Teddybare Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Sorry MrSmith, I was merely supporting the notion of euthanasia to address increasing population rather than directly the Logan's Run 'model', apologises for any misunderstanding, but I see where it may have come from. Ps: weren't they younger than 50 in LR? Euthanasia for the ones not able to do Logan's run and a "pensioner dash" special for those who are. Sorted. I agree with you on the smoking because some of them live to 90 but how many obese people make it past retirement age? My point is only that the reason there's so many of our oldies around now is because they've lived modest lives and not over indulged throughout their youth. And I'd rather feed people to death than round up biddies and put them down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 And I'd rather feed people to death than round up biddies and put them down. :hihi: You're obviously unacquainted with our dear old poppins?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I think conditionality of treatment on lifestyle changes where lifestyle is a key factor is already being talked about now and will become a certainty over the next 20 years. Which seems fair enough, no point treating people for ilnesses caused by their lifestyle if they are not prepared to change it. Problem with that would be: where do you draw the line? A woodsman walks into hospital and is refused treatment for an he cut off? A security guard knifed in the eyeball should have led a different life? A nurse gets her ear bitten off by a mental patient? Sorry love you should've chosen a different lifestyle. Only way of making healthcare selective would be to introduce an insurance based system which the poorest couldn't afford and the sickest wouldn't be allowed to join. And anyone who thinks healthcare should be selective should go and live somewhere like America. Where the ambulance driver will want paying to take you to hospital. Edit: damn it. I should've said a gardener walks into hospital with his fingers in a little bag after a hedetrimming accident and they won't sew them back on because it's his lifestyle choice to be a gardener. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I think conditionality of treatment on lifestyle changes where lifestyle is a key factor is already being talked about now and will become a certainty over the next 20 years. Which seems fair enough, no point treating people for ilnesses caused by their lifestyle if they are not prepared to change it. Totally agree, lifestyle changes will reduce the (chronic) burden on the NHS, but it's hard to predict the effect these changes will have on health or whether patients will absolutely be refused life saving treatment if they've failed to adhere to a healthy regime. Of course better health=lower mortality rates so it could be a poisoned chalice in terms of absolute population numbers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Problem with that would be: where do you draw the line? A woodsman walks into hospital and is refused treatment for an he cut off? A security guard knifed in the eyeball should have led a different life? A nurse gets her ear bitten off by a mental patient? Sorry love you should've chosen a different lifestyle. Only way of making healthcare selective would be to introduce an insurance based system which the poorest couldn't afford and the sickest wouldn't be allowed to join. And anyone who thinks healthcare should be selective should go and live somewhere like America. Where the ambulance driver will want paying to take you to hospital. Edit: damn it. I should've said a gardener walks into hospital with his fingers in a little bag after a hedetrimming accident and they won't sew them back on because it's his lifestyle choice to be a gardener. Your 'style' has all the hallmarks of 'dangerousdave' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Problem with that would be: where do you draw the line? A woodsman walks into hospital and is refused treatment for an he cut off? A security guard knifed in the eyeball should have led a different life? A nurse gets her ear bitten off by a mental patient? Sorry love you should've chosen a different lifestyle. Only way of making healthcare selective would be to introduce an insurance based system which the poorest couldn't afford and the sickest wouldn't be allowed to join. And anyone who thinks healthcare should be selective should go and live somewhere like America. Where the ambulance driver will want paying to take you to hospital. I agree it's not an easy choice to decide where to draw the line but I would immagaine it will end up being drawn at the points the BF raised. Inactivity, drinking, smoking, obesity with the addition of illegal drug users. Not in terms of previous lifestyle but in terms on needing to change lifestyle going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I think it was 30, I had a memory of it being a good film until I watched it again a couple of months ago, and it was crap. I will watch the remake though when it’s available. I revisited it on Lovefilm very recently and still loved it (especially the bits with Jenny Agutter)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindfieldz Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 The unpalatable truth though is that the problems of increasing population aren't created by babies being born, but people retiring younger and living longer. Well its all those things isn't it?! how can you say that(too many) new babies born isn't a contributory factor in population growth?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Totally agree, lifestyle changes will reduce the (chronic) burden on the NHS, but it's hard to predict the effect these changes will have on health or whether patients will absolutely be refused life saving treatment if they've failed to adhere to a healthy regime. Of course better health=lower mortality rates so it could be a poisoned chalice in terms of absolute population numbers I think as pressures continue to increase on the NHS there would be broad public support for legally binding contracts for patients presenting with lifestyle relatyed medical problems to address the lifestyle issue or not recieve further treatment on the NHS. Like you say though, it may cause us as many problems as it solves. In the wider context the UK is a drop in the ocean of the global population growth problem though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindfieldz Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 The main reasons for population growth are advances in medical science, health and safety awareness and Immigration of particular people who's culture it is to produce large broods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.