A woman who was refused free NHS cancer treatment after she paid for extra drugs has died, reigniting the debate over whether patients should be allowed to "top up" their care.
Linda O'Boyle and her husband Brian, both retired health workers, decided to pay for treatment in addition to that available on the NHS in order to prolong her life.
Mrs O'Boyle was told that meant she was considered a private patient and so had to pay for all her treatment.
Government guidelines currently ban patients from mixing public and private care.
* * *
When Mrs O'Boyle, who had three children and four grandchildren, developed bowel cancer and began having chemotherapy, doctors said she could boost her chances of fighting the disease by adding the drug cetuximab.
It is not routinely funded by the NHS but she decided to use her savings to pay for it.Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust then withdrew her free treatment, including the chemotherapy drug she was receiving.
In other words, because Mrs. O'Boyle affirmatively attempted to improve her health by seeking the best in medical care, she was denied access to even the minimal level of care provided by the government.
In my book, that is murder.
And now the Democrats want to bring such a medical rationing system here.
1
To bad she couldn't have died the American way, with an insurance bureaucrat declining coverage.
Until all Universal Health Care plans are run absolutely perfectly, we should continue to tolerate our ridiculously expensive system, its frightening inequities, and mediocre results.
As long as some beneficiary of UHC must sit for 15 minutes before receiving high-quality care without paying for it, I will continue to happily wait for an hour to be seen briefly by a nurse practicioner . . .
Posted by: Dan at Mon Jun 2 03:50:55 2008 (n1xH/)
2
Except, of course, if you have been paying attention to the news about the health care systems in Canada and the UK -- the ones that are most often cited by universal health care advocates -- stories like this are the exception rather than the rule.
Why do you think that Canadians cross the border to the US to pay privately for routine tests procedures? Because they are told that it will three months before they can get an MRI for that suspected torn ligament in their knee, rather than three days.
And since in the British system they will simply stop doing surgeries during the last couple of months of the year because they have burned through their budget, it ain't a question of "sitting 15 minutes for high-quality care".
Nut hell -- the true-believers in socialism always believe that Karl Marx's solutions will finally work if only they get to be in charge of implementing them, never mind that they have failed every time they have ever been tried anyplace.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jun 2 04:01:28 2008 (YtsIz)
3
If I had the time, I would fill my tank with government-subsidized gas, on the socialized roads, to your socialized place of employment, and tell you what I think of your criticism. But, on the other hand, the conversation could get heated, in which case the socialized police department might get involved.
Of course, the roads, military, trash pick-up, parks and police are complete failures every time they have ever been tried anyplace . . .
Posted by: Dan at Mon Jun 2 06:04:00 2008 (n1xH/)
4
Nice try, Dan -- but it does not work.
Government should only be providing those things that the people cannot provide for themselves -- thus military and police services are legitimate. As for my place of employment -- I'll be the first to tell you that I believe the public school system ought to be privatized so that it can run more efficiently.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jun 2 09:21:55 2008 (YtsIz)
5
Actually, the argument works fine. We can purchase our own security if you socialists would not prevent us from having our own military. Some places do have their own trash pick-up, though studies show that the privatizes systems underperform the "socialistic" ones.
We can certainly have private toll roads.
And we're communicating on a socialistic internet.
Posted by: Dan at Mon Jun 2 11:48:44 2008 (IU21y)
6
Actually, it really does not. Familiarize yourself with the concept of "public goods".
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jun 2 12:40:05 2008 (YtsIz)
7
As in a healthy public?
Posted by: Dan at Tue Jun 3 03:06:15 2008 (IU21y)
8
Doesn't fit the definition. The people can provide health care for themselves without government intervention in a way that they cannot provide military protection for themselves.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 3 04:57:31 2008 (YtsIz)
9
Don't you think the millions of uninsured, including tens of millions of children and elderly, prove you wrong? If we're all expected to have enough money to pay for our own health care, why shouldn't we have enough money to pay for our own roads and police? And military?
You admitted above that the story you told was the exception rather than the rule in countries that are blessed with single-payer systems. Why are our uninsured less worthy than a poor Brit or Canadian? Why should American children suffer, while French kids get basic care?
There will always be exceptional cases, where some unlucky person gets ignored or maltreated. That happens in all countries where humans run the health system.
Posted by: Dan at Tue Jun 3 07:31:21 2008 (VQXBf)
10
I mis-typed -- they are the rule rather than the exception.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 3 10:32:20 2008 (YtsIz)
11
And again, you are clearly not familiar with the economic concept i referenced, so I'm not going to try to debate you when we are not even working with the same definition of a key term.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 3 10:48:00 2008 (YtsIz)
12
I know the definition, but I rather enjoyed showing how myopic your view of the proper role of government is. Faux-libertarianism is one of the most mockable stances.
Happily for all except the insurance insurance industry, we're going to have universal health care within the first 4 years of President Obama's administration. It'll probably take a few more years before we totally get rid of the medical insurance industry, though.
(As an aside, your comment screening will not allow the phrase "insurance" followed by "company".)
Posted by: Dan at Wed Jun 4 16:37:45 2008 (IU21y)
13
I'm not engaged in a faux-libertarianism. I'm engaged in a very real conservatism.
President Obama? I don't think so. Democrats are rushing to back John McCain.
And as far as the two words go, that has something to do with a previous spammage problem.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 4 23:41:00 2008 (YtsIz)
14
"A woman who was refused free NHS cancer treatment after she paid for extra drugs has died."
We have often many similar subtitles in our newspapers, just with a small difference, usually it's something like "Woman died because of late diagnosis" "Man died because of late treatment" I don't say public health insurance is generally bad, on the other hand you should have the right to choose something different and to pay for it if you want. But that's almost not possible in Canada. As a
Toronto life insurance broker I have been always fan of private health insurance, but any effort to spread it is blocked...
anyway, the best health care is the one you don't need
Best wishes!
Lorne
Posted by: Life Insurance Canada at Sat Jun 7 02:59:47 2008 (wmA+H)
15
It'll probably take a few more years before we totally get rid of the medical insurance industry, though.
(As an aside, your comment screening will not allow the phrase "insurance" followed by "company".)
Posted by: Pearle Lindberg at Tue Sep 11 00:30:27 2012 (SMcr0)
16
As an aside, your comment screening will not allow the phrase "insurance" followed by "company"
Posted by: Rayna Urbina at Wed Sep 12 00:42:19 2012 (FTPQj)
17
Hello, Thanks for this fine blog. I think it
is really a great topic to write about on my blog. Also here is some nice
information:
Posted by: Maida Sells at Fri Nov 9 00:26:54 2012 (Ltlc/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
