Quote:
Originally Posted by The Relic  One way they can cut waiting lists is to actually allow hospitals to finance complete instead of partial treatments of conditions up front.
My wife has trick knees which can dislocate at any time. In late October they both dislocated at the same time, causing massive trauma and effectively crippling her. Now, the truth is that the surgeons could replace her knees and return her to an active life; it was the first thing her consultant suggested and he has repeatedly mentioned the possibility since. However, he cannot commit her to surgery because she is apparently "too young" for the treatment at 43, which is NHS speak for, "If we pay to do this now there's a slim possibility we may have to do it again in your sixties, so we're not allowing you to spend the money." Instead it has been proposed that she has a partial replacement of the single knee which has worn away to the greatest extent.
What this means for her is that unless we pay a large sum to have her knees replaced privately - anathema to her anyway, as she is a committed socialist - she must carry on enduring constant pain with accompanying depression for years to come, else become dependent on a cocktail of pills - a further longterm drain on the NHS, please note. I'll add that the situation and the change in her personality has already damaged relationships within our family.
Sorry about the rant, but I think you can see why the lack of foresight of the NHS penny pinchers has angered me. |
I understand your rant fully, I also see that this particular problem is on your wish list or more accurately; "things to do before you die". It is disgusting that she has been refused treatment, I think if any treatment can improve health for twenty years, even two years, there is no reason to refuse. What ever happened to doctors that wanted to make people better?
If she is on a cocktail of pills them I am assuming that this would cost more in the long term than actually giving her the operation? I say this as a recent debate on "presumed consent organ donation", used the argument that not only were there not enough organ donors but that it cost more money to medicate those that were waiting for a transplant rather than the transplant operation.
Also if she had the partial replacement, as it doesn't last as long couldn't it be true that she may have 3 costly operations in the 20 years? I can't see a difference in the cost of this particular operation so is it just the simple reason that it takes longer to recover from the full op, so therefore takes up too much time in a hospital bed and after care?
I'm sure you've seen this site:
Knee replacement - What happens? - Types of knee repalacement
From what I can see it says the partial knee operation is less suitable for a young, active person. Wouldn't that mean that a young active person would receive a full operation then?