Aller au contenu

La santé est un droit que doit protéger l'État


Messages recommandés

Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors

By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent

Last Updated: 2:09am GMT 28/01/2008

Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.

The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as "out­rageous" and "disgraceful".

About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.

Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.

The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050.

Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations.

Meanwhile, £1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade.

Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.

One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements.

Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's ethics committee, said it would be "outrageous" to limit care on age grounds. Age Concern called the doctors' views "disgraceful".

Gordon Brown promised this month that a new NHS constitution would set out people's "responsibilities" as well as their rights, a move interpreted as meaning restric­tions on patients who bring health problems on themselves. The only sanction threatened so far, however, is to send patients to the bottom of the waiting list if they miss appointments.

The survey found that medical professionals wanted to go much further in denying care to patients who do not look after their bodies.

Ninety-four per cent said that an alcoholic who refused to stop drinking should not be allowed a liver transplant, while one in five said taxpayers should not pay for "social abortions" and fertility treatment.

Paul Mason, a GP in Portland, Dorset, said there were good clinical reasons for denying surgery to some patients. "The issue is: how much responsibility do people take for their health?" he said.

"If an alcoholic is going to drink themselves to death then that is really sad, but if he gets the liver transplant that is denied to someone else who could have got the chance of life then that is a tragedy." He said the case of George Best, who drank himself to death in 2005, three years after a liver transplant, had damaged the argument that drinkers deserved a second chance.

However, Roger Williams, who carried out the 2002 transplant on the former footballer, said doctors could never be sure if an alcoholic would return to drinking, although most would expect a detailed psychological assessment of patients, who would be required to abstain for six months before surgery.

Prof Williams said: "Less than five per cent of alcoholics who have a transplant return to serious drinking. George was one of them. It is actually a pretty successful rate. I think the judgment these doctors are making is nothing to do with the clinical reasons for limiting such operations and purely a moral decision."

Katherine Murphy, from the Patients' Association, said it would be wrong to deny treatment because of a "lifestyle" factor. "The decision taken by the doctor has to be the best clinical one, and it has to be taken individually. It is morally wrong to deny care on any other grounds," she said.

Responding to the survey's findings on the treatment of the elderly, Dr Calland, of the BMA, said: "If a patient of 90 needs a hip operation they should get one. Yes, they might peg out any time, but it's not our job to play God."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml…1/27/nhs127.xml

Lien vers le commentaire

On connaît déjà ça : dans tous les hôpitaux publics et les services d'urgence, ils ont des règles priorité : d'abord les enfants, ensuite les femmes en âge de procréer, ensuite les hommes adultes, et enfin les vieux, en dernier. J'ai beau être jeune, je trouve que c'est la p… de honte.

Lien vers le commentaire
On connaît déjà ça : dans tous les hôpitaux publics et les services d'urgence, ils ont des règles priorité : d'abord les enfants, ensuite les femmes en âge de procréer, ensuite les hommes adultes, et enfin les vieux, en dernier. J'ai beau être jeune, je trouve que c'est la p… de honte.

A ceci il faut ajouter le type de couverture. CMU ? Passe après.

Lien vers le commentaire
On connaît déjà ça : dans tous les hôpitaux publics et les services d'urgence, ils ont des règles priorité : d'abord les enfants, ensuite les femmes en âge de procréer, ensuite les hommes adultes, et enfin les vieux, en dernier. J'ai beau être jeune, je trouve que c'est la p… de honte.

Pourquoi ? C'est exactement comme cela qu'on procède lorsqu'il y a un naufrage…

Lien vers le commentaire
On connaît déjà ça : dans tous les hôpitaux publics et les services d'urgence, ils ont des règles priorité : d'abord les enfants, ensuite les femmes en âge de procréer, ensuite les hommes adultes, et enfin les vieux, en dernier. J'ai beau être jeune, je trouve que c'est la p… de honte.

Source ? :icon_up:

Lien vers le commentaire

A noter que le titre du papier et la première phrase sont trompeurs, puisqu'ensuite on nous dit que les docteurs en question s'opposent au financement public de traitements. "Ne pas traiter" et "ne pas traiter avec de l'argent public", ce n'est pas tout à fait la même chose. Toujours est-il que l'illusion de l'accès pour tous aux traitements dans un système soviétoïde est mise à jour. Quand on refuse le système des prix, on a des pénuries.

