Jump to content

IOM DHSC & MANX CARE


Cassie2
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Gladys said:

We just seem to be on the hook of longevity being good, when really we should be accepting that death is inevitable and a natural outcome.

Personally, and this is counter to the macro view I was trying to explore, the moment I become unable to communicate with my family or deal with my own body, I would like to go, not be kept alive for years because it was possible.  

There is nothing wrong with longevity - here I am!

As for the second point, I more-or-less agree. A little while ago my neighbour, a lady of certain years, told me that some years before I arrived the neighbour on the other side had ended his life with a shotgun after being diagnosed with terminal cancer - I assume he did not want the pain, suffering, and impact on the family. The medical fraternity of course would not help in that course of action.

On the one hand we have Allinson using up time and effort promoting euthanasia (of which I might be in favour), and on the other hand saying nothing about trying to ensure those who want to stay alive, do so - the time I heard this was when the cyclist was killed at St Johns in a (in my opinion) totally preventable accident. But then again no MHK was critical of the DoI actions there, nor any say anything about the half-arsed prom. non-pedestrian crossings.

Allinson seems more concerned with making the front page of Time magazine (driving force of abortions/ euthanasia), than looking after the interest of the electorate.

This ended up as an anti-Allinson diatribe - what a surprise. Could be worse - maybe Mad Uncle Ronnie could get un-banned.

[In fact, I think I might write a letter to my children - If the worst happens and I'm just a vegetable, just turn the switch off. Save electricity. Don't worry about organ donation - they are already passed the use-by date.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wavey Davey said:

Quality of life is the main issue. Once that’s gone there is little point in hanging around

For us olderly people that maybe true, but as recent court cases have demonstrated it may not be quite so easy to determine the 'Rules" we apply to ensure consistency. Capacity legislation and the Right to Die initiatives should ensure that.

Going back to @Gladys point about overpopulation that is the point Sir Richard Attenborough is constantly warning people about and the impending crisis of running out of resources to sustain our global population and it naturally follows about money being used to look to prolonging life for those with, say, chronic conditions that have little chance of any improvement in their quality of life.  I may have misunderstood her post (apology if I have) but it is I think a salient point.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Apple said:

The Health of the Nation document makes it clear that health promotion has to go hand in hand with other lifestyle choices and political / social initiatives and changes. One thing is clear is that an element of choice and self responsibility plays a large part.

It is already being effective to some degree. Look at the number of people out walking, riding bikes, taking up sports, marathons etc all in search of prepping to staying healthier for longer.

In my view this document (after revamping and updating) should be available to everyone in GP surgeries, hospital clinics etc. I don't understand why it isn't. 

This approach is good , and one I've led all my life, but it also brings problems later. I'm 68 now , played loads of sport and coached sport throughout the years and now have the 'after effects' of that lifestyle with really bad  osteoarthritis in my ankle and both knees starting to trouble me with the same. While I wouldn't change anything I've done sporting wise it is galling when my GP tells me it could be up to 5 years to get my ankle sorted. Having never touched alcohol till in my mid 30's and never smoked my suggested healthy lifestyle I always led has a downside too. As I said I don't regret anything and been lucky as never had a operation or spent a night in hospital but as I said there can be a downside .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is more fundamental than that. It is more about as a general philosophy should life expectancy be extended beyond its natural bounds? 

I absolutely agree that having a choice on how you do depart is, to me, a fundamental right.  It is the ultimate self-determination. 

But my debating point is more about whether medical science should be diverting resources and expertise to prolonging life, when over population seems to be the road to extinction or at least a miserable existence?

It all sounds a bit bonkers, I accept that, but it is something that we need to face up to and decide. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Apple said:

For us olderly people that maybe true, but as recent court cases have demonstrated it may not be quite so easy to determine the 'Rules" we apply to ensure consistency. Capacity legislation and the Right to Die initiatives should ensure that.

I know now the point at which I’d call it a day. If I lacked capacity to call that then I’ve left clear instructions to my close family to act on their own judgement. At the end of the day if I’m three sheets to the wind I won’t know what’s going on anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It all sounds a bit bonkers, I accept that, but it is something that we need to face up to and decide. 

It's not bonkers @Gladys.  Its valid point.

Medical research into age related health problems can often produce insights into other conditions - see the latest outcomes for Parkinson's disease and also early dementia being reversed, yes reversed, by new treatments and new methods to deliver medications etc.  There are lots of philanthropists who also donate huge amounts of their own money into conditions that affect them and those close. (BillGates, Elton John etc)

At the risk of expanding the debate then should we consider the research into children being born with potentially life long (expensive) needs for care and treatments or is that too slippery a slope ?

The day we stop looking for solutions could be the day we accept that things can't be improved. There has to be a better way though.

Edited by Apple
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

 

Sorry Wrighty, I know this is a hard one, ethically, and I do not expect you to respond. 

 

It is hard, but these conversations need to be had. I’ve been at a conference all week, and today’s meeting was about the latest research into fragility fractures and how best to treat patients who suffer them with the aim of prolonging their lives. The research methodology and the people doing this are very impressive indeed, and you’d certainly want them on your side.

However, I often treat patients and fix them up to prolong their lives, but do think have I done anybody any good? Is another 6 months of bewildered existence in a nursing home better than dying? I don’t think it is, but all the guidance/pathways/lawyers/medical regulators/coroners/religious authorities say it is. So we keep doing it. It’s not what I want to happen to me, and I’ll do whatever I can in my twilight years to make sure it doesn’t. 
 

