Xac wrote:Actually they found that people would remove themselves from the list, which was then interpretted as meaning going private or passing away.
My grandad had a hip operation, a week later he got pneumonia and died.
Had he not recieved the operation he would have "removed" himself from the list, but he did not die of an issue related to the operation he was due.
Of course we can't expect the great British media not to scare monger and sensationalise it into the impression that people in need of life saving operations are being strung out in the hope that they'll snuff it and therefore save money. Of course it has nothing to do with people in such need, this is about routine operations such as draining fluid from someone's knee, or replacing a hip, or even having a wisdom tooth removed.
Doesn't make it right that people have been made to wait longer than they need to be, but to suggest that people are dying because they're having to wait for a knee op is totally wrong and insulting to the medical staff within the NHS.
I'm sorry to hear about what happened to your Grandfather Xac, but the example you give of him doesn't address the issue the Government panel reported which has nothing to do with the "great British media hyping up a story to scare monger" neither is it insulting to medical staff within the NHS as they are not the ones controlling waiting times, faceless non medical managers do that.
Lord Carter of Coles, the chairman of the investigating panel, said: “Commissioners have a difficult job in the current financial climate, but patients’ rights are often being restricted without a valid and visible reason.”
The Health Secretary Andrew Lansley responded:
"This is exactly why we need to put patients' interests first. Too many PCTs have been operating in a cynical environment where they can game the system - and in which political targets, particularly the maximum 18 week waiting time target, are used to actually delay treatment.
"When GPs, specialist doctors and nurses are making the decisions, as they will under our plans, they will plan care on the basis of the clinical needs of patients and their right to access the best service, including the least possible waiting time."
I readily admit that my condition isn't exactly life threatening (unless I stumble on the stairs as a result of not being able to move normally) and would never attempt to suggest in the slightest that I should be put ahead of someone who's life is being threatened but I find it distasteful and immoral that someone who I've never met or ever will or have even read my medical notes decides that on order to promote themselves within their role can delay my and others treatment for their own purposes of gaining a tick in a box or a larger bonus payment.
Maybe my conscience is too sensitive but quite how these people can sleep at night knowing that others are suffering in whatever way for longer than necessary is beyond me.
Does this policy save money in the greater scheme of things? I'd suggest its somewhat debatable if the person concerned cannot work, in my own instance in 1987 I suffered serious burns (47%) and needed countless skin graft operations but had to wait for months and months for them due to the NHS being starved of money. In the meantime I as a public servant was off work in the immediate time following the injury for just over a year, partly due to waiting times and partly due to the NHS not being able to afford more expensive dressings that cut the recovery time down by half. So I had to wait longer than necessary for an operation that I was always going to need and in the meantime I was unable to work, I can't see what the NHS saved by having this policy but I do know that a different Government department had greater losses due to my longer absence.
It really is a case of that old story of everyone protecting their own budget but as a result the overall costs are far greater and that's just the financial costings.