Rincewind Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 Who would decide the ones to live and the ones to die? What criteria? Illness? smoker? Drinker? Blue eyes? Blonde hair? loyalty to the Furer?
MooseBreath Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 Who would decide the ones to live and the ones to die? What criteria? Illness? smoker? Drinker? Blue eyes? Blonde hair? loyalty to the Furer? If you're asking this question in response to my proposal, you're clearly not understanding the proposal. I can't explain it in simpler terms than I have already, sorry.
ADK Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 Interesting topic. I believe we need to fundamentaly shift our focus in medical research away from prolonging life and towards prolonging capability. What i mean is instead of trying to prolong an elderly persons life who his severely physically and mentally disabled we ought to be doing more to stop those conditions setting in. I don't think it is sustainable at the moment because the elderly population just gets larger and larger and soaks up more and more money. If people were able to work longer though then it wouldn't be a problem.
notnow john Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 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, I'll miss you but you deserve better!
Rincewind Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 If you're asking this question in response to my proposal, you're clearly not understanding the proposal. I can't explain it in simpler terms than I have already, sorry. The questions were more as the whole concept of deciding who is worth sabving and who is not. I don't have the answer but if you start on the road of saying this or that person has not paid enough so has less right where will it lead? In a way I am thankful I won't be around in 50 years or so when these sort of decisions may have to be made. But you never know I may make 110.
Parafox Posted 22 May 2013 Author Posted 22 May 2013 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. I think this is the crux of the matter. When do we stop paying for ANYTHING REQUIRED? Maybe life should be naturally terminal. Again, can I re-iterate I'm neither for nor against. Nor is it about those with terminal ilnesses. I just don't think we can sustain the ever increasing burden of medicating society to live longer.
Jon the Hat Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 We are all going to die. Antibiotics and vaccinations are putting off the inevitable. Scrap the nhs.
Monk Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 The NHS is going to be a seriously contentious issue for future governments, and politically speaking it is a minefield for any PM to even entertain the idea of paid public healthcare. Realistically you cannot segregate by age alone - why should a healthy 98 year old be refused care over a 28 year old who has destroyed their body through drugs, drink etc. Deciding if one person is more deserving of public healthcare than the next is not anything I think we are going to see any time soon. However, something has to give due to a larger and ageing population. Personally I think the answer is in better preventative healthcare - particularly for cancer and other treatments.
Rincewind Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 There will always be those that will give care irrespective of the lifestyle of the one they are treating so if the care is removed officially there will be an underground network of doctors etc. As the OP said there is no right or wrong answer. Another question, if Man did not have the capability to think, reason and a curiosity to advance would we have survived as a race n the past without the advancement in medicine? There could be a catastrophic disaster within the next 50 years wiping out half the worlds population. Could be a war or weather related. Things seem to balance of it's own accord.
Houdini Logic Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 We should always strive to keep people alive as long as we can and as long as it's fair on them, noone has the right to choose who lives and dies (and I'm not religious). What sort of third world country do you think we live in? If it's a financial issue (and I don't think it is) then put up my taxes - I'll happily pay
Finnegan Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 No government in this country is ever going to say "you're too old for state care, sort yourself." Anyone that thinks that's likely or viable is a complete ****ing moron. For a start, the elderly vote, and most politicians actually want to be elected. For seconds, most of us actually hope to at some point BE elderly, the political elite included. You can't mess with the oldest or youngest in society, period.
Manwell Pablo Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 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. A new TV lol. I think you've woefully underestimated the cost of keeping someone alive for "a few years" there. More than happy for the NHS to refuse to treat me for illness's caused by drinking and smoking the minute the Governmant take the ridiclous tax which funds the NHS off of them both.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 Maybe if we could somehow decide what illnesses were 'worth' treating (perhaps based on the difference treatment actually makes or the quality of life that can be secured) the government could start manufacturing the drugs for these things themselves and sell them to the NHS at cost rather than the extortionate mark ups charged by drug companies. There would still be an incentive for drug companies to carry out R&D because if there would be a private market alongside the NHS and if they were able to improve their products to the benchmark level the government would buy the intellectual property from them at an independently determined 'fair' price. Might help us to get costs under a bit more control but even under a system like this they would inevitably spiral, just at a slower rate. Personally I would probably be in favour of an insurance based system. Everyone loves getting stuff for free but I'm sick of people making decisions about government policies based on what they can get out of it financially. This is an issue that needs addressing, that's just the reality of living in a society with finite resources and an ageing population. We've got no chance though. If the politicians haven't even got the bottle to properly debate relatively trivial issues like extra airport capacity until they have secured a second term there is literally zero hope of anything this controversial ever getting any attention, no matter how important it is.
Wymsey Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 I asked myself Step-Father (who's a Pharmacist) this initial question, and he replied ''Ridiculous question''.
