Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are totally correct...while we have the vent beds not being used,it should be viewed as a fucking crime if someone is not given the chance of it. It's no good hyping all the ventilators and not using them." It says why in the article... Ventilation machines are not going to give a positive outcome for all.. And the main factor was access to a CPAP machine that was already in the house...these machines have their own drawbacks...and one that if he was still positive for Covid19 would increase the risk of others in the house also catching it.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive. What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available. The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space. Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve. Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity. Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it. Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place. At least give them a chance.." They have not been put forward because the temporary hospitals are not fit for purpose. They don't have the specialist equipment required. They should be used to deal with the overspill of "normal" hospital patients and used to limit cross contamination. Allowing more covid patients to be treated at hospital not in a fucking football stadium The government could us the temporary hospitals as a staging area to send people at risk. Rather than quarantine the entire population It's another shite decision by the government and they are using stats to cover up their incompetence | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive. What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available. The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space. Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve. Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity. Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it. Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place. At least give them a chance.." This is your misunderstanding of healthcare. It is cruel to preserve life at all costs. Do you realise how often care home patients would be in hospital if we hospitalised them every time they were ill? Many peoples preference is to die at home and where death is all but inevitable it is frankly cruel to put people in hospital. Have you been in a care home? They are not the retirement homes you have seen on TV like the ones in America. Life expectancy for care home residents is less than a year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive. What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available. The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space. Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve. Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity. Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it. Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place. At least give them a chance.." When Suryakant "Suri" Nathwani returned from the hospital, the reserved 81-year-old grabbed his son's hand and pleaded to be allowed to die at home. "He said, 'Please promise me one thing: If I'm going to go, I'm going to go here. Do not take me back there,'" his son Raj Nathwani said | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive. What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available. The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space. Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve. Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity. Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it. Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place. At least give them a chance.. This is your misunderstanding of healthcare. It is cruel to preserve life at all costs. Do you realise how often care home patients would be in hospital if we hospitalised them every time they were ill? Many peoples preference is to die at home and where death is all but inevitable it is frankly cruel to put people in hospital. Have you been in a care home? They are not the retirement homes you have seen on TV like the ones in America. Life expectancy for care home residents is less than a year." But the whole point of the hospitals during this crisis is to save lives. If the patient still has the fight to live they should do all they fucking can with that fight  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not heard of personal choice??" DNR is a personal choice...and the opposite should be for as long as the patient wants it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not heard of personal choice?? DNR is a personal choice...and the opposite should be for as long as the patient wants it." Some people are unable to make that choice so the decision lies on whoever has power of attorney. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not heard of personal choice?? DNR is a personal choice...and the opposite should be for as long as the patient wants it." The person will be in an induced coma on full ventilation so any such consent is nok.. A person with copd or brittle asthma will not be put on full ventilation as they have damaged lungs already and the time taken to get them off the ventilation can be months and the process also can cause further damage to the lungs/respiratory tract etc.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not heard of personal choice?? DNR is a personal choice...and the opposite should be for as long as the patient wants it. The person will be in an induced coma on full ventilation so any such consent is nok.. A person with copd or brittle asthma will not be put on full ventilation as they have damaged lungs already and the time taken to get them off the ventilation can be months and the process also can cause further damage to the lungs/respiratory tract etc.. " I'm well aware of ventilators with lung damage as I've been there. But CPAP should be available for all who need it ...not like another poster has said that it can cause infections to others