Lien vers le commentaire
  • 1 month later...

Les dernières nouvelles de la santé publique en Grande-Bretagne. L'État, c'est plus fort que toi !

NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she's 'too old' for £5,000 life-saving heart surgery

By CHRIS BROOKE

Last updated at 20:51pm on 28th February 2008

A woman of 61 was refused a routine heart operation by a hard-up NHS trust for being too old.

Dorothy Simpson suffers from an irregular heartbeat and is at increased risk of a stroke. But health chiefs refused to allow the procedure which was recommended by her specialist.

The school secretary was stunned by the ruling.

"I can't believe that at 61 I'm too old for this operation," she said.

"A friend has had exactly the same thing done and it has changed his life.

"I feel as though I've been put out to grass and surely deserve better than this."

Mrs Simpson, of Leake, near Thirsk, North Yorkshire, was diagnosed three years ago with atrial fibrillation, a condition suffered by a million people in the UK.

It can cause palpitations, heart failure, strokes, shortness of breath, chest pains and blackouts.

Drugs have had limited success and her hospital consultant decided the most effective treatment would be a procedure known as a catheter ablation.

An electrode on the tip of a long wire is manoeuvred through a vein or artery and destroys abnormal heart tissue causing the rhythm problems.

National guidelines set no age limit for the procedure, which is usually carried out under local anaesthetic and has a better than 75 per cent chance of curing the condition.

Her consultant's application for Mrs Simpson to have the operation was rejected in December.

The North Yorkshire and York Primary Care Trust is said to have cited her age as one of the reasons for refusal.

Mrs Simpson said: "'If I lived in another part of the country there wouldn't be a problem.

"The condition is very distressing and is now starting to affect my work.

"I'm generally an upbeat person but this sort of condition affects you more and more as time goes on, and attacks happen more often. What concerns me most is the risk of a stroke."

A spokesman for the Atrial Fibrillation Association said: "In this day and age when people are living longer, it is wrong that they should have the door to their future shut in their face."

However late yesterday, following media interest in Mrs Simpson's plight, the PCT backed down and agreed to fund her treatment.

Medical director Dr David Geddes apologised to Mrs Simpson for the "distress" caused by the delay.

He said: "We have reviewed the case in the light of the additional clinical information and national guidance and, as Mrs Simpson fits the clinical criteria, we have agreed funding for her treatment."

"All decisions are taken on individual clinical needs; we do not discriminate on the grounds of age.

"Our procedures exist to ensure fair decision-making, based on clinical evidence, for all our patients."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti…in_page_id=1770

Lung patients 'condemned to death as NHS withdraws their too expensive drugs'

By JENNY HOPE

Last updated at 22:55pm on 24th March 2008

Hundreds of patients with a rare lung disease will be sentenced to death by plans to stop doctors prescribing a range of drugs on the NHS, it was claimed last night.

Campaigners have condemned proposals by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to withdraw the drugs because they are too expensive.

The condition, pulmonary hypertension, affects an estimated 4,000 people in the UK.

Only a quarter of these need the most expensive level of treatment.

Yet the plans by NICE, the Government's drug rationing body, mean no life-extending therapies will be available to new patients because the cost of the most expensive exceeds its threshold of £30,000 per head.

Only the cheapest drug used to combat the condition will remain available for patients.

The impotence drug Viagra is valuable in combating pulmonary hypertension's symptoms of breathlessness but sufferers say it will not prevent the heart failure the disease can induce.

Lung specialists currently combine it with inhaled or infused drugs such as prostacyclins for the most seriously affected, which can add £40,000 a year to the £12,000 cost.

Another group of drugs, endothelin receptor antagonists, are also under threat.

The cost of the most expensive treatments is on a par with approved HIV treatments or keeping one criminal in prison for a year.

The final decision, to be taken in July, will apply to England but doctors believe Scotland will follow suit.

Patients with pulmonary hypertension are usually diagnosed in their 40s and 50s and the time from diagnosis to death is only 30 months without effective treatment.

