Old age and nhs

[matacaster]

Sadly, even If all of the country's income was spent on the NHS, people would still die eventually. The medical profession has a relentless goal of extending life expectancy even when many of those people will be in a care homes with dementia. When the planet is overpopulated does it really make sense to attempt to prolong life even further. The synic in me notes that if they are still alive they stay on the Gp's roll. By the way I am past retirement age and would much rather end it all quickly than get latter stages of Alzheimer's.

 

[Darandio]

It's not entirely clear what you are suggesting but i'll give my views anyway.

Increased spending on the NHS doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with older age, at least not initially. Lack of spending (or more importantly not spending it correctly) results in premature and unneccessary death and we are going to see this in huge numbers over the next few years as the cost of protecting the NHS by shutting down even the basic of treatable conditions becomes more clear. Obviously with increased spending and improving the overall health of the nation this is going to increase the burden further down the line with increased life expectancy and more older folk but we certainly shouldn't base how the health service is funded purely on this.

 

[najaB]

Sadly, even If all of the country's income was spent on the NHS, people would still die eventually.

Yes. Everyone who lives will die. However spending on the NHS (or any health spending) is intended to ensure that people have the greatest number of quality days before they die, not just to extend life at all costs.

 

[matacaster]

Yes. Everyone who lives will die. However spending on the NHS (or any health spending) is intended to ensure that people have the greatest number of quality days before they die, not just to extend life at all costs.

I agree with that, it's just there seem to be large numbers of people who don't have any prospect of quality days, others who would quite like to die (relatives /friends dead, or don't visit). Suggest a visit to a nursing care home - full of zombies, I'd much rather die.

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree with that, it's just there seem to be large numbers of people who don't have any prospect of quality days, others who would quite like to die (relatives /friends dead, or don't visit). Suggest a visit to a nursing care home - full of zombies, I'd much rather die.

That’s your choice. You don’t have the right to extend your choice to other people by default.

 

[najaB]

I agree with that, it's just there seem to be large numbers of people who don't have any prospect of quality days, others who would quite like to die (relatives /friends dead, or don't visit). Suggest a visit to a nursing care home - full of zombies, I'd much rather die.

Then hope that our elected officials stop hindering the passage of right to die legislation.

 

[edwin_m]

NICE, which judges whether the NHS should adopt new drugs and procedures, uses the concept of Quality Adjusted Life Years. So a treatment is more likely to be made available if it allows people to enjoy life for longer than if the people live longer but don't have much "quality of life".

 

[hst43102]

Then hope that our elected officials stop hindering the passage of right to die legislation.

I don't think that is needed in most cases - there just needs to be right to refuse ongoing treatment.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think that is needed in most cases - there just needs to be right to refuse ongoing treatment.

There is already. Nobody should be treated without their consent, and people can make their wishes known if they don't want to be resuscitated in the event of being unconscious.

 

[gg1]

There is already. Nobody should be treated without their consent, and people can make their wishes known if they don't want to be resuscitated in the event of being unconscious.

Not the same as a 'right to die' though.

Yes you can refuse treatment but that still means surviving weeks or months beyond that point, quite possibly in severe pain and with no meaningful quality of life. If a terminally ill person of sound mind has made the decision that they would like their life to end, dragging the process out for weeks or months until they eventually die of natural causes is unnecessarily cruel.

 

[Strathclyder]

Then hope that our elected officials stop hindering the passage of right to die legislation.

The fact that such legislation still hasn't been passed simultaneously baffles, enrages and sickens me, @gg1's post above mine neatly outlines one major reason why.

If a terminally ill person of sound mind has made their mind up and has made it crystal clear that they want their life to end on their own terms, their request should be honoured. Period. It's their life, their body and their choice. Letting nature do the job over the course of weeks or even months in such cases is not only cruel, but inhumane.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Right to die, has often been twisted into a pure romantic vision where everyone dies with dignity.
But be warned, some will tell their old parents that they are too much a burden on their kid's lives and finances, and make them feel guilty for living as long a life as they can.
I was of "sound mind" when I was younger, I was suicidal, I was stopped, I tried many times again and failed, I used to think I a coward for not going all the way.. Now I know what was in the future and I will never be like that again.
No one with a hospital diagnosis is going to see any potential for anything, and the slippery slope will inevitably lead to child "euthanasia" like that occurring in the Netherlands.

I agree with that, it's just there seem to be large numbers of people who don't have any prospect of quality days, others who would quite like to die (relatives /friends dead, or don't visit). Suggest a visit to a nursing care home - full of zombies, I'd much rather die.

Those "zombies" are decent people who can't cope at their home, care homes are a good thing except in a minority of cases seen on the news, it may be sad to lose independence, in some ways the same as when someone goes blind and needs assistance, but we should do everything we can to help others live.

 

[david1212]

The fact that such legislation still hasn't been passed simultaneously baffles, enrages and sickens me, @gg1's post above mine neatly outlines one major reason why.

If a terminally ill person of sound mind has made their mind up and has made it crystal clear that they want their life to end on their own terms, their request should be honoured. Period. It's their life, their body and their choice. Letting nature do the job over the course of weeks or even months in such cases is not only cruel, but inhumane.

That is my view. It is considered cruel to keep an animal alive yet for a human all that can be done is withdrawing treatment and administering pain killers and sedatives.

Once I do not have what I consider to be a reasonable quality of life I would like to be able to have my life terminated.

Right now I wish I could complete a questionnaire. In the future this could be referred to. It would include allowing a period for recovery after illness but after then if the criteria I class as required for reasonable quality of life were not met that would trigger termination.

Further I would prefer for my capital to go to my nominated beneficiaries not swallowed up in care costs and for the care facilities to be available for those with better prospects of recovery or have chosen for their life to be as long as possible regardless of the mental and physical condition.

 

[AlterEgo]

That is my view. It is considered cruel to keep an animal alive yet for a human all that can be done is withdrawing treatment and administering pain killers and sedatives.

This is because of the philosophical belief that animal lives are worth less than human ones. “Cruelty” is philosophical cope for simply accepting that some lives are worth less than others.