Every patient who has not chosen a DNR route should be given all the choices available to them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not heard of personal choice?? DNR is a personal choice...and the opposite should be for as long as the patient wants it. The person will be in an induced coma on full ventilation so any such consent is nok.. A person with copd or brittle asthma will not be put on full ventilation as they have damaged lungs already and the time taken to get them off the ventilation can be months and the process also can cause further damage to the lungs/respiratory tract etc.. I'm well aware of ventilators with lung damage as I've been there. But CPAP should be available for all who need it ...not like another poster has said that it can cause infections to others
Every patient who has not chosen a DNR route should be given all the choices available to them."Agree on the cpap, certainly less intrusive.. That's a new one, like any bit of kit it will I would put money on having the means to be cleaned post usage.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have full understanding of healthcare and the bad decisions made by people in higher office with little understanding. EVERYONE deserves a chance, regardless of outcome. Doctors were told to make decisions ONLY in the event of two or more needing equipment and a choice to be given. Now they are deciding on factors they would never know the true outcome unless they at least try and this is wholly wrong. I woukd rather hear "we did everythibg we could" than "I don't think they will make it so we are not bothering" if it was a relative of mine. " Have been in a do not resuscitate situation with the they have no chance talk..... They did ! And it is one of the reasons I think automatic organ donation is wrong..... It must be tempting to avoid the tough case and save the sure fire winners. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The care home situation is a national scandle. People are just being left to die and not being given a chance with medical help. " Exactly, should be given a fighting chance like anyine else. I have full respect for the NHS and it's workers, but to simply ask a few questions over the phone and take decisions without even trying. This happened to a friend of mine. Infected in a care home after being dumped out of hospital to clear bed space, then left to die with refusal to re-admit. Not saying the outcome would be positive, but now we'll never know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The care home situation is a national scandle. People are just being left to die and not being given a chance with medical help. Exactly, should be given a fighting chance like anyine else. I have full respect for the NHS and it's workers, but to simply ask a few questions over the phone and take decisions without even trying. This happened to a friend of mine. Infected in a care home after being dumped out of hospital to clear bed space, then left to die with refusal to re-admit. Not saying the outcome would be positive, but now we'll never know." Nobody is making rash , uncaring decisions. It's a complicated area of medical treatment. Even young previously healthy people can take 6 months to recover from intensive care procedures. To do this to the elderly with health complications is pointless and verging on cruel. But then obviously complicated issues aren't good for knee-jerk headlines, are they! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not heard of personal choice?? DNR is a personal choice...and the opposite should be for as long as the patient wants it." This is not true. You can refuse a treatment but you do not have a right to a treatmemt. So someone can choose a DNACPR, and even an advanced directive. But you don't have the choice of saying i want treatment x or y or in this case to be resusitated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have full understanding of healthcare and the bad decisions made by people in higher office with little understanding. EVERYONE deserves a chance, regardless of outcome. Doctors were told to make decisions ONLY in the event of two or more needing equipment and a choice to be given. Now they are deciding on factors they would never know the true outcome unless they at least try and this is wholly wrong. I woukd rather hear "we did everythibg we could" than "I don't think they will make it so we are not bothering" if it was a relative of mine. " "Every one deserves a chance" this is a statement that cannot be just applied to anyone without context. "Regardless of outcomes" the outcome or the probability of it effects the options you have. May i use an example Say an 89 year old gentleman has worsening heart failure (with frequent hospitalization), has severe COPD, kidney failure and is now off his feet. He has worsening COPD and is now on CPAP/BiPAP over night the setting are being increased higher and higher to the top of what the machine can do. Should we then sent him to ICU and sedate him and put him on a ventilator. With a very sensative conversation with the patient and the family involved it would be appropriate to talk about the next steps and the likely outcomes of these steps. I have seen it bern done very well and sometimes not so much. I hope my post makes sense These decisions are heartbreaking indeed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive. What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available. The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space. Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve. Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity. Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it. Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place. At least give them a chance.." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive. What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available. The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space. Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve. Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity. Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it. Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place. At least give them a chance.." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive. What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available. The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space. Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve. Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity. Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it. Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place. At least give them a chance.." Think you will find these decisions are taken on a daily basis in many, many hospitals around the country even before Covid raised its head. Its really not about throwing someone one the scrap heap, it's far, far more complex than most of us realise. Very sorry for anyone's loss but quality of life must also enter the prognosis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This man came home from the hospital to die. His son found a way to keep him alive: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus-uk-elderly-patient-intl-gbr/index.html Although I fully understand that if two or more people required ventilation and only one unit was available, an assesment of the best outcome would be made prior to choosing one person to survive. What I don't understand is why peopke with underlying conditions that do have a low chance of surviving are at least not given the chance where resouces are available. The government is celebrating that most, if not all of the Nightingale hospitals have not been needed, yet at the same time people are not being put forward to use this excess space. Even if only 5% survive, that is 5 in 100 families that don't need to grieve. Decisions are being taken on people that although low, could have a chance to survive if they were at least given the oppertunity. Use this spare and unused capacity to the max, not reserve it. Care homes, why are they taking decisions over the phone, mainly that these people get simple respite in place. At least give them a chance.. Think you will find these decisions are taken on a daily basis in many, many hospitals around the country even before Covid raised its head. Its really not about throwing someone one the scrap heap, it's far, far more complex than most of us realise. Very sorry for anyone's loss but quality of life must also enter the prognosis. " that's the point, they don't really know what the quality of life will be, it is not an exact science, for friend they suggested dnr, they were in coma, after much grief they did the second operation .... It was a long haul... But the damaged dnr candidate is now going on holidays, walking, eating, living...... Worn out doctors under pressure for various reasons will be tempted to take the simpler route | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now that the truth is finally coming out. Government directed Health Trusts under extrene pressure to dump elderly people into Care Homes to free up capacity and 'protect the NHS'. More and more care home managers are now coming forward to make public the extreme pressure they were getting from Hospital discharge staff to take patients regardless of their infection status. The offer if 5% fees increase to any care home willing to take these extremly high risk incomers, along with great emotional pressure to take these people has caused the deaths of 1000's other fellow residents. On Radio4 the other evening, a care home manager needed one if it'a residents to attend hospital for a non related issue, who was contacted to receive the patient back. After refusing re-admission without confirmation of COVID status if the resident and a number of hours on the phone, an ambulance turned up unnannounced with the patient on a stretcher. Paramedics were heavy with her, threatened her with police in respect of refusing to allow the patient back "home". All she wanted was guarantees that the other residents of the home would not be placed at risk. The family then turned up and the patuent was literally dumped at the front door. Other care homes who refused unverified admissions have been threatened with fees withdrawal and legal action. The law is on the side of care homes in that within Health and Safety law, a resident has the right to live in a safe place. This appeared on CNN today: "The world sacrificed its elderly in the race to protect hospitals and the consequences have been devastating" https://cnn.it/2yzcb25 Good Morning Britain clip from last week. Once arrived at a home and subsequently falling ill, homes were offered were palitive care packs and refusal of medical visits to attain the outcome if hospitalised. This is not to say they all would of made it, but many may have done if NOT had been written off. Not, even given a chance of Oxygen or CPAP, leaving Ventilators aside is a complete failure. Just because they are old, it not a given that death is certain with some kind of life support. More will come out over time, it was obvious this was happening and a disgraceful failure of the government and its advisors in forcing infected patients on care homes only to spread to others, who otherwise would have been safe. Litigation by families and homes is going to cost a fortune and last for years. They failed the people who needed protecting the most." Hospital discharge managers have sent residents back to care homes without them being medically fit for years. Usually ending up in the resident having to be readmitted to hospital via 999 wasting more resources etc. Anything to free up hospital beds It's not new....it's just being talked about more now due to the current situation. They have also been known to be selective with the truth to facilitate earlier than is safe discharges. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yet again, the wonderful people of Fab know more about medicine based on reading about the case online than the professional staff who train for years. I’m not saying doctors get it right 100% of the time - but there are complaints procedures to deal with that. Stories like this only seek to undermine trust in medical professionals. Let’s let them get on with doing their jobs without the distractions of looking over their shoulders, worrying about being judged in the court of public opinion. "Agreed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
