Oops, sorry about the wait

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371861/NHS-director-dies-operation-cancelled-times-hospital.html

Former NHS director dies after operation is cancelled four times at her own hospital

A former NHS director died after waiting for nine months for an operation - at her own hospital. Margaret Hutchon, a former mayor, had been waiting since last June for a follow-up stomach operation at Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford, Essex. But her appointments to go under the knife were cancelled four times and she barely regained consciousness after finally having surgery. Her devastated husband, Jim, is now demanding answers from Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust - the organisation where his wife had served as a non-executive member of the board of directors. He said: 'I don't really know why she died. I did not get a reason from the hospital. We all want to know for closure. She got weaker and weaker as she waited and operations were put off.'

Mr Hutchon, of Great Baddow, Essex, said his wife, 72, had initially undergone major stomach surgery last June but the follow up procedures were repeatedly abandoned. The former mayor remained at the hospital for months but her family feared she was becoming institutionalised and decided to bring her home until an operation was a certainty.

Mr Hutchon, 71, said: 'The case has been referred to the coroner because of the long time it has taken. In some ways, I would like the coroner to order a post mortem.'

The pensioner said his wife had been left very weak before her operation because she had been unable to take in nutrients. 'From July to October there was talk of another operation and then between November and December there were three or four postponements and she was becoming so institutionalised we decided to get her home until an operation was certain. 'It was a blessing because although neither of is could have guessed it - it gave us a last month together. 'Nevertheless, she was unable to take proper nourishment and went into the operation on the better side of a low state - she was very weak.'

Mrs Hutchon was well known and respected after serving in local government for the past 30 years and she became mayor of Chelmsford in 2006. Mike Mackrory, a fellow Liberal Democrat councillor, said: We were all stunned to hear she had died after the operation. There were constant delays she had to endure before surgery. 'We were given the very sad news and as word spread it threw a pall over the civic dinner. Margaret was much loved and respected in this town.'

A spokesman for Broomfield Hospital said it could not comment on individual cases.

My father in law had a heart attack and was transported to the hospital, where he died shortly after arrival.

On the afternoon of the funeral, there was a card in his mailbox, thanking him for choosing Griffin Hospital.

this is like a bad version of the Seinfeld episode where they waited in the Chinese Restaurant...

I have heard about long delays in getting treatment in countries with free health care. Looks like it's true. This was no welfare lady, but a respected citizen. Yeah, I'll take my expensive but pretty good health care system.

"If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until its free"

cwh wrote: I have heard about long delays in getting treatment in countries with free health care. Looks like there are instances where it's true.

Fixed that for you. Yes, this sucked, and clearly indicates that their system is imperfect. We have enough problems communicating clearly or obtaining unbiased information as individuals without taking single data points as proof of what happens across hundreds of thousands (or millions) of people.

I wish I had time right this second (I wish we all did) to look up the total data on waits for similar procedures there and here. But one instance means berkeley-all, even though the fact that it was a system administrator makes for great reading.

This was no welfare lady, but a respected citizen. Yeah, I'll take my expensive but pretty good health care system.

I don't like the notion of a system where you have to be "a respected citzen" to not become dead. I think there's a low, but extant, level of care that we ought to provide for people on the grounds that they are human, and that level is somewhere above a cheap grave. I am also under the impression that it's frequently cheaper to cover somebody's injury as soon as it happens than to wait for them to put off treatment until they become a disability case.

And after literally having attended two fund-raiser raffles in the last two years for friends (who had health insurance) who turned out not to be covered for tumor removal or stroke, I'm disinclined to say our system is all that effective as-is, even for gainfully employed people who have insurance.

Before this turns ugly, that really sucks for the lady and her husband in the story. I think I would be pretty angry if my wife died because the hospital kept cancelling.

Now, as for whether or not free or paid health care works, I really don't have an opinion besides the fact that our berkleying government should stay the hell away from it.

Do you want government health care? Really? Then come with me to the VA hospital and see how the health care they've been running for 60+ years is working. I've been waiting SIX MONTHS for a surgery that the specialist said I needed right away to avoid permanent nerve damage, and I am no closer to it. I've been waiting seven months for them to ad my wife to my policy. I had to wait over 18 months to get into the VA after being medically retired from the military, with a Priority 2 (2nd highest level out of 10) status. Oh, and the idiots have let my personal information get out, twice.

If the normal socialized health care has 10% of the problems the VA has, we are all berkeleyed.

Back to your regular thread, sorry for the rant.

ransom wrote: I am also under the impression that it's frequently cheaper to cover somebody's injury as soon as it happens than to wait for them to put off treatment until they become a disability case.

This statement is, of course, based on the a priori assumption that either one of those two events is society's responsibility to pay for.

It's society's responsibility to pay for treatment if you think that every member of the society is valuable to society. Even if you don't, there's a case to be made for getting them cured promptly and right, so they can go back to contributing to the country's growth, wealth, success, and all those other good things.

Or even just hugging their kids.

Yes, a government-run anything is going to have its limitations. But single-payer (aka government-paid) health care doesn't have to be government- health care.

Stealthtercel wrote: It's society's responsibility to pay for treatment if you think that every member of the society is valuable to society.

So everybody owes everybody everything? That sounds hellish.

