the latest NHS reforms

[llcoolphil]

f**k me, how narrow is your thinking?

[eFestivals]

And the criticism you're attracting is twofold. Firstly, that your solution is unethical. And secondly, that health care doesn't take an ever-increasing amount of resources for the old, it takes it for whatever sickness is prevalent.

that's factually incorrect.

A subsequent point would be that the extension of research into new technologies and medicines for the sick increases the life cycle and quality of life for the sick, regadless of the age group it is aimed at. For example, polio vaccinations increase the average life expectancy for any society. Thus, the medicine and technology at present is comparable to the medicine and technology of older times, not just the young and old in a particular generation. The benefits will have an impact on future generations.

As will the associated downsides, downsides that will far outstrip the benefits.

If we discovered a perfect cure for cancer tomorrow - as worthy as it is for the individuals who would benefit from it - it would destroy society as we know it. The changes it would make to the demographics would make anything like the set-up we have now as unsustainable, and the necessary extra taxation burden on the economically active would be beyond what they could take (based on how much people moan about very minor tax increases). It'll sort it's self out somehow cos everything does, but the outcome under those forced circumstances won't be the best there could have been.

[eFestivals]

the one that sees it essentially as the allocation of resources.

at it's heart it is that and only that. Resources cannot be used which don't exist or can't be obtained.

knows there are sufficient resources even now and the question is how we allocate those resources, not how we make people die younger.

the extra resources beyond what is used now is huge (3 or 4 times as much), sure.

The question is not only whether the resources exist, but whether people - and this boils down to the economically active - are prepared to give up those resources. There's a point where taxation becomes so high that people won't stand for it.

But what do we mean by 'natural life'? Buying my food rather than having to hunt or grow it seems an entirely cultural experience. Are we talking about drugs that are given directly to me as sustaining natural life, or are we including drugs and other chemicals used in farming and agriculture that help sustain me longer than I might expect to live naturally? What about warmth in winter? I can assure you there is bugger all natural about the radiator in my lounge, but by god it helps keep me alive.

Have we agreed which people get to live and die yet? Diabetics were looking dodgy under your plan at one stage. As were haemophiliacs. And those that take half an aspirin a day to thin the blood. Are we still immunising in advance or is that a bit namby pamby and if you catch it, well you takes your chance - no drugs to extend your life. What about those managing to cope with life via anti-depressants? Take them off them and leave them to it? They'll either pull themselves together or just top themselves?

Oh, I see you've not bothered to read what I've said before posting all that guff.

[ampersand]

not the catchiest of tag lines, but nice one!

[llcoolphil]

but the outcome under those forced circumstances won't be the best there could have been.

[worm]

that's factually incorrect.

Edited January 21, 2011 by worm

[worm]

If finding a cure for cancer defines a circumstance as forced, give me some examples of circumstances that aren't forced

[llcoolphil]

Living a natural life in which you try to live as long as you can in the best possible way afforded to you, but don't actually use anything produced from that pursuit to help you.

[worm]

Wow, that sounds brilliant. Ray Mears would be shit hot.

[llcoolphil]

Oh, I see you've not bothered to read what I've said before posting all that guff.

[worm]

It all seems to me to be nothing more than a question of priorities. If we can spend the squillions that we do on some things (wars, space missions, yet another tallest building in the world - why? - etc), we can, if we want, find the money to pay for the elderley.

We could start by not treating them/us as outsiders, more like how they're treated in some other countries. Old people are not another subspecies, they're you and me, in a few years time

[brighteyes]

The NHS doesn't spend millions and millions of pounds a year on 'old people', it spends it on people whose primary need relates to their health. But most of these people in long term care are old.

I do think there must be a more efficient, cost effective way of managing continuing healthcare, perhaps with NHS-owned care homes and employees rather than private care homes and agency nurses.

[worm]

indeed. I was listening to the radio only this morning, and was pleased to hear how the internet is doing amazing things educationally in parts of the world

Edited January 21, 2011 by worm

[worm]

and contraception,

and choice

and maybe, one day, the realisation that we're all in this together

maybe...

Edited January 22, 2011 by worm

[worm]

yes

choice covers a squillion different 'meanings' though...

one of them would be the choice of having kids or not,

or choosing whether to follow ideoligies or not, simply because that's how it has been up until now

etc etc

[eFestivals]

If finding a cure for cancer defines a circumstance as forced, give me some examples of circumstances that aren't forced

EH? That's nothing to do with anything I've said.

Come back when you've got at least a slight grasp of what I've said, eh?

[eFestivals]

Resources are not allocated to the old Neil, they're allocated to a specific sickness based upon prevalence.

that's factually incorrect yet again.

Further, modernisation and research into illnesses makes resources (i.e. the cure for polio) more efficient.

It makes things more efficient when a single illness is looked at in isolation. When the whole is considered, the overall effect nowadays is to increase the burden on healthcare.

(The cure for polio might have been an instance where overall efficiency was increased, but the cure for polio was found a long time ago now. The law of diminishing returns applies to medical cures.)

Cutting research out in a specific field of research so that we only produce cheap medicines, treatments and services because old people use them is not going to outstrip the benefits of a developing medical institution

that's factually incorrect.

it's going to stop modernisation and make our medical institution archaic. Pol Pot and his fundamentalist cronies would be proud.

And this is worthless bollocks, that ignores all reality.

[eFestivals]

Oh don't worry Ive read it.

really? Then why ask questions of things I've already covered, and which fully ignores what I've said?

[Katster]

The British Medical Association has weighed in on the new Prime Minister David

Cameron's health care proposals.

The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make

any rash moves.

The Gastroenterologists had a sort of a gut feeling about it, but the

neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all labouring under a misconception.

Ophthalmologists considered the idea short-sighted.

Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Paediatricians said, "Oh,

Grow up!"

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists

could see right through it.

The Surgeons were fed up with the cuts and decided to wash their hands of the

whole thing.

The ENT specialists didn't swallow it, and just wouldn’t hear of it.

The Pharmacologists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic

Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter...."

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed

off at the whole idea.

The Anaesthetists thought the idea was a gas, but the Cardiologists didn't

have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the

arseholes in London

[worm]

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the

arseholes in London

[Katster]

Not bad.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

As a former RMN I saw the closing of the old "asylums". All under a Tory Government. The concept was sound but it was for purely economic reasons. At pur hospital we worked on the "Milieu Model" that is Therapeutic Communities.

Cut to the chase I have seen cuts to the NHS and MOD by the tories, and not one of them in the patients favour.