Obese People Denied Healthcare

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Does this mean that if there were no immigrants you wouldn't be a ### #'#####?

 

Tut Tut, that is not good debate.

 

However they do form a part of the financial problem and whether people like it or not the situation has to be addressed. It is not just the cost of supporting them it is the legal services that have made this a very big business raking in millions of tax payers money.

 

Every million saved can be spent on the people of this country that supply the money in the first place and deserve better.

 

Being over weight might not be medically acceptable but they have committed no crime whats so ever and deserve treatment.

[Gaffer]

To all,

 

Please refrain from Kindergarten name calling, there are plenty of other ways to get your point across.

 

My finger is hovering over the 'Close Thread' button!

[Sportsman]

I apologise for using the offending phrase. It was not directed at any individual but a generic "You" but I can see why it read differently. It was meant to be humerous, given the actual subject of the thread.

 

I did read your thread, it's just that I don't make the same distinctions that you do. If anyone comes into hospital for treatment, they should be treated, I dont ask for a passport or tax returns!

I do not understand why on just about every thread on every subject within half a dozen postings someone will say it's all the fault of the immigrants - illegal or otherwise, I'm not the only one who doesn't make the distinction.

Thr thread and the hospital trusts involved made no mention of ethnic background

 

Out of interest, and because it does tie in directly with this thread, how do you feel about the death of George Best. This is a man who was given a liver transplant as a life saving procedure, and then proceded to abuse it once again. Would the (very scarce) liver been better given to someone who needed it just as badly, who would probably have appreciated it more and who probably died some years ago for the lack of it.

Was George Best a suitable candidate for a new liver, or was it done just because he was famous

Edited November 25, 2005 by Sportsman

[chevin]

Out of interest, and because it does tie in directly with this thread, how do you feel about the death of George Best. This is a man who was given a liver transplant as a life saving procedure, and then proceded to abuse it once again. Would the (very scarce) liver been better given to someone who needed it just as badly, who would probably have appreciated it more and who probably died some years ago for the lack of it.

Was George Best a suitable candidate for a new liver, or was it done just because he was famous

 

I am not qualified to form opinions about George Best, nor do I have any negative feelings about any one who is entitled to treatment on the NHS receiving it. I simply pointed out that there are too many people who are not entitled to such treatment receiving it before those who are entitled to it being able to get the treatment they deserve. I did not even say that those illegal immigrants should not get any treatment. The emphasis I made was on the fact that they are illegal. Perhaps if those responsible got their fingers out and dealt with such people in the way the law should allow, the problem would not exist. Nor would the suggestion that people who are entitled to treatmant should be denied it.

 

As an afterthought, I have to question the implication that Best's life since he had the transplant had anything to do with his death. Surely his eventual demise was nothing to do with his drinking?

Edited November 25, 2005 by chevin

[Sportsman]

No-one has been refused treatment for anything. As far as I am concerned anyone who needs treatment should receive it

Suggestions have been made by some health authorities about selecting patients for some types of surgery based on their lifestyle. i.e. chest / heart surgery not being appropriate for heavy smokers. Obesity not being approriate for hip operations etc. or come to that liver transplants in alcoholics. It was suggested that some patients would be de-prioritised unless they made an attempt to help themselves

No mention of immigrants, illegal or otherwise. It would make no difference to this subject if every illegal immigrant was sent home tomorrow. That is my problem with people dragging race into it. It has nothing whatever to do with it.

I don't care how much money would be saved or spent, if you demand a heart transplant because you have smoked 40 fags a day for the last 30 years, despite all the warning you will have had from your Dr, and you make it clear that you are not prepared to change, i.e. give up smoking, then why should we waste a rare resource, the heart, let alone the surgery intensive care and hospital bed on you (This is a generic "you" by the way) This is what the argument is about and spending less money on immigrants, illegal or otherwise, does not come into it, so why bring it up.

