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.

Perhaps, yes. I realise that they do not have time to go through the medical history in emergency. I realise also that it is not that simple. But in my perfect world, there would be enough resources to help everyone. In the real world, there are not, and decisions (shitty ones), have to be made. I am simply stating that for me it is not so black and white - I would not always prioritise the baby just because it is a baby. However I am not saying that I would never prioritise the baby! My decision would always rely upon circumstance.

The issue that I am having with Cuppasoupmonster is that this PP has flat out said that babies and children must always be the priority. There is no flexibility in this statement at all. I am trying to bring a more balanced view by saying no, there should not be any one age group that should be prioritised above all others.

I would send the ambulance to the one who had the most chance of recovering with minimal future medical issues

That would basically always mean sending it to the baby as elderly people have statistically many, many more medical issues than younger people. As for ‘recovering’, what if they recovered then died of old age 6 months later? A worthy sacrifice of a child would you say?

Yes I did say that, because I see it in terms of do we prioritise somebody who has lived a full life, or somebody who hasn’t even had the opportunity to get started? Absolute no brainer

Look, for some reason you are really desperate for someone to start a poll. I have no interest in starting one because I already know that most of the responses will be to save the baby or child. I am not an idiot - any parent that votes on a poll such as this will choose baby or child! That is biology. I am also not saying that it is wrong to want to prioritise the baby or child, if that is your opinion. It simply is not mine. How difficult is this to grasp?

If you really want a poll, start one.

OP, I am hoping that all goes well with your little one. I will bow out of the debate too because I do not believe that this thread is the right place to continue it. Best wishes to you.

How about, two calls come in, both equally urgent, both categorised as cat 1. Only one ambulance available.

Who should the ambulance go to? The floppy/unresponsive baby, or the 24 year old in cardiac arrest?

The 24 year old has already received many years of expensive public investment into his development, health, education and training, which is about to start paying off in economic contribution, and his parents would be as devastated at losing him as the baby's parents would be. He will have a massive network of family, friends, colleagues, partner, perhaps children of his own, all of whom will be profoundly affected by his death. Apart from the emergency, he's a young fit man at the peak of physical condition who could make an excellent recovery. He can't be picked up and moved and will have to stay where he is until an ambulance gets there.

From a cold economic standpoint, babies have no dependents to need looking after by someone else if they die, they've not yet had much public money spent on developing their economic and other potential, and a new baby of equivalent potential can be quite quickly produced. Babies are also quite delicate in some ways, can suddenly go downhill, and it could be that the chances of saving the baby aren't that great — in all societies, babies die quite a lot. The main people who will be upset by the baby's death are her close family — she doesn't have any friends, colleagues, classmates, or children. She can be easily picked up and taken to hospital by any adult, though of course that lacks the medical resources and expertise of an ambulance and its crew.

And if you argue it's about remaining years, then that means you have to shuffle people with conditions that reduce life expectancy like Down's syndrome down the priority list. If the baby above has Down's her life expectancy is about thirty years less than that of the 24 year old man — and those making the unpleasant economic arguments would have to accept those are less likely to be highly economically productive years.

Prioritising children means prioritising them over everyone, not just 90 year olds.

Or we could prioritise patients based on need and urgency and chance of survival and the usual other relevant factors, include age only where it has an impact on those things (as I mentioned initially, it can be relevant because young children can be hard to assess and deteriorate fast), and most importantly improve the system so we can provide emergency ambulances as fast as they're needed to everyone who needs one.

@Scalottia

It is not just every parent that would think that way. A lot of people with and without kids are able to think objectively about these sorts of matters.

@FurryDandelionSeekingMissile

It goes without saying we could improve services. We are talking specifically about the current crisis that is happening right NOW. Personally I would prioritise children under the age of 18 over the very elderly.

@FurryDandelionSeekingMissile i see what you’re saying but that logic wouldn’t stand in reality as it isn’t 24 year olds packing A&E in their droves, it’s the elderly. So if the elderly - say over 85s - could be placed at a lower urgency, that would ease the pressure enough that you wouldn’t have to choose between a baby and a young adult.

I don't know why people started turning this into a discussion about a baby versus a ninety year old.

It started with people saying they assumed children were automatically prioritised full stop i.e. prioritised over all adults.

I think the ninety year olds were dragged into it because it's a lot easier to argue for prioritising a toddler over someone who's reaching the end of their life than it is to argue for prioritising a toddler over a more typical adult.

Ninety year olds are already treated quite differently from children and younger adults when it comes to heroic life-saving efforts, partly because a lot of the time it's cruel to do many of these painful and arduous things for little real benefit, and often the patients don't want them.

It’s atrocious. An ambulance should be there in an emergency in 15 minutes or less, end of. It’s criminal what the British public is currently tolerating when it comes to healthcare.

That's deprioritising old people, not prioritising children. Different argument. And we do need a shake-up of EOL care in this country — huge sums of money spent, to cause almost-dead people to live on for a little bit, often in extreme pain and sometimes suffering great indignity, for an extra few days, weeks or months.

@FurryDandelionSeekingMissile

It is definitely prioritising the young over the old in this current, immediate crisis and I do value a child’s life over a 90 years olds. Absolutely.

Well, that then. And yes, I agree.

Although I totally understand where you’re coming from but would you place a cat 1 call for a baby over a cat 1 call for a 3 yr old or 5 yr old a teenager a 40 year old or even a fit 70 year old or your teenage son or maybe your husband? Au least you can scoop a baby up and take it what about a Cat 1 on an 21 year old in an RTC? And it is also not for those answering 999 to make these decisions. A cat 1 is a cat 1.
The answer to this is to address it he problem as to why ambulances are not available for all. In my area the other night (a very large region with a high % of elderly)there were no ambulances out on the road all were queuing to get patients into ED the wait for a cat 1 was 4 hours.
Please lobby your MP if you think it will help (frankly I don’t) take to the streets and demonstrate you could report it to PALS but assuming the correct protocol was followed what can they do.
The fault lies with this government and them alone this crisis was being predicted years ago they have done nothing but blame everyone else and lie about what they’ve done and what they will do.
OP I hope your child makes a speedy recovery.

I hope your baby is ok OP.

@tiredwardsister

Yep, and they do want people to turn against each other/lots of social unrest. I do wonder how this will all end up….. in the end.

That’s right divide and rule. My baby/child/teenager/husband should get priority over your baby/child/teenager/husband.
HCPs don’t want to play God and say who is more important you are all important because we also have babies/young children/teenagers/husband and don’t forget elderly relatives we want you all to receive the highest possible standard of care because that is what we want for our loved ones.

Do you think anybody wants this?

Well said

@Cuppasoupmonster

Quite.

Not even tolerating it, an big chunk of the country actually voted for this. The NHS was in absolute crisis last time the Tories left office, this is what they do and the public know this.

I was just checking back in to see if there was an update from OP as I'd been thinking about her.

I can't believe people think this is the right thread to have a debate about ambulance prioritisation. With one post even stating the death of a baby would only upset their parents and they could easily be replaced.

Are you actually for real? I am sure this is not what OP wants or needs to be reading right now. With any luck, she won't come back to this thread.

Also here to check in on the op and absolutely appalled to see the bickering that has overtaken this thread.

OP I hope your baby is doing already a bit better. I wish you lots of strength in these difficult times, I hope you have real life support. I am sorry that you and your baby are having to deal with this.

How is your baby OP? This thread has made me feel sick I am a mother of 3 and genuinely feel anxious at the idea of something happening that requires an ambulance for this very reason. Hope you are both Ok