Universal Deathcare.

  1. So those that support Universal Healthcare and how great it is care to explain to us how it was great for Alfie Evans? Hopefully not coming soon to the America near you.
  2. Visit Kyrshamarks profile page

    About Kyrshamarks

    Joined: Oct '06; Posts: 1,188; Likes: 2,359
    from TX , US

    146 Comments

  3. by   Sour Lemon
    Quote from Kyrshamarks
    So those that support Universal Healthcare and how great it is care to explain to us how it was great for Alfie Evans? Hopefully not coming soon to the America near you.
    Actually, I think it was "great" for him. He had no quality of life and no hope of becoming well. Death is not always the worst outcome.
  4. by   Coffee Nurse
    Oh, don't even START. This had nothing to do with universal healthcare and everything to do with an utterly tragic situation with grief-stricken parents who could not accept their baby boy's reality, combined with uninformed masses seizing on one side of the story and reacting in an appalling manner. I worked in a NICU in the NHS for the past six years and we encountered several of these situations, where the humane thing to do was to let the baby go peacefully and the parents were simply unable to accept that. Money was NEVER a consideration when deciding the appropriate course of treatment, only the best interests of the baby - which, sadly, sometimes conflicted with what the parents wanted.
  5. by   Coffee Nurse
    The only way that money factors into this is that now Alfie's bereaved, early-20-something parents aren't left with thousands and thousands of pounds of medical bills, as they no doubt would have been had this occurred in the US.
  6. by   CharleeFoxtrot
    Quote from Sour Lemon
    Actually, I think it was "great" for him. He had no quality of life and no hope of becoming well. Death is not always the worst outcome.
    Every reliable medical person quoted in the media and the trial stated the child had major brain damage, zero chance for recovery and no quality of life. A patient's right to not suffer unduly should trump well-meaning but horribly misguided and frankly selfish attempts at keeping them alive. Harsh words I know, I realize I am speaking of a parent's love for their child and going against their wishes but, well zdogg puts it a better than I can. Although it's about an ACP, the bottom line is the same.

    Ain't the Way to Die | Eminem/Rihanna Remixed | ZDoggMD.com - YouTube
  7. by   CharleeFoxtrot
    Quote from Sour Lemon
    Actually, I think it was "great" for him. He had no quality of life and no hope of becoming well. Death is not always the worst outcome.
    Life in a living hell is indeed worse than death. All medical authorities agreed, this child had extensive brain damage, no chance of recovery and zero quality of life. I grieve for the parents, but when treatment does nothing but prolong pain we must advocate for our patients. Guilt and magical thinking are no way to make a medical decision.

    zZdogg says it so much better than I can.

    Ain't the Way to Die | Eminem/Rihanna Remixed | ZDoggMD.com - YouTube
  8. by   Jedrnurse
    No matter what the details of this story or your particular position on the topic, are you sure that using any specific example is best for your argument? I'm sure that people could (and probably have) written entire books about how our current healthcare payer/delivery system has hurt people.

    Along with specific examples.

    Does that make them right?
  9. by   MunoRN
    Quote from Kyrshamarks
    So those that support Universal Healthcare and how great it is care to explain to us how it was great for Alfie Evans? Hopefully not coming soon to the America near you.
    That's a pretty bold claim to make without including any sort of explanation of how you came to that conclusion.

    Alfie Evans had a terminal and untreatable neurologic condition that has left him in a semi-vegetative state for the last year and half. It was basic ethics and a legal system that defends the defenseless from ongoing torture that helped put an end to the continued inhumane treatment he was being subjected to, why are you opposed to that?
  10. by   TruvyNurse
    Oh boy..I had a feeling we'd be seeing a post or two of this nature..
  11. by   cleback
    Quote from Jedrnurse
    No matter what the details of this story or your particular position on the topic, are you sure that using any specific example is best for your argument? I'm sure that people could (and probably have) written entire books about how our current healthcare payer/delivery system has hurt people.

    Along with specific examples.

    Does that make them right?
    This and this. Has nothing to do with universal healthcare. But while we're talking about it, I can provide many PERSONAL examples of how our system has lead to significant morbidity due to failure to pay.
  12. by   Jolie
    Thanks, Kyrshamarks for opening a realistic conversation about the topic of government controlled healthcare.

