Don't treat the old and unhealthy, doctors say 14 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#1 10 years ago

Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors - Telegraph

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone...

Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations. Meanwhile, £1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade...

Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.

While it makes sense in purely financial terms, there is something that is despicably cold-hearted about this idea.

The measure of a good society is the manner in which it treats its most vulnerable.

For the elderly, I can see no good reason why they should be denied a decent quality of life to live out their last days. Obviously, it is not a financially-wise decision, but rather a moral and ethical standpoint.

For those that deliberately poison their own bodies, then I care less about they're getting free medical care above more needing patients. The risks of your actions should have been clear long before you began. And I completely and unreservedly extend that to myself - if I am to end up pickling my own liver, then I expect to pay the consequence of that. If it concerned me, then I would not continue. There are adequate facilities available to halt an addiction; governmentally, community, and privately based services to assist, and as long as their is still this range of options, I don't see why the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff needs to put aside from someone who needs it more.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,291 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,141 Posts

5 Threads

#2 10 years ago

It's a false idea to call medical care from the state, 'free.' We've been paying for it all our lives, whether we like it or not. Every taxpayer has a right to the treatment they have paid for. If the NHS is suddenly going to stop handing out treatment to us we should be able to stop handing out money to it and opt into private health insurance or the like instead.




Sniper5558

COH rules

50 XP

17th January 2007

0 Uploads

94 Posts

0 Threads

#3 10 years ago

The jog of a medic is TO HELP PEOPLE. It doesn't care if you don't have enough money, we must use everything available in order to help others in suffering or sickness.




lifehole9

Neither light nor darkness.

50 XP

20th October 2007

0 Uploads

1,537 Posts

0 Threads

#4 10 years ago
Sniper5558;4185040The jog of a medic is TO HELP PEOPLE. It doesn't care if you don't have enough money, we must use everything available in order to help others in suffering or sickness.

Thats not really how it is anymore:/.




Jose Carlos

Why? Cause normal is boring.

50 XP

29th March 2006

0 Uploads

2,118 Posts

0 Threads

#5 10 years ago

On the one hand it makes sense. The elderly aren't going to live that long any more and the people with an unhealthy lifestyle brought their health problems upon themselves. On the other, it's against the Hippocratic Oath to refuse treatment.

I do, however, disagree about the elderly, to a degree. If they look like they've a few years still ahead of them, or if the illness is minor, then I see no reason to not treat them. There's not much to loose there. However, if the illness is really serious, then all the doctors should do is make their remaining time as comfortable as possible. It'd be a financial pit with nothing for the society to gain. Sometimes the few must be sacrificed for the behalf of the many.




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#6 10 years ago

The question comes into play not whether the elderly got a few more miles left in them but if your dealing with Finite resources such as money time and equipment, and by helping some old codger squeek another few months out of life, your condemning some younger, healthier individual to death. If you got one liver available for transplant and the option is 40 year old alcoholic or 22 year old nursing school student with leukemia, why should the older gent with a self inflicted injury get status over the other person by merit of being first in line?




Primarch Vulkan VIP Member

For the Emperor! Knights of Caliban!

154,320 XP

16th March 2004

0 Uploads

13,497 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago

There bound by oath to help anyone who is sick or dying. To do so would violate their (eldarly and unhealthy) rights as a human being, but then again it seem that this day and age it's all about money.


[color=#000000][size=2][b][i]Heralds of the coming doom, Like the cry of the Raven, we are drawn, This oath of war and vengeance, On a blade of exalted iron sworn, With blood anointed swords



Nederbörd

Has mutated into a Lurker

50 XP

13th March 2005

0 Uploads

1,848 Posts

0 Threads

#8 10 years ago

Everybody should be treated equally. If we stop treating elderly because they only have a few years left, or stop treting the obese, alcoholics, smokers or whatever, doctors will soon talk about stop treating people of certain races just because they're more susceptible to certain diseases.




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#9 10 years ago
Nederbörd;4185329Everybody should be treated equally. If we stop treating elderly because they only have a few years left, or stop treting the obese, alcoholics, smokers or whatever, doctors will soon talk about stop treating people of certain races just because they're more susceptible to certain diseases.

Thats just it, i dont think you CAN treat everyone equally. You got a limited number of doctors, a limited pool of funds with which to work with, and a limited number of time/space in which to work. How does the UK determine who gets seen and how quickly? is it like a first come first serve or is there a parsing system based upon the severity and social standing of the person injured? Would a 3 year old with a skinned knee take precedence over a 30 year with a dislocated shoulder simply because his mother brought him in 3 minutes sooner? I dont really know how the socialized healthcare system works and until i get a better idea i dont think i will be able to contribute very well to the discussion as much as i would like to.




Locomotor

in spite of erosion

50 XP

13th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,490 Posts

0 Threads

#10 10 years ago

That's ridiculous. In a word, unethical.

Enough resources exist that everyone can be treated with a kind of equality, they just need to be pulled from the war machine each country has equipped, be it Britain, the US, or whomever. We have more than enough funds to ensure all people a certain level of care, we just need to spend it wisely (not on "defense").

Jose CarlosIt'd be a financial pit with nothing for the society to gain. Sometimes the few must be sacrificed for the behalf of the many.

That is dangerous thinking, you know. Suddenly: gulag, etc.




  • 1
  • 2