Unfortunately, drugs and treatment cost money, which is why people with lots of money can afford private healthcare and people with high IQs/brown hair can't, necessarily. So no, it's not the same as only treating intelligent people, or those with a particular physical trait.

On a wider scale, pretty much everything in the world revolves in some way around money, so to say that wealth is an "arbitrary" way to decide who to give better service to is not true. Everyone wants it, and so the people who have it are always likely to get better looked after. It's certainly not fair, but it's the way of the world.

But wealth is arbitrary, it is a social construct. A particularly tenacious social construct, but one nonetheless - it's only valuable because we take part in the mass illusion that says it is. In a society where resources were distributed based on intelligence then it would be intelligence that was rewarded, which was my point. At the end of the day, just because something is the case does not mean that it should be the case, nor that anyone should accept it.

But you are born with intelligence, so that would be harsh on those born stupid.

Moving on,
86 yr old gets marked down (and I thought they loved old people )



and they don't like it up em:

But perhaps the drugs aren't available on the NHS? Nobody benefits there surely?

And without wanting to go into a massive discussion about the basis of modern society, wealth isn't entirely 'arbitary'. It's not like private hospitals prefer people with money, it's that they need money to go about their functions and make a profit just like a restaurant does. Why does being wealthy entitle you to a better standard of cooking? Money is something we exchange for goods and services and private hospitals provide goods and services. People with money (let's exclude the tax evaders) pay more than their fair share into the NHS and then take the burden off the NHS by paying again to get their mole seen to or whatever.

Can't believe what I am reading

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l#comments



116 people gave this a smackdown!

and the best way of marking future wealth is still the amount of money your parents earn. we don't live in a meritocracy.

i don't want to divert the point of this thread so i'll stop now. suffice to say it's a complex issue that deserves a thorough treatment elsewhere.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163805/80-lawyers-refused-help-save-Baby-OT-leaving-parents-fend-themselves.html

They are absolutely straining to imply that the medical profession and legal system have done something wrong here, despite the fact they can't find anyone except the parents who disagree with the ruling. They give the parents viewpoint equal weight - which is how I think people on the messageboard end up thinking it's an either/or when it's not. They append the story with an interview with Charlotte Wyatt's father who says things like "She gives every impression of being a very happy, lovely little girl." which are meant to be an argument for keeping OT alive, but to me imply that she is so profoundly disabled that you can at best gain only an impression of what her state of mind might be.

The trouble with all targets is the way they get interpreted, because people will always go for a quick fix if it's a target that's difficult or impossible to attain. In the case of this one, NHS trusts meet the target by appointing triage nurses, who have a quick look at the patient and, unless s/he is showing imminent signs of pegging out, ticks a box showing they've seen them and sends them back into the queue. Therefore the trust demonstrates that everyone has been seen, but in fact no-one has done anything which is actually helpful to the patient.

I had a demonstration of this culture at its worst with a friend who had pancreatic cancer. He was referred to a specialist hospital, and went for his first appointment there full of hope that this was the beginning of active treatment. The process of travel and waiting took altogether several hours for an appointment which lasted all of 10 minutes, during which in essence he was told what he already knew, i.e. that he'd got cancer, and that another appointment would be made for him. He realised that the whole purpose of an exercise was simply so that that NHS trust could say it had met its target for seeing cancer patients. I have always been absolutely disgusted that such a cynical exercise took a day out of the life of someone who, as demonstrated by subsequent events, only had 4 months of life left.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... elves.html

That headline is incredibly misleading, implying in the usual DM way that uncaring fat cat lawyers wouldn't lift a finger to help. The content of the article is better, and for once makes the useful point that legal aid lawyers are an ever diminishing species due to government cuts and appallingly low pay, though I'm sure that's going to leave the average DM reader and commentator totally bemused. However, I very much doubt that the report is accurate anyway, as this type of case is very specialised and there certainly aren't 80 separate firms who deal with this area of the law. Therefore I suspect that what actually happened was that these parents initially tried a number of firms who correctly refused them because they did not have the necessary expertise or did not have the requisite legal aid contract - but of course that doesn't make such a good story.

Another problem with this is that, when patients have been in A&E for four hours they then have to be moved on- ie discharged or admitted- whether they're ready or not. This isn't a problem in most cases but there are rare occasions that it causes some bother.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... -year.html









Yep, its a massive conspiracy by nurses, doctors and other health professionals to murder tory voters.

Having worked on wards in the past, my experience is that a great many elderly patients actually choose to go without food and water. I witnessed this upsetting occurance numerous times where no matter how much the staff and family tried, the patient obviuosly had 'given up', and simply wasted away before our eyes. There is only so much you can do for a person so determined to end their life in such a way and for the Mail to insinute that all of the cases are the result of neglect is disgraceful.

Particulaly considering the Mails unwavering stance with regards to euthanasia.

Some of the mistakes in hospitals do begger belief though. A chap i talk to at the gym recently lost his brother. He was morbidly obese and had to have a operation to remove part of his bowl. The operation was a success but the chap died due to an infection caused by him being placed in a totally unsuitable bed for his weight, resulting in the stitches from the operation failing.

This should not be happening in a G20 country in 2009

Of course this problem could be solved if we all paid more tax in order to properly fund the NHS. What do you think the Mail readers will think of my suggestion?

Well its not occupied by Nazis for starters.

Third World? THIRD WORLD that's insult to injury, to real third world countries. We have it amazingly good over here compared to most countries. The ungrateful gits.