MooseBreath Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 We should always strive to keep people alive as long as we can and as long as it's fair on them, noone has the right to choose who lives and dies (and I'm not religious). What sort of third world country do you think we live in? If it's a financial issue (and I don't think it is) then put up my taxes - I'll happily pay Of course it's a financial issue. Money is scarce, the more of it you commit to keeping unproductive members of society alive for ever longer periods of time, the less you have for anything else. In order to keep up, your taxes will have to go up, and then up again and again and again until eventually, taking this through to its logical conclusion, every penny you earn will go towards keeping people alive. You will receive none of it. Society, clearly, cannot function in such a scenario, so no, you will not "happily pay" whether you like it or not.
Houdini Logic Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 Of course it's a financial issue. Money is scarce, the more of it you commit to keeping unproductive members of society alive for ever longer periods of time, the less you have for anything else. In order to keep up, your taxes will have to go up, and then up again and again and again until eventually, taking this through to its logical conclusion, every penny you earn will go towards keeping people alive. You will receive none of it. Society, clearly, cannot function in such a scenario, so no, you will not "happily pay" whether you like it or not. And so where does the 70 year old professor looking for the cure to cancer fit into this when it is decided he needs medicine to keep him in routine health?
davieG Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 There's plenty of money 'used' in the NHS for non-life threatening or non-prevention of disability and pain. Doctors should not automatically get out the prescription pad, I've been a few times to enquire about problems all I wanted to know was is it serious or will it get better on it's own only to have medicine offered which I've refused. If my body is capable of healing itself, unless it's extremely painful or debilitating I don't want to take drugs.
Houdini Logic Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 There's plenty of money 'used' in the NHS for non-life threatening or non-prevention of disability and pain. Doctors should not automatically get out the prescription pad, I've been a few times to enquire about problems all I wanted to know was is it serious or will it get better on it's own only to have medicine offered which I've refused. If my body is capable of healing itself, unless it's extremely painful or debilitating I don't want to take drugs. My experience over the last 15 years is that Doctors are actually much less likely to give prescriptions to patients, sometimes even regardless of their demands. Either way the £12 billion bill for ALL prescriptions in the UK doesn't quite match up to the £70 billion lost from tax avoidance and I know personally which one I would start by looking at
Guest BlueBrett Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 There's plenty of money 'used' in the NHS for non-life threatening or non-prevention of disability and pain. Doctors should not automatically get out the prescription pad, I've been a few times to enquire about problems all I wanted to know was is it serious or will it get better on it's own only to have medicine offered which I've refused. If my body is capable of healing itself, unless it's extremely painful or debilitating I don't want to take drugs. Non life threatening isn't even the half of it. My sister works for the NHS in an essentially bureaucratic role and you just wouldn't believe the amount of money that gets wasted on absolute nonsense. 25k on a 'staff awards' party, 1500 quid on state of the art camera equipment for PR activities (the old one could have been repaired for 50 quid), 8,000 pounds on buying every member of staff in the hospital a chocolate bar. Every time I see her she recounts a list a mile long. They are literally taking the piss. Not only that but at least half of the people in her department don't even need to be there. They just bustle about all day trying to look busy and scheduling meetings to decide what type of flowers they should get for Sharon in HR when she leaves next month. The majority of the people I am talking about are on 40k plus as well.
AdamN Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 Of course it's a financial issue. Money is scarce, the more of it you commit to keeping unproductive members of society alive for ever longer periods of time, the less you have for anything else. In order to keep up, your taxes will have to go up, and then up again and again and again until eventually, taking this through to its logical conclusion, every penny you earn will go towards keeping people alive. You will receive none of it. Society, clearly, cannot function in such a scenario, so no, you will not "happily pay" whether you like it or not. I love the way you treat life as if we're all a bunch of worker ants serving the queen. Once we're not 'useful' to society any more we might as well be dead. Such a ray of sunshine, aren't you?
MooseBreath Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 I love the way you treat life as if we're all a bunch of worker ants serving the queen. Once we're not 'useful' to society any more we might as well be dead. Such a ray of sunshine, aren't you? I didn't mention a master or any kind of hierarchyso I've no idea where you get that idea
Guest MattP Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 I think we should have a cut off point where we just put people down. Least we all know where we stand and how long we have got.
davieG Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 How long have I got then? Should I book a holiday? Get the car MOT'd? Sign up for a new phone contract? My inlaws are in their 90s and have always managed by themselves never taken a penny of benefits other than their earned pensions, rarely if every use the NHS even when ill, the old guy is still wearing glasses he bought 50 years ago. judging by some of the comments on here they should have been put down years ago.
MooseBreath Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 And so where does the 70 year old professor looking for the cure to cancer fit into this when it is decided he needs medicine to keep him in routine health? At 70 I would expect he'll be fine. I'd imagine the cut off point would be a bit older than that.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.