TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1yK7gbr7D

The end point of socialized medicine.

The "eugenicists" would be SO proud!

NOT sure what all it actually involves. When my granddad passed away in October last year, his Parkinson's was so bad - he was very miserable and ready to go. They gave him fentinel patches and kept him comfortable but he stopped taking food and didn't want feeding tubes or anything.

When it's time, it's time. I don't how different this approach is - no hospital bed since he wanted to die at home.

a) It's a 'claim", not necessarily a fact, and likely not British policy.
b) the number of deaths was at best a ballpark estimate based on someone's opinion, nothing more
c) here, in a nation of 300 000 000, if you could count the number of deaths that are expedited by adjustments to care, it also might seem like a large number.
d) in either case, numbers are at best an estimate. nobody not familiar with each individual medical case is in a position to say that a patient did or did not die prematurely due to the level of care provided.

If the US population is 300 000 000 and the life expectancy is 60 years including infant deaths, war, etc. (just for discussion, ok?), then you would expect 5 000 000 folks to die every year. If 10% of that number died because a doctor chose to do nothing, or administered too much of something, or the spouse said they wanted the loved one to die quietly and peacefully, that number would be in the ballpark of 500 000 deaths. This is probably already happening. Anyone reading this knows someone or someone's family who has had to deal with the issue. So, a lot of people die a few days early so as to prevent added pain, both to the patient and to the family. This really isn't new at all, but here it is in the political section during an election year. Yep...

gdanaher wrote:a) It's a 'claim", not necessarily a fact, and likely not British policy.
b) the number of deaths was at best a ballpark estimate based on someone's opinion, nothing more
c) here, in a nation of 300 000 000, if you could count the number of deaths that are expedited by adjustments to care, it also might seem like a large number.
d) in either case, numbers are at best an estimate. nobody not familiar with each individual medical case is in a position to say that a patient did or did not die prematurely due to the level of care provided.

If the US population is 300 000 000 and the life expectancy is 60 years including infant deaths, war, etc. (just for discussion, ok?), then you would expect 5 000 000 folks to die every year. If 10% of that number died because a doctor chose to do nothing, or administered too much of something, or the spouse said they wanted the loved one to die quietly and peacefully, that number would be in the ballpark of 500 000 deaths. This is probably already happening. Anyone reading this knows someone or someone's family who has had to deal with the issue. So, a lot of people die a few days early so as to prevent added pain, both to the patient and to the family. This really isn't new at all, but here it is in the political section during an election year. Yep...

All very well...indeed, as Stalin said, the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions merely a statistic...and I'm NOT a fan of Joe Stalin.

This isn't about statistics. It's about doctors deciding to let people die. The "do no harm" credo has no meaning under the British Health System. In the 1980's I spoke extensively with a woman at our company who had lived in England for many yeras. At the time she left she told me the standard was set for dialysis at over age six to age 39. If you were age 5 or under or 40 and above you simply did not get it. Kidney failure is a great pathway to death.

gigag04 wrote:NOT sure what all it actually involves. When my granddad passed away in October last year, his Parkinson's was so bad - he was very miserable and ready to go. They gave him fentinel patches and kept him comfortable but he stopped taking food and didn't want feeding tubes or anything.

When it's time, it's time. I don't how different this approach is - no hospital bed since he wanted to die at home.

The article and the issue are not precise, but neither is the process. My objection would be taking the decision-making process out of the hands of the patient/family and the doctor and giving to to bean-counting bureauocrats.

puma guy wrote:This isn't about statistics. It's about doctors deciding to let people die. The "do no harm" credo has no meaning under the British Health System. In the 1980's I spoke extensively with a woman at our company who had lived in England for many yeras. At the time she left she told me the standard was set for dialysis at over age six to age 39. If you were age 5 or under or 40 and above you simply did not get it. Kidney failure is a great pathway to death.

A few weeks I had a conversation about healthcare with a Scotsman who I work with. He was [half] joking when he said that he hoped that he would never get cancer of the testicles under the UK health system - because they would only remove one, and he would have to wait over a year to get the other one removed.

puma guy wrote:This isn't about statistics. It's about doctors deciding to let people die. The "do no harm" credo has no meaning under the British Health System. In the 1980's I spoke extensively with a woman at our company who had lived in England for many yeras. At the time she left she told me the standard was set for dialysis at over age six to age 39. If you were age 5 or under or 40 and above you simply did not get it. Kidney failure is a great pathway to death.

I agree with you, which is why I posted what I did. My own mom suffered a stroke and lived in supervised nursing care for a couple of years. She eventually succumbed to heart failure related to pneumonia, we believe. When its time, its time. A couple of times in those years, she wasn't doing so great, though she bounced back for a while. But I would have been outrageously angry if I had found out they were trying to bump my mom off, for WHATEVER REASON no matter how "well-meaning", by not giving her WATER. I've come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as a "good" way to go...but some are obviously worse than others...and dying of thirst doesn't sound like too much fun.

Heartland Patriot wrote:But I would have been outrageously angry if I had found out they were trying to bump my mom off, for WHATEVER REASON no matter how "well-meaning", by not giving her WATER. I've come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as a "good" way to go...but some are obviously worse than others...and dying of thirst doesn't sound like too much fun.

One of my friend's mother was in the hospital, dying and begging for water, but the nurse refused to even give her ice chips. I think that is just a way to hasten death due to dehydration.

This is terrible, but probably happens daily, and it isn't limited to end of life. If insurance says they won't pay for another day of care, you're out the door.

The Death Panel. UK's got it. Will we?

WildBill wrote:

gigag04 wrote:NOT sure what all it actually involves. When my granddad passed away in October last year, his Parkinson's was so bad - he was very miserable and ready to go. They gave him fentinel patches and kept him comfortable but he stopped taking food and didn't want feeding tubes or anything.

When it's time, it's time. I don't how different this approach is - no hospital bed since he wanted to die at home.

The article and the issue are not precise, but neither is the process. My objection would be taking the decision-making process out of the hands of the patient/family and the doctor and giving to to bean-counting bureauocrats.

Absolutely! When it's time, it is time. We don't let our pets suffer, please don't prolong my helpless suffering and embarrasment. Let me exit these earthly bounds with a shred of dignity, please.

Not that Wikipedia is all knowing or all correct, but>>

"For 2009, "death panel" was named as PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year", one of FactCheck's "whoppers", and the most outrageous term by the American Dialect Society."

It's hard to distinguish fact from fantasy when you can only see the tunnel.

gdanaher wrote:Not that Wikipedia is all knowing or all correct, but>>

"For 2009, "death panel" was named as PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year", one of FactCheck's "whoppers", and the most outrageous term by the American Dialect Society."

It's hard to distinguish fact from fantasy when you can only see the tunnel.

And just what is that mixed metaphor supposed to mean?