Older Mothers a burden on the NHS?

[Lico]

Hello,
I was surprised at this doctor's statements on older women being a huge burden on the NHS.
What do you think?

www.standard.co.uk/news/health/top-doctor-issues-warning-over-older-mothers-who-are-a-huge-burden-on-the-nhs-a3201106.html

When there are childhood cancer treatments currently not available on the NHS due to costs of course things should be looked at without fear of causing offence. Is this not a common sense issue ? There are so many people making conscious choices of leaving having a family until late much later, then expecting fertility treatments to be paid for. Would thwould've same people making those decisions do the same in, say, the US ? Where they would have to manage those costs themselves ?

Hello,
Is the healthcare free? Or do some of us pay for it through taxes, including older mothers?
By the same token, should alcoholics and smokers be means tested and denied NHS treatment? Who are we to decide who can get treatment or not?

"Problem with denying older ivf mothers free healthcare is you are also denying the child free healthcare and the child is completely innocent. "

The parents have knowingly created the situation not the NHS. I favour stripping both the parents of their assets to pay for the high risk maternity care before the tax payer foots the bill. With rights come responsiblity.

The article is talking about mothers who would never had become pregnant in the uk by design. Ie. Women of 55 who would never be allowed IVF at any UK clinic. Or had more eggs planted than is legally allowed here. If a woman wants NHS care then they should follow uk rules.

There is also the issue of ethics of whether it's right to facilitate over 50s having babies. The risks of producing a disabled child who might lose both parents in their twenties.

What do you think about providing free healthcare for obesity related illness or smoking related illness?

I really, really don't think that the disappearingly small number of women who successfully become pregnant and deliver a baby over 50 will break the NHS. Honestly

What is breaking the NHS is poor political choices which are quite deliberate, I'm sure, ever more complicated intervention for all sorts of conditions and an ever increasing expectation that the NHS can solve all of life's problems. For 'free'.

What about people who go abroad for their boob jobs etc with no FU provided and then present to the NHS with their complications?

I wish policiticans would be prepared to stand up and say, look, this is a finite pot of money/resources and NOT everything can be provided. Which is upsetting, but true and should be stated honestly.

Which is of course never going to happen.

The number of women involved is so vanishingly small that it would probably gave been a better idea for this doctor to keep quiet. A good friend of mine is a paramedic at Heathrow and assures me that the number of "maternatourists" who arrive ready to drop and go on to give birth in London hospitals is pretty astonishing. It's not PC to point this out though, so let's just go back to bashing the (tiny) number of mothers over 50 who gobble up resources and ignore the fact that they may have been paying tax and NI for 30 plus years....

I have had my IVF in London but even I fall outside the very strict age rules. Perhaps I should have just dropped a sprog at age 32 and taken the risk of her (and me) getting cancer? The cost of a lifetime of testing for genetic disease is a damn sight higher than a potentially complicated delivery.

fakenamefornow well said. ash.org.uk/information/facts-and-stats/fact-sheets :
Around 10 million adults in Great Britain smoke cigarettes: 22% of men and 17% of women. Two-thirds of smokers start before the age of 18. Smoking causes around 80% of deaths from lung cancer, around 80% of deaths from bronchitis and emphysema, and about 14% of deaths from heart disease. More than a quarter of all cancer deaths can be attributed to smoking.
Imagine NHS health bill for those operations and treatments.

www.noo.org.uk/NOO_about_obesity/obesity_and_health
Obesity reduces life expectancy by an average of three years, or eight to ten years in the case of severe obesity (BMI over 40). Around 8% of annual deaths in Europe (at least one in 13) have been attributed to overweight and obesity. The cost to the UK economy of overweight and obesity was estimated at £15.8 billion per year in 2007, including £4.2 billion in costs to the NHS.

"What about people who go abroad for their boob jobs etc with no FU provided and then present to the NHS with their complications?"

There is a strong argument for people who have cosmetic surgery go wrong contribute or even pay for the costs.

If the NHS is to survive we need to get back to basics and look at what the NHS was originally set up to do. It has to be remembered that A and E units are collapsing under pressure and there are horror stories of the elderly not being properly cared for on wards.

I don't agree with charging those who smoke or alcoholics for their ill health. An addiction is mor subtle than a planned medical procedure.

I gave birth at 19. High-risk pregnancy due to previous surgery, full drip induction due to pre-eclampsia. I know lots of young women my age with similar births, some even needing c-sections etc. I don't think we can make huge assumptions about cost to the NHS based on age.

I am a little at the accusation that younger mums will claim more benefits though. We can tackle stereotypes against older mums without introducing stereotypes about younger mums, y'know.

A good friend of mine is a paramedic at Heathrow and assures me that the number of "maternatourists" who arrive ready to drop and go on to give birth in London hospitals is pretty astonishing.

How do they get permission to board?

I don't think we can make huge assumptions about cost to the NHS based on age.

TBF Ovaries he's working on statistics, not assumptions.

Only if you are doctor you can make such claims

What you agree or you don't regards NHS charges is totally irrelevant to anyone because the rules are set by NICE according to the studies they carry out (There are several of them and you can have a google) and what is available for treatment of specific conditions has also rules and a budget.

Only a HCP can comment on statistics Maris? Okay then I wish someone had told me in uni

Most doctors aren't trained statisticians. While doctors are of course often involved in the clinical side of research, analysis of the clinical data is likely to involve other professionals (statisticians, economic analysts, epidemiologists etc). There are many people qualified to have an opinion on medical data who are not doctors (and lots of doctors who really don't understand statistics at all).

Lots of groups are a "burden" on the NHS, that doesn't mean they shouldn't receive proper treatment - but the NHS can and should assess what those costs are, and how it can reduce them.

Misti I think Maris is trying to say that only HCPs are allowed to contribute views she disagrees with to this thread

You know the old chestnut "There's lies, white lies and statistics".

I understand just enough about statistics that I a. know that I know almost nothing and b. that it is possible to massage numbers in any number of ways, depending on what you are trying to 'prove'.

GooseberryRoolz you can have your opinions and anyone can but if you dont provide facts and a link of an article I cannot take it seriously.

In fact in most threads posters provide links of an article and then make the argument

I'd still be interested to see you support your assertion that babies are a human right Maris.

Human Rights Act
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

You just post a link to the ENTIRE Human Rights Act?

Any particular section, passage or clause?

Or are you just relying on the whole kit and caboodle in some non-specific way?

I am sure that there is something in the human rights act that states that people have the right to life itself! Yet children die of cancer because of decisions not to fund certain treatments. (Six weeks of extra life is not considered worth it.)

Funding the ante natal care of 55 plus women takes money from other area.

As much as I disapprove of the decision to have a baby at 50+ I wouldn't want to remove antenatal care from these women. Also ever if it is a high risk pregnancy the costs should be limited and the women return to health. If your looking at the costs of the care of a disabled child, well do you then think everybody who is carrying a baby with ds should aport? Of course we don't.

Personally I have more of an issue funding a lifetime of care and benefits for the obese or alcoholics or smokers who refuse to do anything to help themselves.