Those of us that have public health care don't think it is perfect, but for every example like this, there are thousands corresponding examples of people that are seen quickly and efficiently. My boss had a problem diagnosed in his arm that was likely to cause nerve damage. Diagnosis on Friday - Surgery on Tuesday.

As our populations ages, Public Health care will become more expensive and difficult to maintain.

I for one shudder at the thought of people being turned away due to the lack of ability to pay or being left with a lifetime of debt.

BTW before anyone thinks I haven't been there, my father died at 54 of a massive heart attack while he was on a waiting list for heart surgery.

No system is perfect, but many will scream from the hilltops that theirs is better.

I find it interesting that it is somehow assumed that this woman would "skip the line" because she has a relation to the hospital.

In a way it is a refreshing example of someone being treated as the "common folk" when they otherwise might not be.

Duke wrote:

ransom wrote: I am also under the impression that it's frequently cheaper to cover somebody's injury as soon as it happens than to wait for them to put off treatment until they become a disability case.

This statement is, of course, based on the a priori assumption that either one of those two events is society's responsibility to pay for.

It is based on that assertion (and I would call it an assertion, not an assumption). It is clear that unanimity on this point is distant; even consensus doesn't appear to be in the neighborhood.

Personally, I am strongly of the opinion that leaving my fellow humans to suffer and die because it's expensive to fix them is wrong. I also firmly believe that my general quality of life will be improved much more by getting to a point where we do more of that than it would be by the cost savings of saying that they're not society's problem.

The next logical thing to point out, of course, is that my bleeding heart opens a giant can of worms with respect to fiscal feasibility, apart from and in addition to the buraeucratic headaches.

I think it's a question of will, of incremental change, and of priorities.

"Incremental change" is what's gotten us where we are today.

In reply to Duke:

(scratches head) Well... yes. Both those things which are better, and those things which are worse are the results of incremental change.

Are you advocating for stagnation?

NGTD wrote: My boss had a problem diagnosed in his arm that was likely to cause nerve damage. Diagnosis on Friday - Surgery on Tuesday.

That honestly made me choke up a little. I'd be happy to have my surgery within a month.

I live in Ft. Lauderdale, and we have a public hospital system. Big sign in Emergency Room waiting area." You will not be denied services because of inability to pay." Yeah, they'll bill you for it, at an outrageous rate, but will write it off after a while. Works out OK, but costs the county a lot. Dade county hospital system , Jackson Memorial, is world famous for quality of care, but is also bankrupt.

What seems to be most interesting is that those of us privileged by public health care are most afraid of the costs to the individual for private care, while those with private care are most afraid of the administration of the service.

Since many, many services are effectively and efficiently delivered by the public sector, I am happy to take some risks . . .

I was just thinking it was funny how someone on a hospital board had gotten the run-around to the point the expired, I forgot the always present political fight that follows.

Here's me and my last flounder. For those playing at home, especially up in America's hat where the medicine is free, drink up.

ZOO wrote: What seems to be most interesting is that those of us privileged by public health care are most afraid of the costs to the individual for private care, while those with private care are most afraid of the administration of the service. Since many, many services are effectively and efficiently delivered by the public sector, I am happy to take some risks . . .

I think you make a really good point. Locally delivered public services are often highly efficient. (Think local firefighters, Sheriff's office, even public works). Maybe a State or even County-based health care (at least administratively) would work better than a strictly Federal one?

ransom wrote: In reply to Duke: (scratches head) Well... yes. Both those things which are better, and those things which are worse are the results of incremental change. Are you advocating for stagnation?

No, I'm advocating a wholesale review and change to the entire concept, role, and implementation of "government". And, as you've probably surmised, I think many of the items currently included should NOT be carried over into the new system.

I'm currently reviewing the bidding requirements to do a small renovation project (which shouldn't be necessary to begin with) at the local VA hospital. Let's just say I'm completely pessimistic about the federal government's ability to do almost anything either well or efficiently.

Will Rogers wrote: It's a darn good thing we don't get all the government we pay for.

The only federal service that really works is the military, maybe hitting the sick and elderly with cruise missles is the way to go.

Wally wrote: The only federal service that really works is the military....

I see a lot of their work, it doesn't really work that well.

Seems like we get our choice of government bloat or cutthroat capitalism. Neither one strikes me as a very good answer to this, or most other problems.

I wish I knew how to make privatized industry answerable to anything other than the bottom line without government intervention.

I wish I knew how to make government efficient.

In lieu of either one, I'm left trying to get what I think is right/hope is best.

In reply to Javelin: really sorry to hear about the problems you're having with the VA there in Wash.

really wish you were here in Asheville... I wouldn't go anywhere else.. the VA here is incredible, both in the quality of care, the attitude of the employees, and the quickness with which you are seen and taken care of...

I had chest pains while trying to walk an a-x course on Sun Morning... called my primary care at the VA on Mon (before they got to work) had a call back within 5 min of their starting time... told me to get my butt to the ER ... I did.. 2 - 3 hrs later had had my stress test (diagnosis: some unknown amt of blockage) a cath was scheduled for the following Mon... went in at 7am, 3 stents in the rt coronary artery later and home by 2:45....

I would and will go to this VA for anything they can treat ... and we happen to have one of the best heart treatment public hospitals in the SE... and I'd still go to this VA..

Like I said ... wish you were here