Another example I heard today. My daughter is a police officer (not here, in a large UK city) and they took a call from a nursing home asking them to investigate an unexpected death. In a 105 year old. Fortunately the sergeant taking the call fended it off, as there were no obvious suspicious circumstances such as a smoking gun. But seriously? At that age it’s almost unexpected that you survive the night. 
 

I don’t know the answer. It’s probably better education and understanding of what a frail, dependent existence is really like, combined with greater autonomy over one’s future. We should certainly continue medical research though, but perhaps (and I’ll get shot down for this - ageism is not acceptable) concentrate on childhood cancers and young adult suicide prevention, along with many similar other examples, rather than strategies to keep 90 year olds alive until they’re 91.

As for the other end of the age spectrum - congenital life limiting conditions - I’m certainly ‘pro-choice’ rather than ‘pro-life’, but recognise that ethically it’s even more difficult to say anything at all. Legislating against 1st cousin marriage/procreation might be something though - this is another unspoken issue in certain areas of the UK that seem to have a higher rate of recessive genetic conditions. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, wrighty said:

Legislating against 1st cousin marriage/procreation might be something though - this is another unspoken issue in certain areas of the UK that seem to have a higher rate of recessive genetic conditions. 

As far as I can see first cousin marriage in itself doesn't make much difference: Put differently, a single first-cousin marriage entails a similar increased risk of birth defects and mortality as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 rather than at 30.  Unless you're going to ban women from getting pregnant over the age of 40 as well. 

A bigger problem is more when small communities don't marry outside themselves over generations, so even in there is no first cousin marriage, couples are likely quite closely related genetically.  But that would be almost impossible to legislate for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

As far as I can see first cousin marriage in itself doesn't make much difference: Put differently, a single first-cousin marriage entails a similar increased risk of birth defects and mortality as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 rather than at 30.  Unless you're going to ban women from getting pregnant over the age of 40 as well. 

A bigger problem is more when small communities don't marry outside themselves over generations, so even in there is no first cousin marriage, couples are likely quite closely related genetically.  But that would be almost impossible to legislate for.

I didn’t read the Wikipedia article that you used as your reference before I posted. But what I was getting at, without spelling it out, is further down in that article - colleagues tell me that the rate of birth defects in certain immigrant communities is very high. Suppressing cousin marriages would reduce that. Comparing that practice to 41 year olds having a higher risk than 30 year olds…really?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wrighty said:

I didn’t read the Wikipedia article that you used as your reference before I posted. But what I was getting at, without spelling it out, is further down in that article - colleagues tell me that the rate of birth defects in certain immigrant communities is very high. Suppressing cousin marriages would reduce that. Comparing that practice to 41 year olds having a higher risk than 30 year olds…really?

So it seems.  My point was that banning cousin marriage doesn't automatically solve the endogamy problem.  The article also mentions the Amish who do ban it and yet still have high rates of birth defects.  Of course most of such communities are religious-based and as well as preventing 'marrying out' that might also mean that women carrying a foetus with defects are less likely to seek termination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, cissolt said:

On the topic of manxcare, I see we have yet another director coming in.  Rob is stating on Facebook that the salaries of directors are not published? This doesn't sound right!

The 'news' of a new Non-Executive Director was in a government press release issued on Thursday[1].  Though even that had to admit that he'd been approved by Tynwald in July - over two months ago.  And his details would have been on the website a good bit before that.  Obviously he lives in London and has no apparent connection the Island.

And Callister is as reliably incorrect as ever.  We know from when the job was advertised that the salary is £17,333 per annum.  

 

[1]  It also contains the bonkers line: * Tim Bishop’s appointment to the Manx Care Board is subject to receipt of DBS check.  Which you would have thought they would have done before he was appointed, like every other employee.  (As his Linkedin says he's been Chair of at least two safeguarding boards, it would be rather dramatic if he failed, mind).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The 'news' of a new Non-Executive Director was in a government press release issued on Thursday[1].  Though even that had to admit that he'd been approved by Tynwald in July - over two months ago.  And his details would have been on the website a good bit before that.  Obviously he lives in London and has no apparent connection the Island.

And Callister is as reliably incorrect as ever.  We know from when the job was advertised that the salary is £17,333 per annum.  

 

[1]  It also contains the bonkers line: * Tim Bishop’s appointment to the Manx Care Board is subject to receipt of DBS check.  Which you would have thought they would have done before he was appointed, like every other employee.  (As his Linkedin says he's been Chair of at least two safeguarding boards, it would be rather dramatic if he failed, mind).

usual Bullshit baffles brains !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The 'news' of a new Non-Executive Director was in a government press release issued on Thursday[1].  Though even that had to admit that he'd been approved by Tynwald in July - over two months ago.  And his details would have been on the website a good bit before that.  Obviously he lives in London and has no apparent connection the Island.

And Callister is as reliably incorrect as ever.  We know from when the job was advertised that the salary is £17,333 per annum.  

 

[1]  It also contains the bonkers line: * Tim Bishop’s appointment to the Manx Care Board is subject to receipt of DBS check.  Which you would have thought they would have done before he was appointed, like every other employee.  (As his Linkedin says he's been Chair of at least two safeguarding boards, it would be rather dramatic if he failed, mind).

His name rings a bell. Not sure there is no connection to the IOM. Need to do some digging. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...