I'm Really Worried I Have Upset My...
Family & Relationships0 min ago
Covid Patients Before Cancer Patients
Why are covid patients given preference over life threatening cancer patients? Why are eighty or ninety year olds with covid receiving treatment yet there are those a lot younger with cancer having treatment postponed? Isn't it time, with finite resources, that age should be a factor when deciding who to to treat with any life threatening illness?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Reduction in cancer treatment d/........y mean reduction in survival rates............it might........but not
is correctus and has been said before
Hodgkins treatment you do have to keep to the clock.
Other blood cancers, it doesnt seem to matter - - - which is why you have a blood test each time before treatment
how do I know this? Christie delayed my chemo because I had post op complications. At one point they sewed my eyelids to gether ( to get the cornea to heal)
is correctus and has been said before
Hodgkins treatment you do have to keep to the clock.
Other blood cancers, it doesnt seem to matter - - - which is why you have a blood test each time before treatment
how do I know this? Christie delayed my chemo because I had post op complications. At one point they sewed my eyelids to gether ( to get the cornea to heal)
//What does after happen when the NHS is overstretched like now is some less urgent treatments get postponed until more beds and doctors are available and its safer to put the cancer treatment patient in hospital when staff and buildings contain a deadly virus//
What, and hope they don't die in the meantime, you mean? Why don't you properly address this question:
"Why are eighty or ninety year olds with covid receiving treatment yet there are those a lot younger with cancer having treatment postponed?"
The 80/90 year old with Covid will almost certainly die if left untreated. A twenty-five year old suffering from testicular cancer (as one of my nephews did five or six years ago) will almost certainly die if left untreated. He was told without treatment he would have been dead in eight to twelve weeks. In the current circumstances, living where he lives with one of the highest infection rates in the country, his treatment would have been postponed and he would almost certainly have died. Yes, his death would have taken a few weeks longer but the prognosis would have been the same. So, accepting that some prioritisation has to be made why does the Covid patient get priority over him? Your assertion that "Anyone who is 1-2 weeks ago from a seriously horrible painful illness and likely death will be admitted.." is incorrect - certainly where he lives - because there is only one illness which gives a patient that privilege and it's not cancer.
What, and hope they don't die in the meantime, you mean? Why don't you properly address this question:
"Why are eighty or ninety year olds with covid receiving treatment yet there are those a lot younger with cancer having treatment postponed?"
The 80/90 year old with Covid will almost certainly die if left untreated. A twenty-five year old suffering from testicular cancer (as one of my nephews did five or six years ago) will almost certainly die if left untreated. He was told without treatment he would have been dead in eight to twelve weeks. In the current circumstances, living where he lives with one of the highest infection rates in the country, his treatment would have been postponed and he would almost certainly have died. Yes, his death would have taken a few weeks longer but the prognosis would have been the same. So, accepting that some prioritisation has to be made why does the Covid patient get priority over him? Your assertion that "Anyone who is 1-2 weeks ago from a seriously horrible painful illness and likely death will be admitted.." is incorrect - certainly where he lives - because there is only one illness which gives a patient that privilege and it's not cancer.
This is my point, NJ. My BIL was originally given about 10 years with prostate cancer, then last year, was down to two years. His treatment was stopped, due to worries about covid overtaking the hospital. They apologised massively, because they said this decision meant he probably wouldn't see last Christmas (and he didn't). So it was known about and deliberate.
//To stop the virus from spreading and killing people. An elderly cancer patient poses no risk to others.//
Nor would the 90 year old as I doubt they'd be getting out and about too much. In fact, they'd stand a far greater chance of spreading the disease if they were in hospital as they are one of the worst places to contract the virus:
https:/
(many other similar reports are available)
Nor would the 90 year old as I doubt they'd be getting out and about too much. In fact, they'd stand a far greater chance of spreading the disease if they were in hospital as they are one of the worst places to contract the virus:
https:/
(many other similar reports are available)
hem hem my lord
untreated testicular cancer.....
It is likely to double its mass within a 10 to 30 day period. If the cancer is not detected and goes untreated, life expectancy is between two to three years only.
and you will perhaps see milord that a lock down of 3 months does not exactly change ......
I am obliged milord - wo will no doubt bear in mind I do read and think about what he says.
makes a good story, and this IS AB !
untreated testicular cancer.....
It is likely to double its mass within a 10 to 30 day period. If the cancer is not detected and goes untreated, life expectancy is between two to three years only.
and you will perhaps see milord that a lock down of 3 months does not exactly change ......
I am obliged milord - wo will no doubt bear in mind I do read and think about what he says.
makes a good story, and this IS AB !
//...makes a good story, and this IS AB !//
It wasn't a particularly good story for him, Peter. He is still under regular assessment (though that has been knocked on the head recently). The disease was quite far advanced before he sought treatment. Being a bloke he didn't trouble doctors too much. He was given the timescales by his consultant before surgery. There are reports in the media of people dying because their treatment had been delayed or cancelled. I can't be bothered to find links for them but there's plenty about. I understand that when resources are at their limit some prioritisation must take place. But it seems there's only one criterion being considered in many places.
It wasn't a particularly good story for him, Peter. He is still under regular assessment (though that has been knocked on the head recently). The disease was quite far advanced before he sought treatment. Being a bloke he didn't trouble doctors too much. He was given the timescales by his consultant before surgery. There are reports in the media of people dying because their treatment had been delayed or cancelled. I can't be bothered to find links for them but there's plenty about. I understand that when resources are at their limit some prioritisation must take place. But it seems there's only one criterion being considered in many places.
so just let the oldies who have covid bad die derek?
The NHS has to prioritise. Normally its not a problem for more urgent cases, although of course prioritisation has allways occured- eg heart attacks treated asap, gallstones when they can, some ops wait a year. But now its a problem. If New Judge can show theres an instruction to let them die unless there covid then hes wrong as usual
The NHS has to prioritise. Normally its not a problem for more urgent cases, although of course prioritisation has allways occured- eg heart attacks treated asap, gallstones when they can, some ops wait a year. But now its a problem. If New Judge can show theres an instruction to let them die unless there covid then hes wrong as usual
//If New Judge can show theres an instruction to let them die unless there covid then hes wrong as usual//
I didn’t suggest there was an instruction.
//so hes still alive judge. We wish him well and wish he could of got faster treatment-//
He didn’t need faster treatment. He got treatment as promptly as was necessary. If you read my post properly you'd have realised that. But he wouldn’t be treated promptly now - probably not promptly enough.
//but hospitals cant turn away old patients who are struggling to breath through covid and likely to die if untreated,//
But they can turn away younger patients who may also be struggling to breathe, but from a different cause?
//Cue new judge to say his local hospital has loads of capacity, what crisis//
My hospital does not have loads of capacity. It did have in the autumn when the government tried to bamboozle us into believing they were struggling. One of the reasons my hospital has little capacity id because a large number of the wards are closed.
I didn’t suggest there was an instruction.
//so hes still alive judge. We wish him well and wish he could of got faster treatment-//
He didn’t need faster treatment. He got treatment as promptly as was necessary. If you read my post properly you'd have realised that. But he wouldn’t be treated promptly now - probably not promptly enough.
//but hospitals cant turn away old patients who are struggling to breath through covid and likely to die if untreated,//
But they can turn away younger patients who may also be struggling to breathe, but from a different cause?
//Cue new judge to say his local hospital has loads of capacity, what crisis//
My hospital does not have loads of capacity. It did have in the autumn when the government tried to bamboozle us into believing they were struggling. One of the reasons my hospital has little capacity id because a large number of the wards are closed.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.