For the record, my feeling is that the liver was not wasted on George Best. He was an alcoholic who made a serious attempt to give up drinking after the operation, but alcoholism is a difficult thing to deal with, he failed and paid the price.

[Alan Stubbs]

Ken

surely they would have to judge by your ability to recover.

 

 

How can doctors determine a patient's ability to recover before they've even had the surgery?

 

Surely recovery from a procedure varies according to the individual, or are patients treated as statistics rather than individuals?

[DavyR]

How can doctors determine a patient's ability to recover before they've even had the surgery?

 

Surely recovery from a procedure varies according to the individual, or are patients treated as statistics rather than individuals?

 

Alan, there's a well-established evidence base for risk factors involved in surgery. Although prognosis does of course vary from patient to patient, those who have racked up a lot of risk factors prior to surgery(extreme age, obesity, smoking, high blood pressure and so on) are going to more likely to have poorer outcomes.

 

Managers are under extreme pressure to avoid perioperative deaths - it looks bad on the returns, which means the hospital doesn't get its "star" rating, and in turn can't attract high-quality staff, etc etc.

 

A surgeon who made heroic attempts to operate on a high-risk patient as an *elective* case would not be smiled upon by the all-powerful management. Every effort to minimise the risk factors will be made before surgery (this usually needs the patient to cooperate). *Emergency* surgery is different, all that matters then is saving life, but still it counts against the surgeon, the unit and the hospital if the patient dies.

[Alan Stubbs]

Alan, there's a well-established evidence base for risk factors involved in surgery. Although prognosis does of course vary from patient to patient, those who have racked up a lot of risk factors prior to surgery(extreme age, obesity, smoking, high blood pressure and so on) are going to more likely to have poorer outcomes.

 

Managers are under extreme pressure to avoid perioperative deaths - it looks bad on the returns, which means the hospital doesn't get its "star" rating, and in turn can't attract high-quality staff, etc etc.

 

A surgeon who made heroic attempts to operate on a high-risk patient as an *elective* case would not be smiled upon by the all-powerful management. Every effort to minimise the risk factors will be made before surgery (this usually needs the patient to cooperate). *Emergency* surgery is different, all that matters then is saving life, but still it counts against the surgeon, the unit and the hospital if the patient dies.

 

 

Thanks Dave, that's probably the most informative response to this thread so far!

 

The cynic in me reads it almost as 'for patient read statistic'!

 

For reasons you well know, I have inclined to believe pretty much what you said to be the case. I've harboured a lifelong antipathy to authority, and hospital managers rank pretty highly on that list.

 

It's hard to gauge the real feeling behind what's typed on the 'net, and I did actually agree with much of Sportsman's comments. Where I took exception was in my case, I saw the consultant face on and can tell the difference between humour and arrogance. At the time - and on reflection, I maintain my response to the A & E consultant was timely and proportionate. The staff nurse did laugh out loud and said 'You're right - it's about time someone put him in his place!' If that didn't justify my comments to the guy, nothing would.

 

This was the same staff nurse who asked for a 'blue light transfer' to another hospital, when the SHO said 'we're just going to get a hand surgeon to check to make sure there's no glass in the wound.' When I pointed out the difference in degrees of urgency between the two, the staff nurse said 'I've worked in here 11 years - he's been here 2 weeks - who would you trust. Your hand injury is badly damaged.' I trusted her, and hindsight says that trust was well placed.

[Sportsman]

Blue light transfer requested by a nurse?

for a hand injury?

Unusual

[Alan Stubbs]

Blue light transfer requested by a nurse?

for a hand injury?

Unusual

 

As I said about the consultant.... making a diagnosis without full lknowledge of the facts?

 

Severred arteries, veins, tendons and broken bones. There was a distinct possibility of losing the hand.

Existing medical condition also meant there was a degree of urgency involved.

The blood loss was to quote the staff 'worrying and excessive'.

Edited November 25, 2005 by Alan Stubbs