Obama Care vs Republicans

[Adak]

Those are cheap (relatively) diagnostics, NOT heart transplants!

"patients were subsequently managed by general practitioners, in consultation with cardiologists or the admitting physician".

Do you know what that means? That means your heart attack care will be handled by a GP, and probably, by an Internist - not even a Cardiologist. (Internists are more common).

They did however, find not one, not two, but three ways to successfully predict which one's would die earlier, and approximately when they would die.

Oh! That's FABULOUS medical care, right there!

[xoxoxoBruce]

You know what a cardiologist does, arrange for other doctors to take care of you.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

Those are cheap (relatively) diagnostics, NOT heart transplants!

"patients were subsequently managed by general practitioners,
in consultation with cardiologists or the admitting physician".

Do you know what that means? That means your heart attack care will be handled by a GP,
and probably, by an Internist - not even a Cardiologist. (Internists are more common).

They did however, find not one, not two, but three ways to successfully predict
which one's would die earlier, and approximately when they would die.

Oh! That's FABULOUS medical care, right there!

Adak, your reactions are predictable.
But your first argument was that in the UK, Grandma would be turned
away with only a pain pill. That obviously is not true.
Next you jump to question the treatment... i.e., who gets transplants.

As to the current policy in the US, UK, etc... The following is from the
Guidelines of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation:


NY Times
Judith Graham
4/23/12

Heart Transplants for Older Patients

Just a decade ago, people 65 and older were routinely
rejected for heart transplants at all but a few institutions.
But in 2006, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation
issued new guidelines saying that heart failure patients
should be considered for transplants up to age 70.
[Also see note below]

In 2006, 243 patients age 65 and older in the United States received new hearts;
last year, that number was 332, according to data from the national
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.
(Data strictly on patients 70 and older is not available, according to the network.)
<snip>

What about the guidelines in the UK.
This is from the (UK) National Health Service:

NHS

Donated organs are a precious resource.
Their sharing is conducted under rules drawn up by the appropriate UK Transplant advisory committee,
ensuring that each organ is given to the most suitable recipient and that each patient, as far as possible,
is provided with equal access to available organs.

Patients are placed on the transplant waiting list by their local consultant physician or surgeon
in accordance with nationally agreed criteria.
Their names are then notified to UK Transplant for inclusion on the national transplant database.

Individual social and psychological needs are also considered during the clinical decision-making process.
Applying a moral argument to the allocation of an organ for transplant
or any medical treatment is not compatible with the ethos of the NHS.
The health service does not stand in judgement over the people it is being asked to care for.

(NOTE: for technical outcome reasons, organs (hearts) from elderly donors
sometimes do not transplant as successfully as from younger donors.

Rather than have these (older) organs go to waste, individual organs
deemed unsuitable for a young recipient can be offered to older patients on the waiting list.
It then becomes an personal decision by the potential recipient
as to whether to accept a given organ... or to remain on the waiting list
as prioritized according to their own individual health condition.

Adak, I hope your next jump does not go in the direction of UK physicians being more biased, unethical, etc....