01 Dec '12 23:02>
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLots wrong in this discussion.
Wow, you took all this out of a Daily Mail story? Tell us more about this UK government's programme to slaughter babies to save money yet apparently does not seem to bother the British people.
I spent a few days in an NHS cardiac ward last month, and was let out with stents after having my life saved free of charge. I was back on this site making a mess of some games in no time at all. I thought at the time how delighted I am every day not to be a victim of the US healthcare system, where my life would have depended on the quality of my insurance policy and the decisions about my treatment would be made by accountants.
My mother in law is in hospital right now after a serious heart attack (not a great month in our family!) which has caused considerable damage. Her son has been alongside her with a detailed , formal statement that she drew up and signed some time ago setting out her preferences for medical interventions and end of life care. At first the hopital accepted that her wish was to have no medical intervention beyond pain relief. Then after a day of observation, they quietly started to feed her and provide more care because they thought that she was capable of a good enough recovery. Not the slightest suggestion that her advanced age should make her less worth saving and treating. But also every respect given to her wishes, so far as they could be established.
People die and often they do that in hospitals. They can be of any age. It is a distraction to bring in the issue of euthenasia, which is not tolerated in the UK. Quite rightly, the health service has formal procedures for dealing with death and patients and the public are entitled to a considerable say in the matter. I have mentioned that my mother in law had a written statement available which the hospital respected and took into account in all their decisions.
The Liverpool Pathway - which operates in the hospitals I have been in so recently - is nothing more perverse than a formal set of guidelines for dealing with end of life care. The whole point of having guidelines is to make it more possible for everyone to contribute their opinions. It is perfectly in order for the Mail ( a right wing rag of course) or any other source to question anything in such guidelines that they wish to question - this is a democracy and the NHS is managed in a way that is open and accountable to the public. I wonder how true this is of the way American insurance companies determine the care they will pay for and the way American hospitals deal with patients lacking insurance cover.
Eventually, every society has a responsibility to debate openly and agree upon its attitudes to end of life care as to all health issues. People who become hysterical about such discussion need to grow up. Often dying is unpleasant and I think people are too insulated from the process to understand that it is often undignified and painful and distressing. Making it less distressing is something that has to be discussed and of course that is where it is so tiresome to run into the fanatics.