I support the choice of patients to end their suffering by physician assisted death. Currently it takes at least 3 months to arrange a physician assisted death in Switzerland and at a cost of £13,000. There are many safeguards to respect. Even though a nice home birth may seem like a good idea up until the moment it isn't, a nice home death may seem like a good idea up until the moment it isn't. Not all experiences around life events such as birth and death are under our control, no matter how skilled and resourced we may be. Personally I would prefer to die by a method of my own choosing under certain circumstances. The majority of the public agree with this stance and although many doctors would not like to aid patients in this situation there are some that would. Medically assisted abortion is the killing of a little person at the very start of their unlived life who has no choice in the matter. Physician assisted suicide is the killing of usually an old person or at least adult who has lived their life, wants to die because they consider living unbearable, or who is afraid of a painful, protracted, undignified death. They may also wish to spare their relatives anguish by witnessing such a death. Why abortion is considered to be a woman's right up till 24 weeks gestation and is becoming decriminalised and physician assisted death is considered medically abhorrent and a criminal offence defies logic. Other countries and certain US states have already overcome safeguarding issues so we don't need to figure it all out from scratch. Doctors and patients who do not want a physician death and prefer to have a natural death may continue to do so. They should not impose their religious or moral stances on those who don't.
The Australians have stopped recognising UK qualifications.
Well GP land certainly is exciting, but not in a good way.
Better getting a taxi for anything not including spillage of body fluids. To be fair to the ambulance service, if there was a charge for each use, they would be engaged in far fewer calls.
Great idea. Home visits put both the patient and particularly doctor at risk. They are time consuming and of no benefit unless the patient is dead (to confirm death) or dying (by agreement of the doctor for terminal care). For the genuinely housebound they can be of in a very small proportion of the calls actually requested. For acute care they are a liability. The patient should pay for them directly.
NHS. Free at the point of exploitation.
I waited 1 hour 40 minutes for a suspected myocardial infarction (not an arrest) recently. Perhaps GPs should be provided with green lights to go on their cars and simply drive casualties straight to hospital. You are tied up with these patients till the ambulance arrives anyway. I don't imagine there would be any more deaths en route than there are from delayed ambulances.
This is why pets are so valuable. They keep you in a routine and you can talk to them too. They are also generally a lot less demanding than kids.
Maybe it would be better to check whether statins make that much difference to total mortality and the cost of this in terms of drugs, tests and health care professionals time, before they roll this out.
Truth finder, you are right. What is even more worrying is that the royal colleges have jointly issued a directive saying that the standard of care for negligence should be determined by these guidelines. From a pragmatic stance it would make more sense to cut the number of people who go for the diagnostic tests to what is actually achievable.
I've been selected for random security checks plenty of times and I am a white, old, female.
My husband and kids all get these too. The plane won't move until everyone is strapped in and if he was either holding up embarkation or holding up the taxi to the runway then the flight could have missed their slot. This would lead to a whole array of knock on effects. Maybe the crew had a point.
The peroxide then needs to be made available to pharmacists who can be trained to sell it to patients for this condition.
I don't think that Nadine's views on abortion are unreasonable at all. 23 week old babies can survive with medical help when they are wanted. Great efforts are made to keep them as healthy as possible. It seems unreasonable to me to be killing babies of this age for reasons of societal expediency. Some degree of cool off period is also helpful so that the decision is not later regretted. Between seeing a GP and the deed being done is usually longer than ten days unless the private sector is much more efficient. Like it or not there are two (or more) human lives to consider when it comes to induced abortion. Women do have control over their own bodies. They can usually choose whether or not to use contraception, whether or not to have sex, whether or not to have sex with a man, and whether or not he is required to use a condom, and whether or not they will do a pregnancy test, whether or not they will attend a chemist for the morning after pill, and whether or not they will see a GP. By the time a late abortion is being considered, apart from foetal abnormality which can't always be diagnosed in the first trimester, the woman has usually had a whole series of choices over what to do with her own body.
Just on the cusp of retirement as well. What a shame.
A bit of research that can be easily implemented, is useful and cost effective.
If your son is smart enough to be a doctor he is smart enough to do something worthwhile. One of my boys said he wanted to be a doctor. It was like telling me he thought he had cancer. I suggested he do some aptitude tests. These clearly indicated that he would hate medicine and now he is a mathematician. He dodged the bullet. Good.
The NHS is built very much like the British Empire was, by exploitation of the workers. I remember the 145 hour weeks and the third of your wage paid for overtime. Terms and conditions are a lot better now, but the intensity and pressure are even worse. What needs to happen is a fundamental change to what the NHS delivers. It never could and cannot be all things to all people at all times. Overt rationing is needed. Instead of pursuing endless life expectancy and "improvements" in medical innovation, a realistic expectation of what a publicly funded health care system can and should deliver needs to be done. And it needs to be done now to prevent a total implosion of the system that affects the people working in it and the patients who are relying on it.
Taking on other, less difficult, less risky, more interesting work, and often better paid work, also keeps GPs in the game for longer and reduces burn out. I don't know how I would have got to 59 as a GP on its own. I suspect I would have crashed and burned long ago. Long live the portfolio career.
Are they going to give the cash back?
The idea is to keep things that are either necessary or beautiful. (Not that I do this myself). Although GP land certainly isn't beautiful, it is currently necessary to bring in the money for day to day living, especially if you are a single parent. Also, it is necessary to build up a decent pension fund for your future. I am surprised that the A and E department axed the GP jobs since they are clogged up with attendees who are neither accidents or emergencies.