Is it time to stop medicating to prolong life?

[MooseBreath]

In some cultures parents are looked after by their children in return for being looked after. They do not moan about it but consider it their duty and have a respect for their elders.

 

 

Asian mainy. One of the finest things we could learn from these cultures is the way they treat their parents and grandparents.

 

I'll never know how anyone could shove their parent in a home.

 

Agreed. Allowing your parents to live out their lives with dignity should be a fundamental role of a child. My siblings and I have been putting money aside for over a decade and will continue to do so to facilitate keeping our parents in their own home if and when the time comes. 

[Rincewind]

Why? It's a positive thing.

Didn't want the subject changed. I know it's positive thing but these type of threads end up wityh them v us.

[MooseBreath]

To go back on the original point - I had a kidney transplant 13 yrs ago.... and I am 'being kept alive' by some fairly expensive medications that stop my body from rejecting the organ. Without them, I wouldn't be around.

 

So who out of you lot would make me pay for my tablets if you were in power?

 

I wouldn't, until you passed the age threshold, then you'd be fooked. But I'd imagine you'd still be grateful, afterall you will have taken far, far more from the NHS than you ever contributed if your medication is expensive as you say.

[Monk]

I wouldn't, until you passed the age threshold, then you'd be fooked. 

 

. Better start saving.

[Rincewind]

My step-dad is blind and has dementure. At the moment he is in a care home paid for mainly or partly by my brother. My mother is in her 80's and could not cope with the caring ang longer and before he went to the home the family were discussing the options. The money aspect did not come into it. As I am in Leicester I was not involved but my older brother is a clear and level-headed thinker who considers every aspect before taking an action so I trust his judgement.

Not good to see SD in home but he has a little quality of life. Sthan others.

[Rincewind]

. Better start saving.

If you were a Forest supporter you would be fooked.

[theessexfox]

if he is past the cut off point then you have two choices:

 

1) you apply a strict blanket cut off point and so the professors health deteriorates (not necessarily, of course, but I assume that's what you're getting at) and eventually he dies and the world misses out on the knowledge he may have contributed had he have been kept alive.

 

2) you keep him alive on the basis that he may potentially contribute something of enough value to justify the cost of keeping him alive, in doing so setting a difficult precedent and opening up the question of who is kept alive and who isn't.

 

Personally I'd choose option 1. Such examples will be extremely rare. Going down the 2nd path opens up a huge grey area which would in all likelihood negate the benefits of the approach. So effectively you're choosing between a cut off point or no cut off point. If you choose no cut off point, the professor will be kept alive, but eventually the increased cost will mean we are no longer able to afford to produce any more professors.

Personally I doubt you'll have the same opinion when you're 80.

[Charl91]

So in that case - what about the inverse. If we pay all this money towards the NHS and never use it, do we get this money back? Why should healthy people that don't use the NHS subsidise unhealthy/ill people?

 

If we're going down this route, we may as well just privatise the whole thing.

[MooseBreath]

So in that case - what about the inverse. If we pay all this money towards the NHS and never use it, do we get this money back? Why should healthy people that don't use the NHS subsidise unhealthy/ill people?

 

If we're going down this route, we may as well just privatise the whole thing.

 

Difficult because you'll always get feckless and irresponsible people not taking out health insurance and then no-one really wanting to see someone die "just because they can't afford to get help". It's one of those things where the middle ground stands with the lefties and no amount of "it's their own ****ing fault" will ever get through.

 

Also you have to consider people with known medical conditions like Monk. I'd imagine his insurance would cost a fortune which isn't really fair to him and people like him who were simply unlucky enough to be born with or develop a condition which requires expensive treatment.

 

I do think privatising some routine healthcare, in a similar way to dentistry, is a possible way forward though. Also making people pay for treatment where they have been previously warned to stop doing something, ie smoking, may be possible.

[davieG]

How much seemingly "unnecessary" cosmetic surgery is now done on the NHS?

[leicsmac]

I've thought all along that you cannot put a monetary price on the life or health of a human being, and to do so is pretty damn depraved. One of the many reasons why I dislike the US healthcare system immensely and adore the NHS. 

 

Guess it's a different ideology to others on here, but human life (along with education and the acquisition of knowledge) is something beyond material cost IMO.

 

But then in this day and age we're all subject to the whys and wherefores of Finance and material wealth grants power, so what the hell do I know eh? 

[MooseBreath]

I've thought all along that you cannot put a monetary price on the life or health of a human being, and to do so is pretty damn depraved. One of the many reasons why I dislike the US healthcare system immensely and adore the NHS. 

