FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Writing people off!
Writing people off!
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *rFunBoy OP Man
over a year ago
Longridge |
This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html
Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive.
What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available.
The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space.
Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve.
Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity.
Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it.
Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place.
At least give them a chance.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You are totally correct...while we have the vent beds not being used,it should be viewed as a fucking crime if someone is not given the chance of it.
It's no good hyping all the ventilators and not using them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You are totally correct...while we have the vent beds not being used,it should be viewed as a fucking crime if someone is not given the chance of it.
It's no good hyping all the ventilators and not using them."
It says why in the article... Ventilation machines are not going to give a positive outcome for all..
And the main factor was access to a CPAP machine that was already in the house...these machines have their own drawbacks...and one that if he was still positive for Covid19 would increase the risk of others in the house also catching it.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arksxMan
over a year ago
Leicester / London |
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html
Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive.
What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available.
The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space.
Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve.
Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity.
Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it.
Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place.
At least give them a chance.."
They have not been put forward because the temporary hospitals are not fit for purpose.
They don't have the specialist equipment required.
They should be used to deal with the overspill of "normal" hospital patients and used to limit cross contamination.
Allowing more covid patients to be treated at hospital not in a fucking football stadium
The government could us the temporary hospitals as a staging area to send people at risk. Rather than quarantine the entire population
It's another shite decision by the government and they are using stats to cover up their incompetence
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html
Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive.
What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available.
The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space.
Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve.
Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity.
Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it.
Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place.
At least give them a chance.."
This is your misunderstanding of healthcare. It is cruel to preserve life at all costs. Do you realise how often care home patients would be in hospital if we hospitalised them every time they were ill? Many peoples preference is to die at home and where death is all but inevitable it is frankly cruel to put people in hospital.
Have you been in a care home? They are not the retirement homes you have seen on TV like the ones in America. Life expectancy for care home residents is less than a year. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html
Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive.
What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available.
The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space.
Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve.
Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity.
Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it.
Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place.
At least give them a chance.."
When Suryakant "Suri" Nathwani returned from the hospital, the reserved 81-year-old grabbed his son's hand and pleaded to be allowed to die at home. "He said, 'Please promise me one thing: If I'm going to go, I'm going to go here. Do not take me back there,'" his son Raj Nathwani said |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html
Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive.
What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available.
The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space.
Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve.
Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity.
Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it.
Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place.
At least give them a chance..
This is your misunderstanding of healthcare. It is cruel to preserve life at all costs. Do you realise how often care home patients would be in hospital if we hospitalised them every time they were ill? Many peoples preference is to die at home and where death is all but inevitable it is frankly cruel to put people in hospital.
Have you been in a care home? They are not the retirement homes you have seen on TV like the ones in America. Life expectancy for care home residents is less than a year."
But the whole point of the hospitals during this crisis is to save lives.
If the patient still has the fight to live they should do all they fucking can with that fight  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not heard of personal choice??
DNR is a personal choice...and the opposite should be for as long as the patient wants it."
Some people are unable to make that choice so the decision lies on whoever has power of attorney. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not heard of personal choice??
DNR is a personal choice...and the opposite should be for as long as the patient wants it."
The person will be in an induced coma on full ventilation so any such consent is nok..
A person with copd or brittle asthma will not be put on full ventilation as they have damaged lungs already and the time taken to get them off the ventilation can be months and the process also can cause further damage to the lungs/respiratory tract etc..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The phrase writing people off is emotive..
The NHS are doing an amazingly stressful job as it is and their ethical code does not involve that, fact is they are having to make choices in some cases as to who is likely to survive and who is not and treat accordingly..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The guy in question was not on full ventilation or in a coma...asked to go home to die but survived...as he probably would have done in hospital.
Its just another minor media channel pushing a non-stiry to stir outrage.....don't take the clickbate.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The fact is that for some people with particular health issues , including this man, ventilation just wouldn't be an appropriate form of treatment.
Even in 'normal' circumstances doctors have to make decisions, based on all the information they have available, as to whether ICU & ventilation is appropriate. It isn't a case of being the patient "written off".
K |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not heard of personal choice??
DNR is a personal choice...and the opposite should be for as long as the patient wants it.
The person will be in an induced coma on full ventilation so any such consent is nok..
A person with copd or brittle asthma will not be put on full ventilation as they have damaged lungs already and the time taken to get them off the ventilation can be months and the process also can cause further damage to the lungs/respiratory tract etc..
"
I'm well aware of ventilators with lung damage as I've been there. But CPAP should be available for all who need it ...not like another poster has said that it can cause infections to others
Every patient who has not chosen a DNR route should be given all the choices available to them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not heard of personal choice??