The disease causes blood pressure in the pulmonary artery to rise. Those who go downhill need hospital care - with a lung transplant the only other option.

Professor Andrew Peacock, one of the world's leading experts on the condition at the Western Infirmary, Glasgow, said: "One of the drugs we routinely use for the very sickest of the sick patients, prostacyclin, we're not going to be able to use at all.

"We're going to have to say to people, 'Sorry, no treatment. You're just going to have to have palliative care and you're going to die basically'."

Anna Baker, 25, a mother, from Ashby de la Zouch in Leicestershire, was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension just over a year ago.

"This medication has given me my life back," she said. "I have to take the drug via a small pump 24 hours a day. I still get tired and have to limit what I do, but I have the confidence to do normal everyday things that just weren't possible last year."

As an existing patient, Mrs Baker will continue to get the expensive drugs prescribed on the NHS.

But she said: "I think it's outrageous that people with pulmonary hypertension in future might be denied the treatment."

NICE said its appraisal recommendations are preliminary and "may change after consultation".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti…in_page_id=1774

More than four in ten maternity units turn away women in labour

By JENNY HOPE

Last updated at 22:21pm on 20th March 2008

Maternity units are turning away women in labour because they have no room, figures show.

More than four in ten NHS hospitals refused to accept expectant mothers at least once last year.

The figures, from 103 of the 147 NHS trusts with maternity services, were obtained by the Conservatives under the Freedom of Information Act.

They show that almost one in ten trusts closed more than ten times last year.

And the University of Leicester Hospitals Trust - one of the biggest NHS providers - closed 28 times.

In all, 43 trusts said they had closed their maternity unit, or had been forced to send women to another hospital, at least once in 2007 because they were full.

The Tories said it contacted all 147 trusts providing maternity services in England.

But several with maternity units that have recently closed or downgraded, or are facing such changes, did not respond. Hundreds of thousands protested last year about local shake-ups that could result in downgrading or closure of midwife-led and consultant-led maternity units.

Mary Newburn, head of policy at the National Childbirth Trust, said Labour's backing for women's choice was not deliverable under these circumstances.

She added: "If women are to have their choice of place of birth guaranteed by 2009, as promised by the Government, it is vital there is sufficient capacity."

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said it was concerned about the implications of closures.

Richard Warren, RCOG honorary secretary, said: "Safety and quality of care are paramount and, although the UK is a safe place to give birth, growing pressures require long-term investment.

"Our current calculation is that 400 extra consultants are immediately required across England and Wales."

Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley said: "The Government's plans to close maternity units when services are already overstretched fly in the face of common sense.

"Labour are fixated with cutting smaller, local maternity services and concentrating them in big units. But women don't want to have to travel miles to give birth.

"And they certainly don't want to have to travel even further because they're turned away by the hospital of their choice."

Liberal Democrat spokesman Norman Lamb said: "There is a huge gap between Government promises and the reality in maternity units across the country.

"Promises of one-to-one care for all women are a world away from expectant mothers being turned away from hospitals because they are running over capacity.

"The Government needs to stop burying its head in the sand and launch a national review of capacity in maternity services."

Louise Silverton, deputy general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, said: "Women should have a choice of how and where they give birth.

"This is guaranteed in the Government's plans for maternity services and we want to make sure that this choice is expanded, not reduced.

"If a unit closed because of staff shortages, then their choice is eroded and their experience of birth suffers."

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: "It is difficult to predict precisely when a mother will go into labour and sometimes, at times of peak demand, maternity units do temporarily divert women to nearby facilities.

"When this does happen it is often only for a few hours and to ensure mother and baby can receive the best care possible."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti…in_page_id=1770

Lien vers le commentaire

Aux US, on a trouvé mieux : la lotterie !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7321500.stm

Oregon's healthcare lottery

In what is believed to be the first such move, a US state is running a lottery in which the prize is health insurance.

With some 45 million Americans uninsured, how to pay for medical treatment is a big issue in this year's presidential election.

Now officials in Oregon say they have come up with a fair way of providing coverage for some of those who cannot afford it.

