If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Socialized medicine and "universal" (?) access in the UK
We have already heard about smokers and the obese not having access by
the NHS to some procedures and now this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../14/nold14.xml Shock as doctors admit to ageism By Celia Hall, Medical Editor Last Updated: 2:42am GMT 14/02/2007 # Your view: Are the elderly less deserving of the best medical care than others? Doctors in Britain regularly discriminate against older patients by denying them tests and treatments they offer to younger people, research shows today. GPs, heart specialists and doctors who care for the elderly were all found to be influenced by a patient's age when making their recommendations -and older doctors were more likely to discriminate than younger doctors. An eldely couple, age discrimination in NHS Older patients are less likely to be referred to a cardiologist and given heart treatments than patients under 65 The study in Quality and Safety in Health Care, a specialist publication from the British Medical Journal, found that half of doctors in each of the professional groups treated elderly patients differently. The researchers compared the responses of doctors to people aged under 65 and over 65. They pointed out that 65 was no longer regarded as being particularly old in British society. Prof Ann Bowling, of the department of psychology, at University College London, led the study. She said: "Resources are limited and doctors have to make difficult decisions. Maybe they have run out of options and are using age as an excuse. "When we spoke to the doctors they were quite ready to justify their reasons. They may see older people as less deserving," she said. In the study 85 doctors agreed to "examine" 72 fictional patients with possible angina, aged between 45 and 92, using a website. Histories of the patients and their pictures were produced, allowing the doctors to gather information. All the doctors agreed to behave as they would with a real patient. advertisement Results showed that older patients were less likely to be referred to a cardiologist, given an angiogram [artery scan] or given a heart stress test than patients under 65. Cardiologists were also less likely to recommend operations to open up blocked coronary arteries for older patients, and they were less likely to be prescribed statins to reduce cholesterol. They were, however, more likely to be offered a follow-up appointment and more likely to have existing drugs reviewed. Although one doctor said he believed he treated all his patients as individuals, he added. "I don't think by-pass surgery in an 87 year old is in their best interests". Another said: "If they are in their 90s with chest pain and angina, I might be less likely to refer". A third commented "They wouldn't want an angiogram if they were over 70". The researchers found that those doctors who were influenced by age were on average five years older than those who were not. Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the head of science and ethics at the British Medical Association, said they were in the process of producing their own information for doctors on age discrimination, as they had with race and gender discrimination. "Research like this is very useful in helping us to inspect our attitudes and the subtle patterns of locked-in behaviour that doctors may not be aware of," she said. There could be good reasons why a doctor would not subject an elderly person to tests or treatments, she said. "A doctor needs to know that if they do a test and it is positive that they can then do something to help. We would not subject anybody to a test needlessly. "But to deny a person tests just because of age is unfair and wrong. Decisions should be made for clinical reasons. "There is research that shows that older people actually do better with some high-risk procedures, and more research now includes people over 65." Commenting on the finding that older doctors might be more discriminatory, she said that they may be working from the premise that it would be wrong to offer a test or treatment that had not been tested on older people. Dr Lorna Layward, a research manager for Help the Aged, said: "It is shocking that such blatant age discrimination exists in GP practices today. A person's age should never be used as a factor to determine treatment. "What a backward system to suggest that people are prioritised solely on the basis of their age, when a 65-year-old may actually be in better health than a 45-year-old. What is far more alarming is the fact that little is actually known about the appropriateness of many treatments for older people. "Many older people have been paying into the NHS since its inception and believed they would be looked after from cradle to grave, but all this does is help see them into an early grave." Gordon Lishman, the director-general of Age Concern, said: "This is further shocking evidence that age discrimination in the NHS is still rife. "It is heart-breaking that even though the NHS acknowledged this problem over five years ago, it has failed to rid itself of ageist attitudes, even in the treatment of serious conditions such as angina. "Not only are older people denied NHS services because of ageist attitudes, but also because of current blatant ageist policies. "For example, it is particularly perverse that as the risk of breast cancer increases with age, invitations to breast screening for women stop at 70. "People are also often denied mental health services on the basis of their age, and one in six over-65s says they have been discriminated against in health care or health insurance because of their age. "The NHS needs to address ageist attitudes. We call on the Government to adopt a duty on all public services to promote age equality which already exists for race and gender," he said. Related articles Leader: Too old to be treated? Agonising death at care home with 999 ban This is how NHS cash crisis is biting 10 November 2006: Patients face service cuts as NHS debt hits £1.2bn 28 March 2006: Pledge to ensure dignified treatment for elderly in hospital 9 December 2005: NHS may not treat smokers, drinkers or obese 25 May 2005: Older people 'left to die without help or dignity' 6 May 2005: Plan to bias NHS treatment against the elderly 14 September 2004[Health]: Screening must not be stopped External links British Medical Association Help the Aged Age Concern |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Socialized medicine and "universal" (?) access in the UK
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Socialized medicine and "universal" (?) access in the UK
