Help End Oxfordshire PCT's Discriminative Policies

RichardM123

Errata wrote: »

Have you considered that the biggest users of the NHS are the young and the old ? Many older people have conditions caused by the work they did which need treating, many children develop conditions which have nothing to do with lifestyle which need treating.

I am not saying treat no one. I simply think that EVERYONE should be treated equally.

Glamazon

RichardM123 wrote: »

Remember that most cancer is preventable by changing your lifestyle. Cancer Research UK state that "Smoking is the single biggest cause of cancer in the world,". I agree that not all cancer is down to lifestyle, but most sadly is. Same with heart problems that cause cardiac arrest.

I don't smoke, dont drink and am not obese - but still I get nothing for that.

I agree that saving a life it important, but we have to be sensible here. If the average waistline keeps expanding here in the UK then 'lifestyle caused illneses' will keep being a drain on NHS resources. This is unfair to those of use who keep ourselves healthy.

My nan and grandad didn't drink, smoke and weren't fat - yet nan had stomach cancer and had to travel over 500 miles to get life-saving treatment.
My Grandad is in remission for prostate cancer and he had to travel 600 miles every few months for treatment. Oh yeah and he has heart disease but is one of the healthiest people I know - figure that one out?

You cannot compare NEEDING cancer treatment to WANTING IVF treatment.

Glamazon

RichardM123 wrote: »

I am not saying treat no one. I simply think that EVERYONE should be treated equally.

For God's sake - if there was enough money in the UK to treat everyone then everyone would get treated.

There isn't enough money therefore things get prioritised - not always in the right order but IVF is not a priority.

RichardM123

Glamazon wrote: »

You cannot compare NEEDING cancer treatment to WANTING IVF treatment.

I was only drawing that comparison because someone else here brought it up. I agree - they are two different issues.

Maybe they should cost cut on getting rid of some management?

Errata

RichardM123 wrote: »

I am not saying treat no one. I simply think that EVERYONE should be treated equally.

If the NHS treated everyone equally - according to clinical need not emotional want - there would be no NHS IVF.

Glamazon

RichardM123 wrote: »

I was only drawing that comparison because someone else here brought it up. I agree - they are two different issues.

Maybe they should cost cut on getting rid of some management?

I am an NHS manager - I manage a GP surgery.
Should I quit my job so there is a whole 25k available for 5 people to have IVF?
Or should I carry on doing my job, managing the following things -
looking for people at risk of disease, screening them, preventing them from having strokes by giving them Aspirin or helping them quit smoking?
Ensuring we have resources to do all of this as well as do the everyday stuff and manage clinics to immunise children against diseases.
My job is to ensure we are providing the best possible care to our patients and we do - our list size is growing whilst others around us fall.
Without me here - most of this couldn't be managed by receptionists, nurses or GP's.

You'd be in and out - but that's if you could get an appointment, cos if the GP's are off who arranges the cover for them?

Floss

RichardM123 wrote: »

Remember that most cancer is preventable by changing your lifestyle. Cancer Research UK state that "Smoking is the single biggest cause of cancer in the world,". I agree that not all cancer is down to lifestyle, but most sadly is. Same with heart problems that cause cardiac arrest.....

So what about me - I am 45, lost my father to cancer (stomach with bladder/liver/kidney secondaries & my mother (who also had heart disease & 4 angioplasties) to breast cancer with bone/brain secondaries), also have lost 2 other close female relatives to breast cancer & lost 2 grandparents to stomach / bowel cancer........ I have had mammograms every 2 years for 6 years, plus ultrasound scans to monitor me for the symptoms that killed my mum & her sister.

Neither of those cancers is totally preventable, neither were smoking, alcohol or diet related. My mother did not smoke or drink to cause her heart disease.

Explain to me how their deaths are mostly lifestyle related.

Floss

Glamazon wrote: »

You cannot compare NEEDING cancer treatment to WANTING IVF treatment.

Totally agree with this statement.

MrsTinks

RichardM123 wrote: »

Remember that most cancer is preventable by changing your lifestyle. Cancer Research UK state that "Smoking is the single biggest cause of cancer in the world,". I agree that not all cancer is down to lifestyle, but most sadly is. Same with heart problems that cause cardiac arrest.

I don't smoke, dont drink and am not obese - but still I get nothing for that.

I agree that saving a life it important, but we have to be sensible here. If the average waistline keeps expanding here in the UK then 'lifestyle caused illneses' will keep being a drain on NHS resources. This is unfair to those of use who keep ourselves healthy.

Sorry but just because SOME cancers are preventable by lifestyle does NOT mean all are! My aunt died the day before Jade Goody from a brain tumour - do you want to tell her 2 children or Jades that you think it's better to have spent that money on someone getting pregnant than funding better drugs that might have saved their mums or other mums in the future?
I don't smoke either, I'm cuddle but not obese (size 14 in case you wondered) and until now I haven't been a drain on the NHS either...
And if you want to debate the waistline then what about my ex's brother who due to a hyperthalamus (sp) problem was 35stone when he passed away at 35. He ate less than half the daily recommended calorie intake that men should yet due to a medical condition continued to gain weight. A condition caused when he was born.

You could take your argument to extreems and say that we shouldn't treat people who have had accidents in cars because they made a lifestyle choice to drive a car in the first place... sorry but pre-existing life should still take precedence in my view.

RichardM123

MrsTine wrote: »

Sorry but just because SOME cancers are preventable by lifestyle does NOT mean all are!

Remember that I said 'most' and not 'all'. And let me get it straight - I am not against treating cancer. Infact I will and have supported funding for cancer many times before.