Lien vers le commentaire

La NHS a ses défauts connus: essentiellement pénurie avec rationnement dit "implicite". Les "passe-droit" et "privilèges indûs" n'étaient pas le tort le plus cité, mais leur existence ne me surprend guère…

Inversement, les systèmes "bismarckiens" ont une tendance inflationniste…

La question est donc: comment faire ?

Lien vers le commentaire
On connaît déjà ça : dans tous les hôpitaux publics et les services d'urgence, ils ont des règles priorité : d'abord les enfants, ensuite les femmes en âge de procréer, ensuite les hommes adultes, et enfin les vieux, en dernier. J'ai beau être jeune, je trouve que c'est la p… de honte.

A gravité égale ?

Lien vers le commentaire
  • 1 year later...
Sentenced to death on the NHS

Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors warn today.

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.

As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.

The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.

Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.

It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.

It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.

Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.

They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.

However, doctors warn that these signs can point to other medical problems.

Patients can become semi-conscious and confused as a side effect of pain-killing drugs such as morphine if they are also dehydrated, for instance.

When a decision has been made to place a patient on the pathway doctors are then recommended to consider removing medication or invasive procedures, such as intravenous drips, which are no longer of benefit.

If a patient is judged to still be able to eat or drink food and water will still be offered to them, as this is considered nursing care rather than medical intervention.

Dr Hargreaves said that this depended, however, on constant assessment of a patient’s condition.

He added that some patients were being “wrongly” put on the pathway, which created a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that they would die.

He said: “I have been practising palliative medicine for more than 20 years and I am getting more concerned about this “death pathway” that is coming in.

“It is supposed to let people die with dignity but it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused can be wrongly put on this pathway.”

He added: “What they are trying to do is stop people being overtreated as they are dying.

“It is a very laudable idea. But the concern is that it is tick box medicine that stops people thinking.”

He said that he had personally taken patients off the pathway who went on to live for “significant” amounts of time and warned that many doctors were not checking the progress of patients enough to notice improvement in their condition.

Prof Millard said that it was “worrying” that patients were being “terminally” sedated, using syringe drivers, which continually empty their contents into a patient over the course of 24 hours.

In 2007-08 16.5 per cent of deaths in Britain came about after continuous deep sedation, according to researchers at the Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, twice as many as in Belgium and the Netherlands.

“If they are sedated it is much harder to see that a patient is getting better,” Prof Millard said.

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “Even the tiniest things that happen towards the end of a patient’s life can have a huge and lasting affect on patients and their families feelings about their care.

“Guidelines like the LCP can be very helpful but healthcare professionals always need to keep in mind the individual needs of patients.

“There is no one size fits all approach.”

A spokesman for Marie Curie said: “The letter highlights some complex issues related to care of the dying.

“The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient was developed in response to a societal need to transfer best practice of care of the dying from the hospice to other care settings.

“The LCP is not the answer to all the complex elements of this area of health care but we believe it is a step in the right direction.”

The pathway also includes advice on the spiritual care of the patient and their family both before and after the death.

It has also been used in 800 instances outside care homes, hospices and hospitals, including for people who have died in their own homes.

The letter has also been signed by Dr Anthony Cole, the chairman of the Medical Ethics Alliance, Dr David Hill, an anaesthetist, Dowager Lady Salisbury, chairman of the Choose Life campaign and Dr Elizabeth Negus a lecturer in English at Barking University.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “People coming to the end of their lives should have a right to high quality, compassionate and dignified care.

"The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is an established and recommended tool that provides clinicians with an evidence-based framework to help delivery of high quality care for people at the end of their lives.

"Many people receive excellent care at the end of their lives. We are investing £286 million over the two years to 2011 to support implementation of the End of Life Care Strategy to help improve end of life care for all adults, regardless of where they live.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthne…on-the-NHS.html

Lien vers le commentaire
  • 1 month later...

"Nick Carver, the chief executive of the East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, insisted computer records showed the trust had only cancelled two operations and that proceeding with the operations could have put Mr Eeles's life at risk.

Mr Carver said: 'Mr Eeles' operation was cancelled only twice - and then both on clinical safety grounds.

'The first time was back in February when his blood pressure was found to be high.

'As his surgery was not an emergency, our surgeons took the right action in referring Mr Eeles to his GP so his blood pressure could be brought under control.

