Women in Britain die younger than in other European nations

[kittyonthebeam]

Isn't this awful and sad www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1279214/Weve-poured-billions-NHS-pioneers-medical-research-Britai n-sick-woman-Europe.html

I know it's the DM but it has been in other publications, too.

I know 2 cases personally of women who were neglected by the very health system that is supposed to care for them. One died, one is alive, unable to have children. Both had cancer, both waited over 3 and 6 weeks respectively for any treatment.

Did you have experiences like this? I'm jyst so reading this litany of failure.

I think our shorter life expectancy is more due to obesity/smoking/drinking/stress than failures of the NHS.

I mean the best way to reduce cancer deaths is to reduce the number of people getting cancer. Treatment can only do so much.

Sounds like someone thinks the NHS is no longer fit for purpose despite record investments. Time to break it down, perhaps? Lose the 'free at the point of need' ideology, maybe? Restructure it so that it isn't hamstrung by the limitations of the national coffers....

I'm not sure I understand this article. We're 20th out of 22 so not "the sick woman of Europe". Not great, obviously, but a misleading headline.

"Overall, fewer women are dying earlier, however, in the UK survival rates are not improving as fast as they are elsewhere." So, survival rates are improving?

"There are also far fewer doctors in Britain: 2.5 per 1,000 population, compared to 3.4 in France, for instance. This causes delays in diagnosis." That does count as far fewer? Genuine question.

"In France, for instance, the investigation for breast cancer - the appointment, scan and diagnosis - is all done within 48 hours, says Professor Sikora.

'Here we have a long, drawn-out appointment system where patients wait to see a doctor, then a specialist, then for the CT scan and then the results. It can all go on for months - allowing time for cancer to spread and become more difficult to treat." Not my personal experience at all.

'forever', I hear what you're saying. The booze, smoking, food, lifestyle choices, stress, etc. definitely contribute to those figures...still...women in Sweden or Poland work just as hard, drink, smoke, etc. They have higher survival rates and better care.

I'm also appalled at the 'postcode lottery' of the NHS. But that's another debate.

Have to say, both my friend and the lady I knew were sensible, healthy individuals in London and didn't get the adequate care they needed.

Every single woman that has to wait weeks for a hospital appointment to remove a cancerous growth is one too many. From my personal experience and reading some of the stories on MN appointments that should be urgent drag on. I don't know why exactly, but they do.

My Dad got diagnosed with prostrate cancer, within 3 days of diagnosis he was in the hospital for the operation and has had great after care.

I lived in Denmark for a while and was appalled at the state of preventative care. Sweden though has a great healthcare system.

PS: My Dad lives in Germany.

That's the dilemma though. We want Swedish healthcare but not to pay Swedish taxes to fund it.... It'll never be resolved, in other words. We only get the healthcare we are prepared to finance.

True Chil. But Germany's taxes are nearly on par with the UK's. So...not totally unfeasible.

We have a state and a private system much like NHS and Bupa...the difference is ours works better. There are grievances, natch, but the standards of the wards, doctors, care, etc. are better than in the UK. I don't know why. Even after the reunification and spending millions of Euro on people who never paid a cent into the system (East Germany).

kittyonthebeam Tue 18-May-10 19:29:27
"'forever', I hear what you're saying. The booze, smoking, food, lifestyle choices, stress, etc. definitely contribute to those figures...still...women in Sweden or Poland work just as hard, drink, smoke, etc. They have higher survival rates and better care."

Can't speak for Poland, but women in Sweden do in a sense tend to work less hard: there is more of a work-life balance, with very few people being pressurised into working silly hours like they are here.

Not sure about the smoking, but the diet in Sweden is still healthier, which could also make a difference.

It would also make a difference that in Sweden you have access to cheap healthy recreations- such as outdoor swimming and countryside walks- quite regardless of social class; noone lives so they can't access the great outdoors.

Ime they are still far more into outdoor activities as a nation. I imagine this would make a difference.

Cory, I understand what you mean. Something I really liked during my time in Denmark was that they are not consumerist as a nation and tend to do more things with the family, group of friends which involve picnics, Sunday lunch, cycling, etc. Outdoor activities like sailing, trekking, etc.

Maybe you have a point. Cannot say that Swedes drink less. They come over on their ferries to Dk for the WE and are much more raucious there than in their own country... LOL

Still, what you said made me think you really have a point. But even in Denmark we used to envy the Swedish health care system which just seems to work better.

Kitty - I don't think the Danish healthcare system is that bad, is it?

When I had a bleeding mole, they were pretty quick with an appointment to get it checked and the same with the dc's excema... i may just have been lucky though.

This is stupid, the title bemoans how much money we spend yet the article only compares us to countries that spend more. We are also a really overweight country, who smoke, drink and eat badly and have high levels of inequality. We have a strange prudish-ness about slightly embarrassing ailments, so quite often don't go for help soon enough or we play it down when we do have appointments (we sometimes do this as we know our lifestyle isn't so healthy). I often hear people saying how they would rather smoke, drink,eat badly and die young - well that's what's happening.

One way we could guarantee getting "less" for our "money" is by funding more unproven and only slightly helpful drugs but of course the article takes the more sensationalist view there as well. I'm not arguing which side of that debate but hate the switching sides, if you are trying to increase life expectancy per £, that is a poor argument.

All my experiences are the opposite, I've had fantastic treatment for serious conditions; my best friend had immediate and successful treatment for cervical cancer after months of her moaning about how they were harassing her to go for a smear test. I have often seen the NHS go beyond what I would expect and pick up the slack that people aren't willing to do themselves. I know someone with back pain that just doesn't bother with his exercises and instead the NHS has to find other ways to treat him that work less well. My aunt died of cancer but had great treatment and care and smoked like a chimney.

I think we need to work with the NHS more as co-operative, responsible patients and as taxpayers or we have to stop beating it up and blaming it for everything.

Well the NHS killed my grandma, she had a stroke went to hospital and died a few weeks later from internal bleeding, turned out she'd gotten up in the night and fell down the stairs and they just bundled her back in bed without checking anything.

my aunt died of cancer, she had an op to remove it but they missed bits and it ended up spreading, she waited ages for chemotherapy, all she got told was if she'd pay for private she would get to use the machine quicker.

NHS is awful

I agree that lifestyle factors must be playing a huge role in the cancer and life expectancy rates. Eg. the food is so much better in the rest of europe. I dont mean restaurants etc, its the day to day diet. Aparently the UK is the biggest market for ready meals (one food area where we lead the rest of europe) and this really says something - people dont take so much care over food preparation and nutrition.
For example in France a friend working there has a 3 course meal everyday for lunch in the staff canteen. She says she then doent feel the need to snack anymore (on biscuit/crisps). the canteens are usually subsidised by the employers (definitely not profit making).
Here some of our canteens sell sandwiches and thats it.

sessy and our lunch breaks are pretty short too, 30 mins in my new job. And don't schools give the kids really short breaks these days? We had an hour when I was at school I know a lot of senior schools near me now give them 30 mins . No chance of a decent meal in that time. I'm not suprised they scoff junk food.