Page 3 | How would Matt Hancock have decided who lives and who dies?

Eve223 · 2023-11-02T21:27:18+00:00

What factors would have been taken into consideration? Age? Comorbidities? Childless? It's utterly sickening and chilling to know what this despicable monster wanted to do.

CoffeeWithCheese · 03/11/2023 10:59

Guiltyfeethavegotnorhythm0 · 02/11/2023 22:17

Weren't those with learning disabilities thought to have been on the list too ?

Yep - lots of people with ID had issues with DNRs being placed on their records. Think they would have been number 1 on "the list" or very high. I still hear some horrendous stories from people with ID and their families of how they were treated during the pandemic now.

Considering how often autism gets lumped in with ID as well (personal pet hate of mine and work know it makes me ranty) - an ASD diagnosis would have possibly put you in the firing line.

Personally I'd have put Govt advisors and Politicians in the top spots.

TheLongpigs · 03/11/2023 11:07

carltonscroop · 03/11/2023 08:52

But surely he was saying ‘If the NHS is overwhelmed, I as the Secretary of State should be the one responsible for setting out the national policy on who gets treatment, as opposed to leaving those awful decisions in the hands of individual doctors to make on a case by case basis with no guidance to fall back on’

This is absolutely wrong and totally unnecessary

Clinicians don't need "guidance" to either triage or reverse triage. It is a core part of their competence. It is, in the aftermath of major incidents, a normal part of their role. It is, in a day to day sense, also a core part of the role (arranging lists, deciding on treatment options, and when those run out.

They absolutely do not need a SoS and advisors making those decisions for them, with no regard to the actual patients in front of them, and who can be saved. As that political decision might not map well with actual hospital-by-hospital illness patterns.

We don't have much of a "national policy" on who gets treatment for anything. The postcode lottery of local commissioning over-rides that, and is a policy that the Tories introduced and are very much wedded to shows us that. So it's illogical at least to think it's a good thing to impose one, especially if you are doing so because you think important decisions about provision and withdrawal of care cannot be safely left at a regional/local level.

You are completely missing the point though. This is about how the cases would be prioritised if there were more patients than machines. It already assumes that the patient needs that level of care / intervention, but in a situation where only 1 or 2/3 patients can be treated, who would take priority? And that is ultimately a policy decision on that scale.

cheezncrackers · 03/11/2023 11:10

I agree that this is a sensationalist nonsense on the part of the media. In the end, it was decided that a national policy wasn't required, that clinicians could and did make these decisions on their own, on a case-by-case and location-by-location basis. Some areas of the country were more impacted than others at any given time, some patients were much older or sicker or had much more complex medical histories that meant that either they wouldn't survive being put on a ventilator or that their chances of recovery were so poor that that ventilator was given to someone else whose prognosis was better. Clinicians make these decisions every day and they do so in consultation with their colleagues. The whole thing is a red herring.

carltonscroop · 03/11/2023 22:52

TheLongpigs · 03/11/2023 11:07

You are completely missing the point though. This is about how the cases would be prioritised if there were more patients than machines. It already assumes that the patient needs that level of care / intervention, but in a situation where only 1 or 2/3 patients can be treated, who would take priority? And that is ultimately a policy decision on that scale.

Show quote history

I completely disagree. It should remain a clinical, not a policy decision.

And that is exactly what happened. They reached the right policy, that decisions were to be made locally, by a "three wise men" panel, in light of local situation and the actual patient mix. There is no "would" be prioritised "if" there were more patients than machines - that is what happened, and was managed well by experienced intensivists and other clinicians

There is no need for a policy that serves only to limit doctors, for they are the people best placed to decide which patients will benefit (and who make such decisions about which care to offer and when to withdraw it frequently, with no need for a central policy).

As cheezncrackers says, no additional centralised policy was needed, and clinicians could and did make those decisions.

KriceRispies · 03/11/2023 22:57

Absolutely agree that Hancock is despicable OP. What a sociopathic God complex he must have.

Kendodd · 03/11/2023 23:04

I suspect it would be by age as the easiest measure in the same way the vaccine was rolled out in age order. The vaccine was rolled out oldest first, if hospital treatment had had to be rationed I suspect the young would have priority. And as an older person, I believe it would have been correct for the young to be treated first.

cheezncrackers · 04/11/2023 14:26

I suspect it would be by age as the easiest measure

It's far more subtle than that - and that's why clinicians need to make the decision. An older person in good health can have a better chance of survival than a younger person in poorer health.