DNR is a personal choice...and the opposite should be for as long as the patient wants it.
The person will be in an induced coma on full ventilation so any such consent is nok..
A person with copd or brittle asthma will not be put on full ventilation as they have damaged lungs already and the time taken to get them off the ventilation can be months and the process also can cause further damage to the lungs/respiratory tract etc..
I'm well aware of ventilators with lung damage as I've been there. But CPAP should be available for all who need it ...not like another poster has said that it can cause infections to others
Every patient who has not chosen a DNR route should be given all the choices available to them."
Agree on the cpap, certainly less intrusive..
That's a new one, like any bit of kit it will I would put money on having the means to be cleaned post usage.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoy OP Man
over a year ago
Longridge |
I have full understanding of healthcare and the bad decisions made by people in higher office with little understanding.
EVERYONE deserves a chance, regardless of outcome. Doctors were told to make decisions ONLY in the event of two or more needing equipment and a choice to be given.
Now they are deciding on factors they would never know the true outcome unless they at least try and this is wholly wrong.
I woukd rather hear "we did everythibg we could" than "I don't think they will make it so we are not bothering" if it was a relative of mine.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have full understanding of healthcare and the bad decisions made by people in higher office with little understanding.
EVERYONE deserves a chance, regardless of outcome. Doctors were told to make decisions ONLY in the event of two or more needing equipment and a choice to be given.
Now they are deciding on factors they would never know the true outcome unless they at least try and this is wholly wrong.
I woukd rather hear "we did everythibg we could" than "I don't think they will make it so we are not bothering" if it was a relative of mine.
"
Have been in a do not resuscitate situation with the they have no chance talk..... They did ! And it is one of the reasons I think automatic organ donation is wrong..... It must be tempting to avoid the tough case and save the sure fire winners. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoy OP Man
over a year ago
Longridge |
"The care home situation is a national scandle. People are just being left to die and not being given a chance with medical help. "
Exactly, should be given a fighting chance like anyine else.
I have full respect for the NHS and it's workers, but to simply ask a few questions over the phone and take decisions without even trying.
This happened to a friend of mine. Infected in a care home after being dumped out of hospital to clear bed space, then left to die with refusal to re-admit.
Not saying the outcome would be positive, but now we'll never know. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The care home situation is a national scandle. People are just being left to die and not being given a chance with medical help.
Exactly, should be given a fighting chance like anyine else.
I have full respect for the NHS and it's workers, but to simply ask a few questions over the phone and take decisions without even trying.
This happened to a friend of mine. Infected in a care home after being dumped out of hospital to clear bed space, then left to die with refusal to re-admit.
Not saying the outcome would be positive, but now we'll never know."
Nobody is making rash , uncaring decisions.
It's a complicated area of medical treatment.
Even young previously healthy people can take 6 months to recover from intensive care procedures.
To do this to the elderly with health complications is pointless and verging on cruel.
But then obviously complicated issues aren't good for knee-jerk headlines, are they! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There is a lit of "Writing people off" and "Everyone deserves a chance etc.
These are very emotional times and i csn understand why some of se phrases are getting said. However you need all the facts and these are very complicated medical decisions.
Firstly in the case of DNACPR. Cpr is and the adjuctive therapies are a treatment. You are not entitle autamitically to t treatment. It is a medical decision whether to perform it or to esculate care to a certain level.
But you do have the right to refuse treatment. So a person after a discussion with a doctor can say I do not want to be resuscitated. But that must be documented.
As for "Doing everything possible" it is not appropriate to be performing CPR on someone heart failure, COPD and are advanced in their age. It is not dignified at all etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
May i add about ICU and ventalators also. It really depends on the patient etc. Again if it is looking futile (multi organ failure, lots of co morbidities) it is really not appropriate to then sedate them and put them on a ventilator. As a doctor you are also to practice "Do no harm"
Some times in specific context, these treatment options are very inappropriate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not heard of personal choice??
DNR is a personal choice...and the opposite should be for as long as the patient wants it."
This is not true.
You can refuse a treatment but you do not have a right to a treatmemt.
So someone can choose a DNACPR, and even an advanced directive. But you don't have the choice of saying i want treatment x or y or in this case to be resusitated.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have full understanding of healthcare and the bad decisions made by people in higher office with little understanding.
EVERYONE deserves a chance, regardless of outcome. Doctors were told to make decisions ONLY in the event of two or more needing equipment and a choice to be given.
Now they are deciding on factors they would never know the true outcome unless they at least try and this is wholly wrong.
I woukd rather hear "we did everythibg we could" than "I don't think they will make it so we are not bothering" if it was a relative of mine.
