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.
Well that was confusing
3 hours ago