Saturday, February 25, 2006

Pension Crisis Solved

Remember how improved medical care means we're all going to live longer, bankrupting the pensions funds and forcing us to retire later ?

Doctors have the answer :

It is not always in the best interests of the elderly, the frail and the severely disabled to be resuscitated, experts said yesterday, in a challenge to present NHS guidelines.

All hospitals and care homes are required to provide resuscitation unless a decision is made to the contrary.

"Heart attack ? Hmmm ... he looks a bit frail to me ... Dave ? What do you think ?"

"Definitely a frail ... besides, he must be pushing 60. Skip it.

OK - but you can tell his wife"

I remember Susan coming home from work one day at the local hospital. An ambulance heading up the motorway diverted there when the patient arrested, and she worked on him for an hour but couldn't restart him. Kind of put my job into perspective.

Given the low chance of success, it may be that institutions should not offer resuscitation at all, they suggest. Resources saved could be better used in improving the quality of care.

I'm in a bad temper anyway, and this news doesn't improve it. Susan is away nursing her 86 year old mother, who has a nasty chest infection. Her mother also worked as a nurse.

I keep hearing from what passes for the left how the way we treat our weakest and most vulnerable is a measure of our civilisation. But the old, weak, sick or unborn aren't apparently the people they mean.

Silly me. As commentators as diverse as Johann Hari and Cardinal Murphy O'Connor point out, the most vulnerable people are criminals.


Anonymous said...

Yeah, it sounds very sinister.

Do support the NHS or not though Laban?

They are never going to have enough money to do everything.

Mike Jericho said...

Surely more financing could be found to feed the system.

Say, for instance, if instead of provide murderers, terrorists, rapists and child molestors with ongoing state-sponsored existence for the rest of their useless lifespans (along with all of the pathetically doomed programs designed to aid in their "rehabilitation") we simply take them into a dark room and shoot them in the back of the skull.

Leftists seem to have a growing appreciation for government-endorsed killing. Maybe they'll go for it.

Anonymous said...

hospital manager who helped steal £585,000:

Larry Teabag said...

"It is not *always* in the best interests of the elderly, the frail and the severely disabled to be resuscitated"

Well I agree with that, at least. That's not to say that I agree with all the details of this policy.

On the other hand, you'd presumably like to see the full force of modern medicine dedicated to prolonging people's lives for as long as humanly possible, irrespective of their wishes or those of their loved ones.

"Respiratory failure? Well we can probably get him going again... Dave ? What do you think ?"

"Yes, definitely. He's only 107, has suffered just 4 strokes, 3 heart attacks, and hasn't been compos-mentis for 15 years. D'you know, he spoke for the last time 5 years ago when he said "for Christ's sake just let me die"? He's probably got another 3 years in him - if we put in a gastro-nasal feeding tube and keep him on a respirator and heart-monitor. Might need dialysis too."

"Ok - but you can tell his wife. Adrenaline! Defibrillator! Clear!"

Anonymous said...

Surely the sensible solution is to raise the pension age. When the 60/65 limit was set people could expect only a few more years of sitting quietly by the fire. Now 65 year olds regularly go bungy jumping, so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to work for a few more years. And just in case you think I'm talking about other people, I myself have passed the "magic" age, still work and intend to do so for as long as I can. Why should people expect to be supported by the state for 30+ years, when many are (thankfully) in pretty good shape?