"
"Every one deserves a chance" this is a statement that cannot be just applied to anyone without context.
"Regardless of outcomes" the outcome or the probability of it effects the options you have.
May i use an example
Say an 89 year old gentleman has worsening heart failure (with frequent hospitalization), has severe COPD, kidney failure and is now off his feet. He has worsening COPD and is now on CPAP/BiPAP over night the setting are being increased higher and higher to the top of what the machine can do. Should we then sent him to ICU and sedate him and put him on a ventilator.
With a very sensative conversation with the patient and the family involved it would be appropriate to talk about the next steps and the likely outcomes of these steps.
I have seen it bern done very well and sometimes not so much.
I hope my post makes sense
These decisions are heartbreaking indeed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html
Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive.
What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available.
The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space.
Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve.
Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity.
Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it.
Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place.
At least give them a chance.."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html
Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive.
What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available.
The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space.
Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve.
Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity.
Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it.
Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place.
At least give them a chance.."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Ventilation is of no benefit to many older people as their organs behind to fail in some ways it is cruel younger persons with certain conditions it may be worth a shot but not always |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yet again, the wonderful people of Fab know more about medicine based on reading about the case online than the professional staff who train for years.
I’m not saying doctors get it right 100% of the time - but there are complaints procedures to deal with that.
Stories like this only seek to undermine trust in medical professionals. Let’s let them get on with doing their jobs without the distractions of looking over their shoulders, worrying about being judged in the court of public opinion.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html
Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive.
What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available.
The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space.
Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve.
Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity.
Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it.
Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place.
At least give them a chance.."
Think you will find these decisions are taken on a daily basis in many, many hospitals around the country even before Covid raised its head.
Its really not about throwing someone one the scrap heap, it's far, far more complex than most of us realise.
Very sorry for anyone's loss but quality of life must also enter the prognosis.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html
Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive.
What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available.
The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space.
Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve.
Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity.
Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it.
Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place.
At least give them a chance..
Think you will find these decisions are taken on a daily basis in many, many hospitals around the country even before Covid raised its head.
Its really not about throwing someone one the scrap heap, it's far, far more complex than most of us realise.
Very sorry for anyone's loss but quality of life must also enter the prognosis.
"
that's the point, they don't really know what the quality of life will be, it is not an exact science, for friend they suggested dnr, they were in coma, after much grief they did the second operation .... It was a long haul... But the damaged dnr candidate is now going on holidays, walking, eating, living...... Worn out doctors under pressure for various reasons will be tempted to take the simpler route |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoy OP Man
over a year ago
Longridge |
Now that the truth is finally coming out. Government directed Health Trusts under extrene pressure to dump elderly people into Care Homes to free up capacity and 'protect the NHS'.
More and more care home managers are now coming forward to make public the extreme pressure they were getting from Hospital discharge staff to take patients regardless of their infection status.
The offer if 5% fees increase to any care home willing to take these extremly high risk incomers, along with great emotional pressure to take these people has caused the deaths of 1000's other fellow residents.
On Radio4 the other evening, a care home manager needed one if it'a residents to attend hospital for a non related issue, who was contacted to receive the patient back.
After refusing re-admission without confirmation of COVID status if the resident and a number of hours on the phone, an ambulance turned up unnannounced with the patient on a stretcher. Paramedics were heavy with her, threatened her with police in respect of refusing to allow the patient back "home".
All she wanted was guarantees that the other residents of the home would not be placed at risk. The family then turned up and the patuent was literally dumped at the front door.
Other care homes who refused unverified admissions have been threatened with fees withdrawal and legal action.
The law is on the side of care homes in that within Health and Safety law, a resident has the right to live in a safe place.
This appeared on CNN today:
"The world sacrificed its elderly in the race to protect hospitals and the consequences have been devastating"
https://cnn.it/2yzcb25
Good Morning Britain clip from last week.
Once arrived at a home and subsequently falling ill, homes were offered were palitive care packs and refusal of medical visits to attain the outcome if hospitalised. This is not to say they all would of made it, but many may have done if NOT had been written off.
Not, even given a chance of Oxygen or CPAP, leaving Ventilators aside is a complete failure. Just because they are old, it not a given that death is certain with some kind of life support.
More will come out over time, it was obvious this was happening and a disgraceful failure of the government and its advisors in forcing infected patients on care homes only to spread to others, who otherwise would have been safe.
Litigation by families and homes is going to cost a fortune and last for years.
They failed the people who needed protecting the most. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Regardless of anything else resources ate always finite & life is finite.
I think a lot of medical care goes too far these days, it is trying to make us immortal as if death isn't part of life, sorry but it is regardless of age or means, it's supposed to be there.
