It is always cheaper for the National Health Service to allow the
patient to die than seek out his
illness and treat it.

The statement you have provided is false the following reason.  In
many cases, a person's life-threatening illness can be treated and the
person can work for many years before retirement or death.  A portion
of the taxes the person pays during the additional years in the
workplace gained from the treatment go to the National Health Service.
 Provided that the diagnosis and treatment of the life-threatening
illness do not exceed the taxes contributed as a result of the
extension of lifespan, then the National Health Service benefits
economically, or at least comes out even.

Conversely, if the life-threatening illness is treated but the person
is still disabled and unable to return to work, only works and pays
taxes for a short period following treatment, or requires a greater
expenditure on diagnosis and treatment than is recaptured via future
taxation, then it is economically sound for the National Health
Service to allow the patient to die.

Because many people with life-threatening illnesses can be treated so
that they can continue to be productive taxpayers during their
extended lifespans, it is impossible for it to always be cheaper for
the National Health Service to allow the patient to die than to
diagnose and treat their illness.  It would certainly be logical for
the National Health Service to seek to treat those with
life-threatening illnesses who can be most successfully cured at the
lowest cost first before expending resources on patients with less
likely economically positive outcomes.

Sincerely,

Wonko

---

Request for Answer Clarification by headdud-ga on 20 Jan 2005 10:15 PST

I wanted to know who made this statement and when it was stated. I did
not make this statement but merely quoted the Office of Health
Economics.  I did not ask for an opinion but did ask for the source
and date.

---

Clarification of Answer by wonko-ga on 20 Jan 2005 10:39 PST

I am sorry that your question as posted did not request a source or
date and that you did not give me the opportunity to respond to your
request for clarification prior to rating my answer.

Sincerely,

Wonko

Opinions are not attribution. i asked for attribution.

You need to define 'cheaper'
- in otherwise 'cheaper to whom'

We in the UK have a rather shocking 'internal market' in the NHS where
'funny money' is passed around like a Monopoly game.

- they even talk about 'losing market share'

My rather brutal view (from considerable experience) is that, if the
obvious does not work then the consultant will write you off
- after all he has to reserve his diagnostic skills for his lucrative
side job in the private sector.

Most consultants I have met have the diagnostic skills of a knat, a
complete inability to concentrate and are supremely arrogant.

Hopefully technology will render them redundant, and a diagnostic
system (software) will select the appropriate technician.

The signs are fortunately appearing - they are talking about 'one job'
nurses performing operations.

Okay, Headdud, where actually did you request anything? The header
simply stated "Office of Health Ecomonics UK", and your 'question' was
merely a statement which usually indicates that some debate or
discussion is invited.

So what do you do? You punish wonko-ga by rating (insulting) with one
star *before* anyone can work out what the heck you're after. You
*didn't* ask for attribution at all; you provided no instructions
whatsoever. Read your question and tell me I'm right! C'mon fella, be
reasonable.

Maybe this site will eventually turn up your answer ...
http://www.stephenpollard.net/001676.html   ... or maybe not.

Or maybe this quote: "Len Harvey noted that ... it would be cheaper to
let a patient die ..." at the website:
europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/
socio_economic_research/docs/health_report_en.pdf     will point you
in the right direction. I'm not going to read it for you. You check it
out.
 
Or maybe you could rewrite your question so that your requirements are
clearly stated. There's a thought! (and for what it's worth, my
opinion is that if you are in any way associated with the medical
profession then you really need to learn to give better instructions
and acquire a better bedside manner.)

You go Syressedmum!!!!...

Good for you!!!!!!!!!!!