"PJ O'Donovan" wrote in message oups.com... (snipped) We have already heard about smokers and the obese not having access by the NHS to some procedures and now this: I wonder why anyone would take all the trouble to gather statistics to come to a conclusion what common sense tells you anyway and has always been practiced. Seems to me a lot of 'research' money was badly spent. And also, why should obese and smokers get free medical attention. They are self inflicted wounds. These are the very people who absorb the time and skills of doctors in a once workable system for treating real medical illnesses. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Socialized medicine and "universal" (?) access in the UK
"Mike O'Sullivan" wrote in message
... wrote: "Pajamas O'Donovan" wrote in message news: ... We have already heard about smokers and the obese not having access by the NHS to some procedures and now this: snip January 27, 2007 By Justin Webb BBC, Washington Senator Barack Obama, an early frontrunner in the 2008 presidential race, advocates something the US has never had - universal health care, but just how bad a state is America's health care service really in? A good opportunity for the US to have a nationwide referendum on whether the nation would like a universal healthcare system, free at the point of use. I wonder how many voters would say no! No one has ever lost money betting on the stupidity of voters of any country. Planet Visitor II Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Socialized medicine and "universal" (?) access in the UK
Mike O'Sullivan wrote: wrote: "Pajamas O'Donovan" wrote in message news: ... We have already heard about smokers and the obese not having access by the NHS to some procedures and now this: snip January 27, 2007 By Justin Webb BBC, Washington Senator Barack Obama, an early frontrunner in the 2008 presidential race, advocates something the US has never had - universal health care, but just how bad a state is America's health care service really in? A good opportunity for the US to have a nationwide referendum on whether the nation would like a universal healthcare system, free at the point of use. I wonder how many voters would say no! There is no legal way to have a national referendum in the United States. I suspect that some people would vote against it because they'd know that nothing is free, it all has to be paid for. -- Bush say global warm-warm not real Even though ice gone and no seals Polar bears can't find their meals Grow as thin as Ally McBeals |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Socialized medicine and "universal" (?) access in the UK
Senator Barack Obama, an early frontrunner in the 2008 presidential
race, advocates something the US has never had - universal health care, but just how bad a state is America's health care service really in? A good opportunity for the US to have a nationwide referendum on whether the nation would like a universal healthcare system, free at the point of use. I wonder how many voters would say no! Universal Health Care would be the quickest way to turn medical care in the US into that of a 2nd world nation. Read the HillaryCare proposal and decide if that is how you want your health care to be delivered. Pay particular attention to the mandatory participation clause. Which only has exemptions for Congress, their families, and congressional staff. The select group who will continue to enjoy the best medical care that tax dollars can provide. Whatever health care is enacted by congress, remember that those responsible will not have to personally experience the results. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Socialized medicine and "universal" (?) access in the UK
And this doesn't happen in marketised medicine?
On 14 Feb 2007 04:18:13 -0800, "PJ O'Donovan" wrote: We have already heard about smokers and the obese not having access by the NHS to some procedures and now this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...YWX5IXHQFIQMF= CFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=3D/news/2007/02/14/nold14.xml Shock as doctors admit to ageism |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Socialized medicine and "universal" (?) access in the UK
Patrick Wallace wrote: And this doesn't happen in marketised medicine? If you have good insurance, you are likely to have a lot of access irrespective age. On 14 Feb 2007 04:18:13 -0800, "PJ O'Donovan" wrote: We have already heard about smokers and the obese not having access by the NHS to some procedures and now this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...YWX5IXHQFIQMF= CFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=3D/news/2007/02/14/nold14.xml Shock as doctors admit to ageism -- Bush say global warm-warm not real Even though ice gone and no seals Polar bears can't find their meals Grow as thin as Ally McBeals |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Socialized medicine and "universal" (?) access in the UK
On Feb 16, 3:00 pm, "Don't Wait Up" wrote:
Senator Barack Obama, an early frontrunner in the 2008 presidential race, advocates something the US has never had - universal health care, but just how bad a state is America's health care service really in? A good opportunity for the US to have a nationwide referendum on whether the nation would like a universal healthcare system, free at the point of use. I wonder how many voters would say no! Universal Health Care would be the quickest way to turn medical care in the US into that of a 2nd world nation. Got news for you the US already has 2nd world health care, even Cuba does a better job in providing health care to its citizens. With about 50 million Americans uninsured, America still spends the highest percent of GDP on health care, over 13% of any western country, compared to 8% of GDP for countries like Australia that has universal health care. And health care cost is so expensive that American car companies can no longer compete with Japanese companies that don't pay for private health care for employees. So you can keep your failed system, just pray you don't lose your job and get sick. Read the HillaryCare proposal and decide if that is how you want your health care to be delivered. Pay particular attention to the mandatory participation clause. Which only has exemptions for Congress, their families, and congressional staff. The select group who will continue to enjoy the best medical care that tax dollars can provide. Whatever health care is enacted by congress, remember that those responsible will not have to personally experience the results. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Do You Prefer To Say: "Merry Christmas"?, "Workers Of The World Unite?" Or "Allah Akbar"? | Sound of Trumpet | Air travel | 2 | December 23rd, 2006 09:17 PM |
Seeking "Business Associates" / "Technology Partners" / "IT Experts" | websworldpartner | Asia | 0 | June 9th, 2006 07:45 AM |
Cruise Insurance: "Access America" Annual Policy vs "Travel Guard" Trip Policy | Reef Fish | Cruises | 11 | May 7th, 2006 03:18 AM |
urgent - need info - "Anywhere" wireless internet access (EDGE/ GPRS coverage) | [email protected] | Cruises | 8 | February 16th, 2006 03:24 AM |