'His second operation in May 2009 was also cancelled, this time because he had failed to act on our surgeon's advice that Mr Eeles that he should give up smoking.

'In cancelling Mr Eeles' two operation dates, our surgeons were acting on clinical grounds only.

'If they are guilty of anything, then it is of having the best clinical interests of their patients at heart.'"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12…l#ixzz0TSdZqANx

On aurait pu penser à une présentation tendancieuse et avide de scandale (habitude commune du journalisme) si on n'avait pas eu droit au propos cités en sus.

L'indication opératoire est indiscutable et ce, dés le constat de l'instabilité de la fracture malgré le plâtre.

A partir de là, on est dans l'absurde le plus total:

1. Ajourner l'opération de décembre à février pour cause de manque de lits est déjà ahurissant: ce n'est, certes, pas une urgence à la minute près, mais à une ou deux semaines près ça l'est !

2. Fevrier 2009: Une tension artérielle élevée ne justifie en aucun cas un retard de plus de 2-3 jours - le temps de normaliser la tension. La reporter de quelques mois (de février à mai!!!) est aberrant.

3. Mai 2009: Refuser une deuxième opération pour cause de tabagisme actif est un non-sens médical.

Dans les deux cas (tension élevée ou tabagisme actif) il n'y a pas de risque majeur supplémentaire à opérer; en tout cas, aucun risque vital significativement augmenté. Les deux risques sont, de surcroit, parfaitement gérables (durant l'anesthésie et dans les jours qui suivent).

Avec de tels arguments oser dire que le "meilleur intérêt clinique pour le patient" est le souci suprême qui a guidé les décisions prises…. il faut vraiment avoir un culot ahurissant. Ou alors une incompétence tout aussi ahurissante !

L'histoire est exemplaire pour illustrer le problème du rationnement implicite auquel conduit un système de type NHS.

En clair: la "société", soucieuse de ne pas laisser filer les dépenses, n'est pas mécontente qu'il y ait des "barrières" pour limiter le recours aux soins. Encore faudrait-il disposer de bons(?) critères pour distinguer entre les recours aux soins "justifiés" et les autres. A ma connaissance, il n'y en a pas.

A défaut, les politiciens sont très contents de mettre en place… juste des limitations budgétaires (comme ça, ils diront fièrement qu'ils sont soucieux des équilibres budgétaires). Pour le reste… aux autres (en pratique, les "autres" sont les médecins) de se démerder. Ceux-ci… font ce qu'ils peuvent. Au mieux, ils essayent de mettre en place des critères "universels" de discrimination:

- age limite ? (au-delà duquel certains recours deviendraient "injustifiés"?). Critère fort imparfait, comme on peut le voir dans d'autres citations de Lucillo, sur ce même fil de discussion.

- critères médicaux plus complexes (pathologies associées, scorings divers et variés ?): je ne connais aucun "système de critères" qui tienne la route.

Toujours est-il que l'application rigoureuse de n'importe quel "système de critères" est un casse-tête: si on ne le fait pas, on hurlerait au pouvoir discrétionnaire des médecins. Si on le fait, on aboutit à des aberrations comme celle que subit ce pauvre plombier (il n'est même pas polonais, on aurait au moins pu invoquer le patriotisme du corps médical britannique devant la menace allogène… :icon_up::doigt: ).

Les débats sur les possibles "exclusions" basées sur la "responsabilisation individuelle" ne sont qu'un avatar de ce même dilemme, attaqué sous un angle différent: puisque le problème, au fond, n'est pas de savoir si on a ou non le droit d'être soigné (in abstracto) mais seulement de savoir si on a ou non le droit de se faire soigner au frais de la princesse, on essaie de voir si l'individu avait ou non, en amont, la possibilité (voire l'obligation morale!) d'éviter la maladie actuelle. Si oui… pas de prise en charge "sociale"! Exit donc les fumeurs, les gros, les alcolos et j'en passe; du moins pour les pathologies présumées induites (ou simplement aggravées?) par ces "vices" individuels.

