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 53
    More: Obvious, Royal College of Physicians  
•       •       •

21787 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2012 at 12:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-30 09:59:38 PM  
6 votes:

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 09:43:40 PM  
6 votes:
This is the Daily Fail.  At least one key piece of information is missing here, assuming this wasn't totally distorted.
2012-12-31 07:49:09 PM  
4 votes:
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.
2012-12-30 10:32:50 PM  
4 votes:
www.sidkaliflicks.com
2012-12-30 08:04:55 PM  
4 votes:
Jesus Fark.  I'm all for the idea of not prolonging death when folks are suffering - but this... this is absolutely sinister.
2012-12-31 08:02:50 AM  
3 votes:
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
2012-12-30 09:12:51 PM  
3 votes:
Greenlighting daily fail articles still a major step backwards.
2012-12-30 08:41:48 PM  
3 votes:
He does look like a self satisfied git though,doesn't he?
2012-12-30 07:51:32 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2012-12-31 11:32:00 AM  
2 votes:

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 02:08:29 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:47:13 AM  
2 votes:
Why so dour?
thefunambulistdotnet.files.wordpress.com
2012-12-31 12:21:24 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-12-30 11:46:05 PM  
2 votes:
The Daily Fail is making shiat up again.
2012-12-30 11:32:35 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:18:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:43:05 PM  
2 votes:
blogs.amctv.com
2012-12-30 09:20:40 PM  
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: You don't understand 0bamacare.


You have a tenuous grasp on the English language.
2012-12-30 09:11:19 PM  
2 votes:
Now if we could only get the Baby Boomers to off themselves we'd be in business.
2012-12-30 09:00:44 PM  
2 votes:

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.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-12-30 08:36:42 PM  
2 votes:
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 08:27:40 PM  
2 votes:
2012-12-30 08:07:53 PM  
2 votes:

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?
BHK
2012-12-31 06:52:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:06:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:56:40 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:31:00 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:28:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:23:48 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:13:30 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:13:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:38:45 AM  
1 votes:
This story is in a British tabloid. I don't believe a word of it.
2012-12-31 07:46:12 AM  
1 votes:
^ Sorry, that was a farked up thing to say :P
2012-12-31 03:03:58 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:11:31 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:47:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:24:31 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:12:46 AM  
1 votes:
One should never let morality get in the way of common sense.
2012-12-31 01:11:21 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:10:26 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:56:24 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:38:45 AM  
1 votes:
So when's the queen scheduled to die? She has to be one of the oldest bastards on that island.
2012-12-31 12:36:36 AM  
1 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com

Good Carrousel tonight!
2012-12-31 12:36:14 AM  
1 votes:
Life has a 100% fatality rate.

Well, unless you're a jellyfish.
2012-12-31 12:31:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:30:01 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:29:33 AM  
1 votes:
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 12:20:16 AM  
1 votes:
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?
2012-12-30 11:33:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:26:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:57:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:15:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:31:03 PM  
1 votes:

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


So nobody messes with them?
 
Displayed 53 of 53 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