To tell you the NHS is a frightening failure for children?

[redorbreak]

I suppose when we read headlines it's A&E waiting times and often focused on adults

But I'm here to give a personal account of how dangerous it is for children, something we haven't shone the light on as much as adult care and waiting times being horrible right now.

DD was born very prematurely and she had some awful breathing this morning, which then worsened into sucking in a lot at the rib cage (not that unusual for her but it seemed worse than usual). She couldn't stay awake much

I knew an ambulance would take a long time and needed the car, so I was going to drive her myself. I went to put her into her car seat and she went floppy, like a rag doll. Limp and floppy. I screamed and luckily H was there who phoned an ambulance

I explained calmly but seriously on the phone what was going on. The phone operator said 5 hour wait. I said please, she's gone floppy. Please help us. She said sorry, but 5 hour wait times. Can I take her myself?

I explained I could take her myself but I wouldn't be able to see if she was okay or not? I'd be driving. She said that was safer than waiting for an ambulance

I put the phone down and took her in, frightened, petrified for her life. I got there after 25 minutes and rushed to her. She was still not responding. She was triaged straight away. Her Sats were sitting at 69/70.

She is currently in PICU (intensive care) and I don't know when she will wake up. Nobody seems to be straight with me. I'm not getting a clear picture here. My H is on his way up now and hopefully they will tell me straight what this means for her now

The NHS is fucked.

The NHS already operates age discrimination towards children ane younger people. It’s why Cancer treatments and life prolonging treatments are focussed on the under 70s. I know elderly Cancer patients who, without an assessment of their individual health needs, get told they’re ‘too old’ for chemo or that it won’t work when actually it’s more likely to work on a fit and active 80 year old than an unfit 60 year old.

What do you think being there for them involves when they're on a ventilator and they aren't awake? Not much, I can tell you. At least this conversation puts my mind on something a bit different than just worrying myself into an early grave

Just to say OP - THIS.

When a child is fully sedated on a ventilator, there is nothing you can do. Its a feeling people cannot understand who haven't experienced it. A friend of mine was horrified i was able to go with her for a coffee in the hospital when she came to visit us. I pointed out I literally was not allowed to be on picu at all during rounds (around 2 hours long).

You imagine parents keeping 24 hour vigils by the child's bedside.

In reality -

• the physios come round to do chest work. You are quite frankly in the way, its also can be quite distressing to watch so they suggest go off and get food etc.
• you are kicked out for ward rounds.
• you are not allowed to sleep at the bedside in picu.
• sometimes things will get ropy. My daughter had a really bad day when they had to bag ventilate her while she was on the ventilator, several times. I was quite in the way.
• you are often asked to step out while procedures are carried put - intubation & extubation, insertion of NG tubes, central lines, cannulas etc.
• you are often not allowed in for quite a while when being transferred in, while they stabilise the baby/child.

Palivuzumab is not widely available at all. My high risk prem baby with heart condition never got it. Its not really a vaccine and gives very short protection.

There are trials going on in hospitals for an RSV vaccine now, i'd recommend anyone with a prem baby sign up if they can.

@MilkyYay my daughter with a (minor in the grand scheme of things) heart condition and Down syndrome only got it because she'd ended up in picu with rsv. And after a fight and a recommendation from a picu consultant she had it.... she dotted boxes but didn't tick any. We were all pleasantly surprised when it was approved for her to have by the board.

It’s far more fluffy and Disney to be ‘but what about the children and babies, they are so very special. In operational and rational terms there are many reasons not prioritise children and babies but as I said this isn’t the thread to discuss it.

@dollymixtured

Rationally, children’s lives have a higher value. Simple as that.

Rationally they really don’t, but this is not the thread to put these arguments.

Prayingandhoping
My prem daughter, also growth restricted so v small & minor heart condition, also in picu with RSV bronch... no one ever even mentioned it to us! I found about it months later and no one would ever agree to it even though she had bronch twice, requiring ventilation both times in a single 6 week period.

Like it or not, children's care is regularly prioritised because:

• they have greater economic value as future contributors over a long time period (the very elderly do not). This doesn't suggest an overall "higher value" on any one life than another, the economical side of things is just one facet but it happens to be less subjectiely measurable.

• the vast majority of human adults want the care of children prioritised over the very elderly
• they cannot communicate as well as adults, which means it can be harder to identify and treat problems
• they can deteriorate faster - diseases like cancer for example can progress much slower in the very elderly than the young.

It’s so different in all areas.

