Clown Shoes Posted June 29, 2013 Share Posted June 29, 2013 Now this isnt anything against Mandela personally but the moral dilemma of duty of care. Im sure Mandela has medical insurance but he is 94 yrs old. What quality of life will he have for the remanding years. What happened to letting people pass away in their sleep. If he was in this country the NHS would have a duty of care to try and keep him alive for along as possible and at a huge, huge cost. £1000's of drugs & constant doctor/hospital visits. With a shortage of energy, food, space etc......will our attitudes ever change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted June 29, 2013 Share Posted June 29, 2013 They should let nature take it's course and they should stop reporting on it 24 hours a day. The media circus is obscene. Let him go in peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 Now this isnt anything against Mandela personally but the moral dilemma of duty of care. Im sure Mandela has medical insurance but he is 94 yrs old. What quality of life will he have for the remanding years. What happened to letting people pass away in their sleep. If he was in this country the NHS would have a duty of care to try and keep him alive for along as possible and at a huge, huge cost. £1000's of drugs & constant doctor/hospital visits. With a shortage of energy, food, space etc......will our attitudes ever change? What happened to Advance Directives? does the UK accept 'Living Wills'? The choice should be up to the individual and the wishes of the individual should be honoured. But it should be the wishes of the individual - not those of some administrator looking to save a few bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabitter Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 it is a doctors duty to preserve life,all the other arguments are just a smokescreen for saving money.saving life in a civilised country is more inportant than saving money,if ever my life is in danger i want a doctor not a accountant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earthly Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 it is a doctors duty to preserve life,all the other arguments are just a smokescreen for saving money.saving life in a civilised country is more inportant than saving money,if ever my life is in danger i want a doctor not a accountant I concur with your sentiments here up to a point. Money shouldn't come into it but there is a debate to be had about "saving life" just for the sake of it when it is clear that the patient will have no quality of life whatsoever; I for one wouldn't want to be unable to be paralyzed from the head down, unable to speak and hear etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 it is a doctors duty to preserve life,all the other arguments are just a smokescreen for saving money.saving life in a civilised country is more inportant than saving money,if ever my life is in danger i want a doctor not a accountant Nonsense. My father died after a brief illness last year. The family, working with the doctors, arrived at a point where we effectively allowed him to die peacefully rather than endure potentially months of treatment and pain which stood no chance of saving his life. There comes a point where artificially prolonging life becomes unkind. I have no way of knowing exactly how Mr Mandela is right now but my gut feeling is that they should allow him to die if he has no chance of recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 it is a doctors duty to preserve life I disagree, I think it is a doctor's duty to prevent suffering, sometimes this means letting people die or even in some cases killing them (euthanasia). I make this argument purely on moral grounds, not economic ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 If he was in this country the NHS would have a duty of care to try and keep him alive for along as possible and at a huge, huge cost. £1000's of drugs & constant doctor/hospital That's not entirely accurate. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Care_Pathway_for_the_Dying_Patient And don't think they will tell the family what's going on either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 That's not entirely accurate. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Care_Pathway_for_the_Dying_Patient And don't think they will tell the family what's going on either. I often wonder, when the NHS says "There is nothing more we can do for you" do they mean "There are no treatments which are likely to improve your condition" or do they mean "We're not spending any more money on you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Shoes Posted June 30, 2013 Author Share Posted June 30, 2013 My point is, if they hadnt treated him he wouldve probably passed away. That wouldve been a huge cost to the NHS. Im not saying that lives should be risked to save money but he was 94 years old. Had a good innings. Should let them die peacefully at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.