 

Guess it's a different ideology to others on here, but human life (along with education and the acquisition of knowledge) is something beyond material cost IMO.

 

But then in this day and age we're all subject to the whys and wherefores of Finance and material wealth grants power, so what the hell do I know eh? 

 

Money aint no thing, 'til you really got no ting, and then it really is something, because aint nobody doing something for nothing.

 

The left: dreams, whimsy, fanciful, unrealistic, one-dimensional arguments, criticism of others, no original ideas, no action, nothing achieved, far from perfect

 

The right: stoic, considered, realistic, multi-dimensional arguments, constructive criticism and support, produce ideas, action, something achieved, closer to perfect

[Monk]

So in that case - what about the inverse. If we pay all this money towards the NHS and never use it, do we get this money back? Why should healthy people that don't use the NHS subsidise unhealthy/ill people?

 

If we're going down this route, we may as well just privatise the whole thing.

 

So I guess you want a rebate from the fire department too, because your house didn't burn down, and a road rebate because you didn't drive your car on every road the government built.

[leicsmac]

Money aint no thing, 'til you really got no ting, and then it really is something, because aint nobody doing something for nothing.

 

The left: dreams, whimsy, fanciful, unrealistic, one-dimensional arguments, criticism of others, no original ideas, no action, nothing achieved, far from perfect

 

The right: stoic, considered, realistic, multi-dimensional arguments, constructive criticism and support, produce ideas, action, something achieved, closer to perfect

 

The left: imaginative, creative, capable of thinking of original solutions, carefully critical, tolerant.

 

The right: stolid, unimaginative, steeped in tradition, harshly critical, intolerant.

 

Amazing how opinions can differ, isn't it?

 

But there's some good stuff on both sides, as we've pointed out here. Those on the right are often determined, well-grounded, and much better at getting things done. Once the left has imagined something, the right often then goes ahead and makes it and makes it work well. So both sides need each other in that respect really.

 

But back to the original matter - I'm aware that money and material wealth make the world go round these days, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

Edit: As an aside, I don't have a problem with hardcore right-wingers as a whole. Like I said, they're honest, hardworking and damn loyal friends. Hardcore authoritarians, both right and left wing, cause me more grief.

[Charl91]

So I guess you want a rebate from the fire department too, because your house didn't burn down, and a road rebate because you didn't drive your car on every road the government built.

 

If they're going reach a point where they say "you're too old for us to put out your fire" then you're damn right I would.

 

If we're going by the logic that people shouldn't have to subsidise old people because they're ill more/need more medication, then surely by that same logic it's only fair if healthy people don't have to subsidise those who are ill more often, regardless of age? The problem is where you draw the line. You either have to privatise all of it or none of it. You can't really do it half-heartedly.

 

I'm also very sceptical of people who define themselves as "left-wing" or "right-wing".

[Houdini Logic]

Money aint no thing, 'til you really got no ting, and then it really is something, because aint nobody doing something for nothing.

 

The left: dreams, whimsy, fanciful, unrealistic, one-dimensional arguments, criticism of others, no original ideas, no action, nothing achieved, far from perfect

 

The right: stoic, considered, realistic, multi-dimensional arguments, constructive criticism and support, produce ideas, action, something achieved, closer to perfect

 

You dress this up as a left and right wing debate when actually every right wing person I know would be embarrassed by what you're saying and they'd hate you to be associated with them.

 

They'd more than likely offer up suggestions like outsourcing the NHS to private firms to reduce costs or raising taxes to a standard limit all round, but they certainly wouldn't say let people die if they can't afford to pay!

To be a good troll it helps if you're not clueless

[Rincewind]

Why do things have to be left and right? I see myself as neither. If I see things as unfair is it wrong and extremist?

Is it wrong to have a broad mind and try and see things from different viewpoints? Categorizing seems an easy way to justifying a viewpoint with little substance. 'I am right because to think different is being a Leftie' seems to be what some are saying. Maybe it is just trolling and I take them as a serious post which sometimes I cannot believe they are.

[MooseBreath]

You dress this up as a left and right wing debate when actually every right wing person I know would be embarrassed by what you're saying and they'd hate you to be associated with them.

They'd more than likely offer up suggestions like outsourcing the NHS to private firms to reduce costs or raising taxes to a standard limit all round, but they certainly wouldn't say let people die if they can't afford to pay!

To be a good troll it helps if you're not clueless

You seem very angry at me for some reason. You've called me a twat, an embarrassment and clueless among others, while I have simply been cheerfully debating the issue.