Plus in a lot of cases it can actually cause long term pain & suffering of both patient and the family with nothing more than a short term extension in the avoidance of death.
If you persist on extending an animals life for your own sake/emotions, the vet will likely refuse & can report you for cruelty, this is no different in humans, it's cruel to medically force someone's body to live, doped up to the eye balls just to manage the pain or on machines constantly to keep their organs moving.
Never mind the multitude of animals subjected to torture to further Human medical science like vaccines and drug tests.
Those who fought for life naturally would do anyway, those who couldn't, wouldn't. That is evolution & population controls as cruel as it maybe.
There is a right to die as well as a right to live. Although not according to the law, which defies nature even further by prioritising human life above all else, human life not more important than any other. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Now that the truth is finally coming out. Government directed Health Trusts under extrene pressure to dump elderly people into Care Homes to free up capacity and 'protect the NHS'.
More and more care home managers are now coming forward to make public the extreme pressure they were getting from Hospital discharge staff to take patients regardless of their infection status.
The offer if 5% fees increase to any care home willing to take these extremly high risk incomers, along with great emotional pressure to take these people has caused the deaths of 1000's other fellow residents.
On Radio4 the other evening, a care home manager needed one if it'a residents to attend hospital for a non related issue, who was contacted to receive the patient back.
After refusing re-admission without confirmation of COVID status if the resident and a number of hours on the phone, an ambulance turned up unnannounced with the patient on a stretcher. Paramedics were heavy with her, threatened her with police in respect of refusing to allow the patient back "home".
All she wanted was guarantees that the other residents of the home would not be placed at risk. The family then turned up and the patuent was literally dumped at the front door.
Other care homes who refused unverified admissions have been threatened with fees withdrawal and legal action.
The law is on the side of care homes in that within Health and Safety law, a resident has the right to live in a safe place.
This appeared on CNN today:
"The world sacrificed its elderly in the race to protect hospitals and the consequences have been devastating"
https://cnn.it/2yzcb25
Good Morning Britain clip from last week.
Once arrived at a home and subsequently falling ill, homes were offered were palitive care packs and refusal of medical visits to attain the outcome if hospitalised. This is not to say they all would of made it, but many may have done if NOT had been written off.
Not, even given a chance of Oxygen or CPAP, leaving Ventilators aside is a complete failure. Just because they are old, it not a given that death is certain with some kind of life support.
More will come out over time, it was obvious this was happening and a disgraceful failure of the government and its advisors in forcing infected patients on care homes only to spread to others, who otherwise would have been safe.
Litigation by families and homes is going to cost a fortune and last for years.
They failed the people who needed protecting the most."
Hospital discharge managers have sent residents back to care homes without them being medically fit for years. Usually ending up in the resident having to be readmitted to hospital via 999 wasting more resources etc.
Anything to free up hospital beds
It's not new....it's just being talked about more now due to the current situation. They have also been known to be selective with the truth to facilitate earlier than is safe discharges. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yet again, the wonderful people of Fab know more about medicine based on reading about the case online than the professional staff who train for years.
I’m not saying doctors get it right 100% of the time - but there are complaints procedures to deal with that.
Stories like this only seek to undermine trust in medical professionals. Let’s let them get on with doing their jobs without the distractions of looking over their shoulders, worrying about being judged in the court of public opinion.
"
Agreed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Positive thinking and a will to survive even if they say you're gonna die.
Cancer and extreme spinal injuries have half the battle won by this.
If the say you're gonna die you say sure, one day, but not fucking yet.
I've heard people referring to some as dead wood, covid will deal with them.
Every life is precious.
Death. It's becoming too aceptable.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
That's the thing though, death not only acceptable, it's inevitable.
I don't refer to folk as dead wood but the way I would interpret this term is that the life left is crumbling and would be gone before long regardless of by what cause.
Everything on earth values it's own life, the bee, a bacteria, the loin, the fish, the cow, a virus, the human. Yet all will still see death & die themselves.
No one can predict what will happen tomorrow, the only time you have control over is right now & death doesn't play by human rules, it will arrive when it chooses. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoy OP Man
over a year ago
Longridge |
Some seem unable to differentiate between (doctors & nurses) and (government, trusts & the systems or policies they work within).
Criticism of a policy is not directed at those who are acting on them, it is the policy itself a that is the issue.
Anyone with and kind of common sense - you don't send infected people into places where vulnerable people are living and not expect consequences.
Yes, we all die sometime but did these people not deserve better than die for no good reason other than negligence, bad advice and bad policies.
Is it also acceptable that the failing of another should be the cause of your death, I don't think many of those who have "lost loved ones before thier time" would agree?
Thalidomide & Haemophiliacs to name two examples.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
