Is it time to stop medicating to prolong life?

[Parafox]

I wasn't really sure how to word the title.

 

What I mean is, the NHS is in a critical situation and I wondered what people thought about the way our society treats illness.

 

We all know the pressures caused by obesity, smoking, alcohol and these are not areas I am asking you to give your opinions on.

 

In my experience, (limited to front-line emergency work, I grant you), it's by far the increasing elderly population that use the majority of our NHS services.

 

Almost all the ones I see are on heaps of medications that help to prolong their lives when, in past generations, they would have passed away from illnesses that can now be treated but not cured. This is the essential point. We aren't curing the conditions the elderly would have succumbed to, we are treating them and in doing so we are extending the cost of treatment for how ever many years the person is on medication or using the NHS services. This will only continue to rise as we continue to (artificially) live longer.

 

By prolonging life artificially in this way we are increasing the finacial burden as well as the workload of a struggling healthcare system.

 

I'm not making any proposal, I just wondered what other people thought.

 

There is no right or wrong. Just your thoughts, please

[Captain...]

I think anyone that wants to continue living deserves and has paid in to get the best medical care available to do so...

...what I would like to see is assisted suicide to be legal for those terminally ill patients who would rather die quickly, pain free and with dignity.

[MooseBreath]

I'm sure you could calculate the average amount paid into the NHS and then the average age said money would run out if a person suffered the average ills. That would give you a nice clean cut off point. After which the individual can make a choice of whether to pay for further treatment - most likely through a private insurance type deal, paid for previously - or they can choose to let nature take its course.

[ousefox]

I'm sure you could calculate the average amount paid into the NHS and then the average age said money would run out if a person suffered the average ills. That would give you a nice clean cut off point. After which the individual can make a choice of whether to pay for further treatment - most likely through a private insurance type deal, paid for previously - or they can choose to let nature take its course.

Allowing the rich to live and the poor to die. Seems fair.

[Webbo]

Why does the NHS spend millions to stop people smoking to prolong life if it then decides it can't afford to treat people in their old age?

[Harry - LCFC]

Difficult one. I'd have to say that this is probably not the best use of funds, it's very expensive and the return is not very high. With respect, their quality of life will be fairly low, in some cases life will be genuinely unpleasant, so I do think there are better things to spend on. Having said that, withdrawing funds directly leads to death so it's very difficult to simply say no to someone in this position.

 

I'm sure you could calculate the average amount paid into the NHS and then the average age said money would run out if a person suffered the average ills. That would give you a nice clean cut off point. After which the individual can make a choice of whether to pay for further treatment - most likely through a private insurance type deal, paid for previously - or they can choose to let nature take its course.

 

That's sort of suggesting that we privatise the NHS partly. The whole point of a public health service is that everyone gets equal treatment and everyone (almost everyone) contributes through tax.

 

If you're requesting that those who pay more get better treatment then you are, to some extent, advocating that medical attention be a service to be bought and sold. This isn't an accusation, just a criticism.

 

 

 

[Vacamion]

Keeping people alive and in pain when they are old and won't survive or even improve is cruel.

 

For those that want to (and subject to appropriate monitoring) a Swiss solution should be implemented. 

 

Having watched the NHS keep terminally ill relatives of mine alive, but helpless and in pain and with no dignity (they were VERY careful not to give too much opium) I would definitely want to choice of a quick dignified death over a slow painful one.

 

Pass the hemlock...

[Bryn]

What conditions are we talking about here? Do you really think we should be allowing our elderly population who have already put their shift in to be dying from complications of hypertension and diabetes when we can simply and effectively treat them? There is a right answer there, a big, fat, unequivocal no.

[Fox92]

Too much money and time is spent on needless things imo; trying to get people to stop smoking, trying to help obese etc. I know it's a touchy subject with obese people, but I know for a fact that the NHS spend too much time and money on this, and they are pushed to their limites because of cuts and all that.

[Charl91]

 

 

Almost all the ones I see are on heaps of medications that help to prolong their lives when, in past generations, they would have passed away from illnesses that can now be treated but not cured. This is the essential point. We aren't curing the conditions the elderly would have succumbed to, we are treating them and in doing so we are extending the cost of treatment for how ever many years the person is on medication or using the NHS services. This will only continue to rise as we continue to (artificially) live longer.

