Here’s a sad news story from the UK, where they have a massive state-run health care system called the National Health Service. (H/T ECM)
A young woman who is starving to death after being diagnosed with a paralysed stomach has been told that NHS bosses refuse to fund an operation to save her.
Rudi Hargreaves, 22, has shrunk from a healthy 10st to a skeletal 5st 10lb after being diagnosed with the crippling condition last year.
Within weeks of being diagnosed with gastroparesis, Rudi found her size 12 clothes were hanging off her – as her stomach became unable to digest food at a normal rate.
The condition can be treated with a £14,000 operation to fit a gastric pacemaker – although this is still considered to be an experimental treatment.
But health chiefs have refused to fund the surgery, saying ‘insufficient supporting information’ has been provided by her GP.
[…]A spokesperson for NHS Hull said: ‘To date, the application in question has not been agreed as, crucially, insufficient supporting information has been provided to allow due consideration to take place.
‘Any requested procedures must also fall in line with the provider trust’s priorities for service development and delivery.
‘The patient’s clinician has been invited to provide the necessary clarification, receipt of which should enable the patient’s case to be progressed within the PCT.’
What’s troubling is countries like Canada, where the government not only decides if you will be treated, but whether you can be treated. That’s because if they deny you treatment, you cannot pay for treatment out of pocket. You have to leave the country and pay someone else out of pocket for the treatment, even though you have have paid into the system for many years. So your money is good enough for them to collect over your life, but when you need treatment, you may not be allowed to get it, and you may not even have the money (after taxes) to go abroad for treatment.
2 thoughts on “NHS refuses to treat woman who is starving to death”
You’re ignoring the fact that the US insurance companies would also deny this treatment since it is experimental and not approved for this condition – so how is this any different? Is your claim then that because it’s tax-payer funded doctors should be allowed to perform science experiments on patients where as if it’s profit driven they should not be allowed?
I would be in favor of allowing people to try experimental medical drugs and medical treatments, if they waive their right to sue.