I called 111 as my then 5 month old had croup that obviously needed steroids (this was last year). GP surgery said call 111 as she needed steroids and only the hospital could give them - I was hoping they could give an appointment time or something.

What happened was, they insisted on sending out an ambulance.

I said please don’t, we are a 12 min drive from A&E, we can drive there now ourselves, we will leave immediately.

They said that if I refused an ambulance, it would be flagged as a safeguarding issue and would be taken further.

Ambulance came within 20 mins. She needed no treatment from paramedics.

It was such a waste of an ambulance, we would have arrived at the hospital before they came.

It’s a crazy system sometimes.

I can give actual reasons beyond ‘AlL LivES aRe VaLUabLe’

1. They haven’t actually lived a life yet. The elderly have. If you can’t wrap your mind around this very basic concept then I’m not sure you are capable of logical thinking.
2. They hold greater potential to society as economic contributors and future parents etc.
3. Their parents would be devastated if anything happened to them. There is no greater love than parent/child. Very few people are similarly devastated by the loss of a 90 year old family member. Sad of course, but not devastated.

And of course children and babies are medically vulnerable and cannot speak to rationalise their symptoms.

But, mainly point number 1. Now go ahead and give me the excellent reasons a 90 year old should be prioritised over a toddler?

All of this. The fact some people are too entrenched in their Disney thinking to accept these incredibly basic and irrefutable points is beyond me.

Oh dear

Yes my daughter was iugr too. Was only 6lbs at 8 weeks when in picu

It was a consultant who discharged us from picu who told us about it and then I mentioned it to my hv who pushed like mad and wouldn't take no for an answer until we got it approved.

The second year I still have to have it rubber stamped and her cardiologist agreed to recommend it

I have repeatedly said that this isn’t the thread to get into this on but people seem intent to keep pushing and pushing. Rationally and economically speaking we should not keep very premature babies alive, the costs to keep them alive run into the hundreds of thousands and over a lifetime they may well have ongoing health issues that are costly. The same with very disabled babies. I however think that that view is pretty abhorrent. As soon as you assign ‘value’ to lives that is the playing field you are on.

How scary op! I Hope your little one recovers soon. That's absolutely terrifying. How I wish there were private facilities for this. I know I'll be flamed for saying that but I would happily pay for that.

refer you back to point 1

Wow, I didn’t think anyone would actually come in this thread and say that they think people’s care should be down to how economically useful they might be in the future. Bad luck for the disabled and all those premature babies then as economically speaking the sums probably wouldn’t add up. Normally people don’t say the quiet bit out loud, but you are doubling down. Your world is not one I would want to live in.

Give me @Cuppasoupmonster ‘s world any day of the week.

In the context of the current ambulance crisis children should be prioritised over an elderly person if both calls were coming in at a cat 1. It’s really not terribly complicated.

But I’m not talking in pure economics, although that is a side effect. My position is simple - old people have lived their lives, the young haven’t. You still haven’t answered - one ambulance, a 90 year old with a 70% chance of mortality, a 1 year old with a 30% chance of mortality. Who would YOU send it to? And no more inspirational quotes just answer the question.

No in your world it is clearly very simple. Young equals valuable and old equals obsolete.

Priority should be based on clinical need not age or any other factor unless it is important in making the clinical decision I.e children decline faster etc

I would send it to the person with the highest clinical need for it. Also I have no idea what you are going on about with inspirational quotes, I haven’t posted any.

Also you literally referred me to ‘point 1’ which was about economic value. If you didn’t intend that then maybe you should give a more considered response.

If you had a straight choice between saving a two year old or saving a 90 year old, no one in their right mind would choose the 90 year old.

However, this is meant to be a civilized wealthy country and we should not be having to fight it out over who receives medical care.

@dollymixtured

You are so right. I absolutely do place a higher value on a young life over one that has been lived. If I live to be 90, I will feel exceptionally grateful, what a privilege. I would have the humility to know in my heart that a young child’s life that was only just beginning surely had a greater value than mine at 90. Some people are just too afraid of their own mortality and deep down they are terrified to die. You sound like one of them. We all have to die. Rather at 90 than 10 mind. It is a shame you lack the self awareness to accept that with good grace. Old age and death comes to us all. It is not the way of the world to accept
children dying over the elderly. Never has been, never will be.

I will literally copy and paste point 1 for you:

They haven’t actually lived a life yet. The elderly have. If you can’t wrap your mind around this very basic concept then I’m not sure you are capable of logical thinking.