    Alfie's case (nor the other little boy earlier this year, whose name I can't recall) was NOT about preventing a slow painful death, or even about allocating money to patients most likely to benefit from treatment (at the expense of those not likely to benefit). If it had been about either of these things, there would have been no objection to the parents taking Alfie out of the country at their own expense for evaluation and possible treatment elsewhere. But that was not allowed. They weren't even allowed to take him home.

    This. was. all. about. control. And if we allow our government to fully fund and dictate healthcare, it will happen here.

    This next statement is not meant as a slam to the British. It is meant as a warning to us: I find it utterly inexplicable the extent to which people will willingly relinquish control of decisions pertaining to their own health, safety and well-being in exchange for the mistaken notion that they are not responsible for payment for the goods and services they receive. I am also dumbstruck by the number and seeming intelligence of people who think that because a bill does not arrive in their mailbox, they are receiving something for free.

    God rest that precious soul. And the next. And the next after him.........
  13. by   MunoRN
    Quote from Jolie
    Thanks, Kyrshamarks for opening a realistic conversation about the topic of government controlled healthcare.

    Alfie's case (nor the other little boy earlier this year, whose name I can't recall) was NOT about preventing a slow painful death, or even about allocating money to patients most likely to benefit from treatment (at the expense of those not likely to benefit). If it had been about either of these things, there would have been no objection to the parents taking Alfie out of the country at their own expense for evaluation and possible treatment elsewhere. But that was not allowed. They weren't even allowed to take him home.

    This. was. all. about. control. And if we allow our government to fully fund and dictate healthcare, it will happen here.

    This next statement is not meant as a slam to the British. It is meant as a warning to us: I find it utterly inexplicable the extent to which people will willingly relinquish control of decisions pertaining to their own health, safety and well-being in exchange for the mistaken notion that they are not responsible for payment for the goods and services they receive. I am also dumbstruck by the number and seeming intelligence of people who think that because a bill does not arrive in their mailbox, they are receiving something for free.

    God rest that precious soul. And the next. And the next after him.........
    Except the decision that futile invasive treatment was not justified came from the UK judiciary system, not the UK nationalized healthcare system. Our judicial system takes the same action from time to time, so it's clearly not due to whether or not a nationalized healthcare system exists. Protecting children for medical overtreatment abuse is primarily a legal concern and is independent of healthcare payment structure.
  14. by   Coffee Nurse
    Quote from Jolie
    Thanks, Kyrshamarks for opening a realistic conversation about the topic of government controlled healthcare.

    Alfie's case (nor the other little boy earlier this year, whose name I can't recall) was NOT about preventing a slow painful death, or even about allocating money to patients most likely to benefit from treatment (at the expense of those not likely to benefit). If it had been about either of these things, there would have been no objection to the parents taking Alfie out of the country at their own expense for evaluation and possible treatment elsewhere. But that was not allowed. They weren't even allowed to take him home.

    This. was. all. about. control. And if we allow our government to fully fund and dictate healthcare, it will happen here.
    This is a false conflation. As MunoRN said, it was the judiciary that decided Alfie's fate, and that of Charlie Gard before him. Fortunately I was never involved in as desperate a situation as this during my time in the UK, but if our team of attendings had reached a point of absolute impasse with parents, they would have appealed to the courts, not to the government. And the government, for that matter, is only involved in the healthcare system in the broadest, financial sense; it is not involved in any way in patient care decisions.

    In Alfie's case, the question was about prolonging futile medical interventions in the face of irreversible, catastrophic brain damage. For Charlie, his parents wanted to take him abroad and subject him to treatment that amounted to human experimentation, also in the context of severe brain damage. In neither situation did the parents' wishes align with what was in the best interests of their children, as loving and well-intentioned as those wishes were.

    This next statement is not meant as a slam to the British. It is meant as a warning to us: I find it utterly inexplicable the extent to which people will willingly relinquish control of decisions pertaining to their own health, safety and well-being in exchange for the mistaken notion that they are not responsible for payment for the goods and services they receive. I am also dumbstruck by the number and seeming intelligence of people who think that because a bill does not arrive in their mailbox, they are receiving something for free.
    Every tax-paying UK resident is well aware of the portion of their paycheck that goes to fund the NHS. What they are spared is the financial devastation that an unexpected diagnosis can inflict (Alfie spent 16 months in an ICU, can you imagine what that would have cost his parents in the US?). If anything, the single-payer system empowers people to explore every available avenue of care, if indicated, since they do not have to worry about how they are going to pay for it.

close