 

 

So you're saying that things that can't be cured shouldn't be treated? If it's something that keeps them alive for a few more years, then I say do it, as long as they want the help (which of course, is up to them to decide). Would you rather a new plasma TV or pay a bit extra to have your nan around for a few more years? No brainer for me.

 

I would rather the NHS refused to helped people who smoke and drink to be honest.

[Harry - LCFC]

On the point of alcohol and tobacco my favoured course of action would be raise duties on both even further. It won't make much difference on the numbers of drinkers and smokers but it would help pay for their treatment.

[Bryn]

On the point of alcohol and tobacco my favoured course of action would be raise duties on both even further. It won't make much difference on the numbers of drinkers and smokers but it would help pay for their treatment.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but FWIW without the funding from tobacco taxation the NHS would be in an even sorrier state.

[Harry - LCFC]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but FWIW without the funding from tobacco taxation the NHS would be in an even sorrier state.

 

Sorry I don't quite understand. I'm in favour of putting a tax on tobacco, I don't want to reduce it.

 

Or were you just pointing out the importance of the tax itself?

[Bryn]

Sorry I don't quite understand. I'm in favour of putting a tax on tobacco, I don't want to reduce it.

 

Or were you just pointing out the importance of the tax itself?

 

The latter.

[Rincewind]

When I was in the LRI recently there were out of 6 in the ward I think there were four that could not respond very well communication wise. One laid with his mouth open all the time. Another had to be constantly rediverted to his bed. One who was relatively young kept crying out 'Please, please leave me alone.' I was glad to get out of there. Bloke next to me was OK. Ex-RAF. Flew air-liners from what I remember.  The others though were being spoon fed and bed wetted. Like babies and were spoken too like babies. The nursin staff were marvelous and they did all they could to make things as comfortable as possible. I wonder if they thought about us after going home? Is it easy to turn off in that sort of job?

[MooseBreath]

Allowing the rich to live and the poor to die. Seems fair.

After a certain age, sure.

What's the alternative? The entire population working purely to keep 90 year olds in medicine? Because that's the logical end game if nothing changes.

[Vacamion]

After a certain age, sure.

What's the alternative? The entire population working purely to keep 90 year olds in medicine? Because that's the logical end game if nothing changes.

 

[Bryn]

After a certain age, sure.

What's the alternative? The entire population working purely to keep 90 year olds in medicine? Because that's the logical end game if nothing changes.

 

Surely that is precisely the kind of thing an enlightened society should aim for?

[21st Century Fox]

 

 

[MooseBreath]

Surely that is precisely the kind of thing an enlightened society should aim for?

At the expense of literally everything else? Then you don't have a society at all, never mind an enlightened one.

[Bryn]

At the expense of literally everything else? Then you don't have a society at all, never mind an enlightened one.

 

There's absolutely nothing literal about what you've said, clearly the financial situation is not wholly, or even mostly, due to funding free at the point of access healthcare to our elderly population.

[Rincewind]

But you would have an unselfish society where everyone don't just think aboiut themselves.

[MooseBreath]

There's absolutely nothing literal about what you've said, clearly the financial situation is not wholly, or even mostly, due to funding free at the point of access healthcare to our elderly population.

Eh?

Maybe not now, but as healthcare advances and we continue to pay for anything required to keep everyone alive, eventually we WILL reach the point where the money we spend on keeping those people alive is greater than the entire tax take. So at some point we will need to make a decision to deviate from our current path. Question is, how? My idea: come up with an age after which further care has to be self funded.

Lots of people disagreeing as usual, not a single person coming up with a viable alternative grounded in reality, as usual. I think I'm due a promotion from this forum.

[Rincewind]

Make it a nice round 100. You can celebrate your birthday with a sugar laced birthday cake and receive a get well soon and condolance cards as well as a birthday one in the same day.

[Captain...]

Eh?

Maybe not now, but as healthcare advances and we continue to pay for anything required to keep everyone alive, eventually we WILL reach the point where the money we spend on keeping those people alive is greater than the entire tax take. So at some point we will need to make a decision to deviate from our current path. Question is, how? My idea: come up with an age after which further care has to be self funded.

Lots of people disagreeing as usual, not a single person coming up with a viable alternative grounded in reality, as usual. I think I'm due a promotion from this forum.

You're right you are due a promotion, it is a little known fact that Bentley's roof is actually a higher forum than this one, now go and take your place amongst the elite and leave us mere championship forumites to squabble amongst ourselves.