Evidement, ce type de raisonnement crée finalement plus de problèmes qu'il n'en résout. A défaut de stalinisme franc et ouvert, on va tout droit vers un totalitarisme sanitaire (bienveillant, "ayant à coeur vôtre intérêt clinique", bien entendu): l'Autorité édictera le contenu quotidien de vôtre assiette, vos loisirs, le nombre d'ébats sexuels hebdomadaires autorisés, etc.

Pour ceux qui penseraient qu'en France nous sommes à l'abri… je vous prie de vous rappeler que Raffarin, en tant que premier-ministre, avait déjà émis l'hypothèse d'exclure de la prise en charge "sociale" certains accidents relevant de la responsabilité individuelle pure (il avait évoqué, à titre d'exemple, les accidents de ski, si mes souvenirs sont bons…). Certes, il s'est fait huer mais… toute idée trop novatrice rencontre l'hostilité au départ: avec de la patience et de la "pédagogie", on en débattra, en France aussi, le plus sérieusement du monde, dans quelque temps.

Autrement dit, mes chers amis libéraux, nous sommes encore loin d'avoir gouté à tous les délices de la pensée etatisante: celle-ci est un puits intarissable et le meilleur reste à venir.

Lien vers le commentaire
  • 1 month later...

Et on continue à crever comme des mouches dans le beau système de santé publique britannique.

Our hospitals may be bad but our regulators are worse

Another week, another hospital scandal. The story is beginning to be all too familiar: dozens of patients dying needlessly, in filthy conditions that would shame a Third World country.

It emerged on Thursday that inspectors making unannounced checks in October on Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust discovered a collection of horrors: blood spattered on floors and curtains, mattresses soaked with foul-smelling stains, contaminated equipment, a high rate of pressure sores among the elderly, long waiting times in the accident and emergency department and, worst of all, poor nursing care, with old people deprived of food, attention and dignity. As a result, about 70 people in the care of the Basildon and Thurrock trust may have died needlessly: its mortality rate is a third higher than the national average.

[…]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c…icle6936385.ece

Lien vers le commentaire
  • 1 year later...

Oui, roger, l'assurance maladie obligatoire, c'est trop d'la balle…

Former NHS director dies after operation is cancelled four times at her own hospital

A former NHS director died after waiting for nine months for an operation - at her own hospital.

Margaret Hutchon, a former mayor, had been waiting since last June for a follow-up stomach operation at Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford, Essex.

But her appointments to go under the knife were cancelled four times and she barely regained consciousness after finally having surgery.

Her devastated husband, Jim, is now demanding answers from Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust - the organisation where his wife had served as a non-executive member of the board of directors.

[…]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13…l#ixzz1IEKBv9iv

Lien vers le commentaire
Oui, roger, l'assurance maladie obligatoire, c'est trop d'la balle…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13…l#ixzz1IEKBv9iv

Tiens, les bureaucrates et dirigeants britanniques qui ont depuis 60 ans consciencieusement ruinés leur système de santé n'ont pas pensé à se réserver un hôpital du Val de grâce pour leurs propres soins? Quelle imprévoyance, en France nos élites politiques sont plus précautionneuses. Ou alors cette femme n'était qu'un cadre subalterne du NHS.

Lien vers le commentaire
  • 1 month later...

On connaît déjà ça : dans tous les hôpitaux publics et les services d'urgence, ils ont des règles priorité : d'abord les enfants, ensuite les femmes en âge de procréer, ensuite les hommes adultes, et enfin les vieux, en dernier. J'ai beau être jeune, je trouve que c'est la p… de honte.

La priorité devrait être laquelle pour toi?

Lien vers le commentaire

La priorité devrait être laquelle pour toi?

Si tu ne vois pas qu'il ne devrait pas y avoir de priorité (ou en tout cas, rien d'écrit), tu n'as rien à faire ici, hein. Au niveau de la réception des urgences, la priorité est à déterminer sur des critères seulement médicaux. Serment, tout ça…

Lien vers le commentaire

Créer un compte ou se connecter pour commenter

Vous devez être membre afin de pouvoir déposer un commentaire

Créer un compte

Créez un compte sur notre communauté. C’est facile !

Créer un nouveau compte

Se connecter

Vous avez déjà un compte ? Connectez-vous ici.

Connectez-vous maintenant
×
×
  • Créer...