Donate SIGN UP

Answers

41 to 60 of 74rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by piggynose. 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.
It doesn't mean that at all, Togo
I don't see how the Swedish authorities are saying anything close to that. "The medical need will govern" means that of the elderly need treatment they'll get it, and if illegal immigrants need treatment they'll get it, and whoever needs treatment more urgently gets it more urgently.

Any other reading is frankly ludicrous.
It would be discrimination between those with a good chance of living a while, and those with less chance. Race doesn't come into it.
In fact the message coming across is that you think they should discriminate.
Let's try again.

//Director-General of the Swedish National Board of Health Olivia Wigzell when speaking at a press conference saying that the authority was looking at triage measures that are often used in a crisis situation when resources are unable to cope with the volume of cases.//

Now tell us what you think that means if it does not imply abandoning the elderly in Sweden when the system breaks down.....which it is. The military age, mainly muslim, immigrants whether legal or illegally there will be treated and the elderly will not by dint of their recovery being harder to achieve. The wickedness advances even further along the road to the ruination of a once great Nation.
I believe that's the textbook definition of scaremongering and misinformation. There is no need to read anything other than medical reasons into the statement that "the medical need will govern". Any other reading is irresponsible.
//I believe that's the textbook definition of scaremongering and misinformation.//

Why would you believe that Jim lad? Because you find it more convenient. It is happening in Italy....so why not Sweden? Why not here?

"Triage, or the rationing and prioritising of care, has been used extensively in Italy, which has become the epicentre for the coronavirus outbreak in Europe, with doctors revealing that those infected with coronavirus above the age of 80 are often left to die without treatment.
“If someone between 80 and 95 has serious breathing difficulties, you probably don’t proceed [with treatment],” said Bergamo hospital anaesthetist Christian Saloroli.
Marco Vergano, the head anaesthetist at San Giovanni Bosco Hospital in Turin added: “We can’t invent new intensive care unit beds.” Vergano went on to say: “It’s important to understand that patients who arrive with a grave interstitial pneumonia from Covid-19 will not be in intensive care for a few days but for weeks.”
Medical triage is treating the most in danger first. That doesn't make a difference "who", but how urgent.
Do you know the criteria they are using there, Togo? It may be different from ours...
//Wigzell did not comment on specific measures but acknowledged there as an “ethical dimension” to the new considerations//

What would you imagine that implies Pixie? It came from the Swedish National Board of Health Director-General. Do you think that they will cease treatment to recent immigrants because they have not contributed sufficiently to the creaking system, or that they will cease treatment to other specific groups? If you think it is the latter which groups do you think that she is speaking of?
Somewhat different case as I have Spanish residency (not citizenship), but I have had medical insurance since I came here and have never bothered to register a form S1 with the local government. I got a bit worried because my insurance, like many I think, says it doesn’t cover a pandemic, so I rang the UK Government to get a form sent out. The lady who took the call was very helpful and sent me one, but she said that she doubted anyone would need one as it is normally an open-door policy during a pandemic. She said it is in a country’s interest that everyone is treated.

As it happens, I received an email from the insurer shortly afterwards saying that they were going to cover for the virus and giving a number to call. I am not sure if that was the insurer's decision or if it was an instruction from the Government.
//""Elderly patients with a low chance of survival could be taken off ventilators so they can be given to healthier ones under new guidelines issued to doctors.
The British Medical Association has released advice on prioritising intensive care treatment if the NHS becomes overwhelmed.
The guidelines say this will ‘inevitably be indirectly discriminatory against both the elderly and those with long-term health conditions’.

They add it may be necessary to deny some of the most unwell patients potentially life-saving treatment – even if their condition is improving.

‘This will inevitably be indirectly discriminatory against both the elderly and those with long-term health conditions relevant to their ability to benefit quickly, with the latter being denied access to life-saving treatment as a result of their pre-existing health problems.""//

Notice that bit...."with the latter being denied access to life-saving treatment as a result of their pre-existing health problems"....whilst the elderly will be denied medical care because......errr they are old.
Remind me again that "It doesn't mean that at all". Not just Sweden then, as I predicted and within the week our very own BMA is advocating a denial of treatment based on age. Coming soon similar services withheld, or "other" groups singled out for special means considerations. Like religious, or ethnic, or political, or being "a bit awkward" individuals?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8178189/Older-coronavirus-patients-taken-ventilators-BMA-guidelines.html
TOGO, if 10,000 need ventilation but there are only 8,000 ventilators, how would you decide who gets them?
How about the people who have contributed more to the NHS over the years? If not why not.
Can I point out that many of the more heroic intensive care interventions that will be used are not pleasant. Some are actively unpleasant. Some will not be possible at all for certain people eg some people with dementia will pull out drips or tubes and fight any kind of restrictive intervention. Before the pandemic some people were not given extreme life saving interventions because its neither kind not appropriate for them. Medical need.
Medical staff should NEVER be put in the position to do any kind of triage or choice that is not solely based on medical need....and medical need does not always mean to treat the most ill people first, its to do their best to give everyone the treatment that is the most appropriate FOR THEM.
If there were a teenager and someone in his nineties, I would treat the teenager.

The past and contributions made are one thing but the future is another and future lives need to be considered.

Haha Didn't take long did it. 2 days ago when I warned of such events there was a queue scrambling to tell me not to talk rubbish and no such thing was possible. Now it is perfectly acceptable......we even have a whole new defence of the new and exciting policy springing up as we speak. That is how easy it is to convince a populace that you are acting with their best interests at heart and making the "hard" decisions for them. Just like the fascist were able to justify their actions and easily find willing participants. I should imagine that it is the wet dream come true for many Euromaniacs......turn off the ventilators for those pesky old git Brexiteers. Just like they were wishing for......remember?
Togo seems to be suggesting that the rich, who have paid more taxes, get priority treatment. That wouldn't be my choice, but then I'm not rich.
Is that one of the determining criteria, "How did you vote in the referendum?"?
Tog0 14:11 Monday- have you misread ethical as ethnic?
It’s racism pure and simple.
Masquerading as victimisation.
As all fascism usually starts. Although hopefully in this case it’s just hot air vanishing in the ether.

41 to 60 of 74rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Is Sweden Irresponsible?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions