them know that you are okay with them leaving and let them decide when they want to go.

For those with terminal illness, a comfortable, well-managed death is the last and perhaps greatest gift you can give someone. I know that must sound really lame to this cynical group but I've attended over 300 deaths. Terrified, in horrible pain and afraid to hurt your family by going when you don't really have a choice is not the way anyone wants to leave this world. My side for a less-horrible death for every terminal patient. Your argument is invalid.
 
2012-12-31 07:52:05 PM  
2010: "No such thing as death panels, you are an ignorant fool for suggesting that is our intention!"

2012: "Killing patients who have no hope of recovery is only humane. You are an ignorant monster if you suggest otherwise."

What a difference a few years makes. Wonder what you have in store for us in a few more years...

(Liars.)
 
2012-12-31 08:32:20 PM  
Kinkerbelle and bronymedic -- I sincerely hope I have professionals like you at my side when the inevitable comes to pass. You are good people, and you should feel good.
 
2012-12-31 09:53:40 PM  

kermit_the_frog: Kinkerbelle and bronymedic -- I sincerely hope I have professionals like you at my side when the inevitable comes to pass. You are good people, and you should feel good.


I have far more respect for Kinkerbelle than myself, and I'd rather you do the same. I really am an asshole, it's just I tend to be an asshole when it benefits the people I care about. Plus, some of my patients tend to turn out okay. Hospice Nurses, on the other hand? It takes a special person to do that and not end up eating a bullet. Everyone they deal with will die, with few to no exceptions.
 
2012-12-31 09:55:19 PM  

ManofPeas: 2012: "Killing patients who have no hope of recovery is only humane.Letting people who have no hope of recovery and for whom further treatment will result in needless suffering and token prolongation of death, and allowing them die in comfort and dignity free of pain and fear is only humane. You are an ignorant monster if you suggest otherwise."

What a difference a few years makes. Wonder what you have in store for us in a few more years...


Fixed that for you. You might have sounded like a pundit otherwise.
 
2012-12-31 10:33:23 PM  
ManofPeas: 2010: "No such thing as death panels, you are an ignorant fool for suggesting that is our intention!"

2012: "Killing patients who have no hope of recovery is only humane. You are an ignorant monster if you suggest otherwise."

What a difference a few years makes. Wonder what you have in store for us in a few more years...

(Liars.)


1946 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_Trial We called it a crime against humanity and hung people for doing it
 
2012-12-31 11:56:11 PM  

Oldiron_79: ManofPeas: 2010: "No such thing as death panels, you are an ignorant fool for suggesting that is our intention!"

2012: "Killing patients who have no hope of recovery is only humane. You are an ignorant monster if you suggest otherwise."

What a difference a few years makes. Wonder what you have in store for us in a few more years...

(Liars.)

1946 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_Trial We called it a crime against humanity and hung people for doing it


The skinheads have been champing at the bit, waiting for the last Holocaust survivors to die out and trying to make everyone forget the Nazi war crimes, all for the explicit purpose of having a chance to commit them again. BronyMedic's intentional conflation of DNR requests with intentionally misleading patients, telling them they will be treated when they are in fact scheduled for euthanasia, has the same purpose as Amos Quitler's intentional conflation of Israeli self-defense with aparteid and ethnic cleansing.

/it seems like a joke
//until inconvenient people start to disappear
 
2013-01-01 12:46:44 AM  

Tatterdemalian: Oldiron_79: ManofPeas: 2010: "No such thing as death panels, you are an ignorant fool for suggesting that is our intention!"

2012: "Killing patients who have no hope of recovery is only humane. You are an ignorant monster if you suggest otherwise."

What a difference a few years makes. Wonder what you have in store for us in a few more years...

(Liars.)

1946 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_Trial We called it a crime against humanity and hung people for doing it

The skinheads have been champing at the bit, waiting for the last Holocaust survivors to die out and trying to make everyone forget the Nazi war crimes, all for the explicit purpose of having a chance to commit them again. BronyMedic's intentional conflation of DNR requests with intentionally misleading patients, telling them they will be treated when they are in fact scheduled for euthanasia, has the same purpose as Amos Quitler's intentional conflation of Israeli self-defense with aparteid and ethnic cleansing.

/it seems like a joke
//until inconvenient people start to disappear


i632.photobucket.com

lol, you're an idiot. Read up on what end of life care is all about, and patients are supposed to be informed and involved in the decision (and they are). Daily Fail is failing again, with false and sensationalist headlines. Really, the pertinent information is in the bottom paragraph - that's what they're basing the entire story on - people not getting pamphlets. No one here is saying people should be put to death, no one is talking euthanasia, except idiots like you.
Linking end of life care to the Nazis though? That marks you as a very special sort of individual.
 
2013-01-01 04:32:58 AM  

Oldiron_79: We called it a crime against humanity and hung people for doing it


Withdrawing external life support and allowing people to die pain free by adjusting the doses of opiates to match their failing organ's capabilities to process it into an active pro-drug is not the same as shooting Phenol into their hearts to murder them. Try harder.

People like you, with your stupendously idiotic and uninformed rhetoric, is the exact reason why I told my family and friends my wishes should I become unable to make my own decisions, and why I have a plan of care and advanced directives with people I trust. I don't want someone like you making a decision to keep me alive on a ventilator and gastric feeding tube because of some misguided "LIFE IS PRECIOUS1111!!!!11101" tripe you set on your couch and spew at Fox News.
 
Displayed 237 of 237 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report