But it's good to see you've finally grasped the problem. Took a while, but we got there in the end. You've even offered some suggestions on how it might be resolved! Spectacular.

Privatising the NHS is certainly one way of dealing with it, but doesn't help anyone who can't afford to pay. Raising taxes helps until you need to raise then again and then again and again and again until you've got nowhere left to go. I feel like I've made this point about a dozen times already in this thread. Just because you find it easier to ignore something, doesn't mean it's not going to happen.

[Guest]

all patients young or old should have the choice.

 

There are a lot of people who don't wish to continue with the pain or the uselessness and realise that it's very draining on family in numerous ways. I may be helping an assisted suicide in the near future and I will without qualms. 

[Guest MattP]

all patients young or old should have the choice.

 

There are a lot of people who don't wish to continue with the pain or the uselessness and realise that it's very draining on family in numerous ways. I may be helping an assisted suicide in the near future and I will without qualms. 

 

Of a young person?

 

If you help a young person with no medical issues die you are nothing more than a cold blooded murderer.

[Houdini Logic]

You seem very angry at me for some reason. You've called me a twat, an embarrassment and clueless among others, while I have simply been cheerfully debating the issue.

But it's good to see you've finally grasped the problem. Took a while, but we got there in the end. You've even offered some suggestions on how it might be resolved! Spectacular.

Privatising the NHS is certainly one way of dealing with it, but doesn't help anyone who can't afford to pay. Raising taxes helps until you need to raise then again and then again and again and again until you've got nowhere left to go. I feel like I've made this point about a dozen times already in this thread. Just because you find it easier to ignore something, doesn't mean it's not going to happen.

 

I'm sure it was a c*nt but twat will also do it.

I'm not angry but it's hard to sometimes keep to clean language when dealing with someone with such a lack of empathy and common sense.

I haven't recognised the problem because you haven't showed me any figures, but there's only so many times you can bang your head against a wall before you have to change tact.

And privatising the NHS is not the same as outsourcing to private companies whilst still having a free NHS. I'd have thought as a staunch 'righty' you would have known that but I should have known.

So let's get back to your one track mind and settle our differences - you say there is a financial problem and it's unsubstainable, so that leaves us with the choice of finding more money or treating less patients.

You would like to treat less patients by only allowing people who can afford treatment to pay for themselves after a certain age and I think I'd like to find more money, maybe as an example by chasing the companies that avoid tax (the amount of tax lost through tax avoidance could pay for 2/3rds of the entire yearly NHS bill). sorted.

[Guest]

Of a young person?

 

If you help a young person with no medical issues die you are nothing more than a cold blooded murderer.

 

Not a young person and obviously someone with medical issues.

 

I'm not sure why you came to that conclusion but then again I admit I haven't read the whole thread.

 

It started as a discussion on the right to die/assisted suicide, then became a crapfest about cost of keeping people alive - maybe it moved onto young suicides and I didn't get that far.

[MooseBreath]

@hoodeini fair enough. I did link you to a reputable source as you well know. There's no point in trying to deny that fact, because the proof is right here on this thread, making you look like a bit of an idiot to be honest.

I understand your point. You think it's fine to kick the can down the road and just assume an unlimited source of money will appear out of nowhere just in time to pay for everything.

I prefer my plans a little more based on reality.

[Captain...]

You dress this up as a left and right wing debate when actually every right wing person I know would be embarrassed by what you're saying and they'd hate you to be associated with them.

To be a good troll it helps if you're not clueless

 

He dresses everything up as a left and right debate, as he believes he is the right and everyone else who disagrees with him is the opposite of right, he doesn't really understand the difference between left and right, or that there are more than 2 political positions and uncountable variations within them, so don't worry too much about it. When ever he talks about right and left, what he means is right and wrong, in that everything he says is right (even when he expresses leftist ideas) and any other differing opinion is wrong. It is quite boring debating with him, so most people just don't bother any more.

[Charl91]

@hoodeini fair enough. I did link you to a reputable source as you well know. There's no point in trying to deny that fact, because the proof is right here on this thread, making you look like a bit of an idiot to be honest.

I understand your point. You think it's fine to kick the can down the road and just assume an unlimited source of money will appear out of nowhere just in time to pay for everything.

I prefer my plans a little more based on reality.

 

You haven't linked to any useful figures though. All you linked too is something which shows that old people cost more in medication, which is obvious any way. What you haven't done is shown that this is extra cost is unsupportable, which is what you seem to be claiming.

 

Come back when you've proved that there is a problem, and then we might be able to give you a solution.