UK law provides a right to an abortion up to 24 weeks of gestation. If you choose to interpret that as a “right to kill” then I guess there’s no stopping you.

However, since you brought up assisted suicide, it’s worth noting that the concept of “brain stem death” is usually used to decide when turning off life support goes from the category of “assisted suicide” to the category of “a waste of good organs”, at least up to 12 weeks gestation a foetus isn’t anything that would be medically recognised as a live human individual in any event. Ascribing rights to human tissue without any discernible brain activity is rather more than even the most terrifying Republicans in that American backwater, the US Senate, are prepared to go.

Also, as mentioned, not only was the description of “right to an abortion up to 9 months” an almost painfully transparent lie – I find falsehood to be such a gentle word, and I’m not a member so I’m allowed to call other commenters liars – it also has exactly zero relevance to the policies of the British NHS. Indeed, while that body may have many faults, very few of them can be traced back to the Democratic Party of the USA, as mendacious as you so obviously believe it is. Your jerking knees are indicative of what your particular buttons are, not of any problems or otherwise with medical policy on this or the other side of the Atlantic.

So if the SYSTEM changes, the Law changes as well?

Examination of the UK NHS would never be able to verify whether this is so, or not.

I agree with the Christian right of the USA that is is likely to do so, that the more sophisticated, and advanced the “National” Health service pretends to become, the more barbaric it really is, in its every day practices.

There is a right to live(no to abortion)and a right NOT to die(assisted suicide)

If you’re talking about the Stupak-Pitts debacle, there’s a reasonable neutral analysis here. In my own, not-at-all-unbiased view, however, anyone who claims that the bill would offer “free abortion up to nine months”,is clearly grossly distorting what is actually going on in the bill. We see, again, another example of the religious right hijacking the legislative process in America with its perverse obsession with what women do with their vaginas.

Abortion is a medical procedure. It’s only thanks to the insane hissy-fits the right throw that we need to consider it differently from any other medical procedure. And the nutters got their wish – as they so often do in America – so don’t worry, the meddlers can still get the legislature to poke around in poor people’s underwear drawers, as you wish.

Dear Lady, You wrote that the republicans
opposed mr Obama’s healthcare program for costs among others. I read in an swedish journal that the conservative christian right in the US also opposes the bill because it proposes free abortion of
the unborn upp to the nith month! Which is
is barbaric at least to say. Pleace make further investigations on behalf of the House of Lords, this should not pass by un-noticed, even if its not in the UK.

The swedish main press has as usualy not comment on this issue, as it is political correct and even not forfilling its basic
democratic duties to the woters. It took months before the state-televission even started to comment and show the opposition to mr Obama’s programs in the US. Off the topic allow me to tell this anecdote.

I recall that a swedish frend of mine once at a dinner next to, now Lady Thatcher, was asked about the book by Roland Huntford “The new totalitarians” (wich describes Sweden)if it indeed was that bad. My friend answered:
“No mrs Thather it is not so, it is much worse!”

Yours sincerely
mr. David Fredin

I do not know exactly how much the NHS costs me down to the penny, no. Nor do i know how much the military costs in pounds and pence. But why on earth should such data be relevant? I already posted above what the NHS costs the average UK citizen, as well as how that compares to other healthcare systems.

if you choose to ignore relevant data in favour of harping on about some absurd standard of personal knowledge about the exact breakdown of my personal tax bill, i can only assume you are not interested in the numbers except as a diversion tactic from your overall political stance.

in citing problems that occur in the NHS, i would personally think it would better serve your point if you could also show that the problems are specific to our system, that other systems avoid or significantly reduce the risks, and that those systems do not come with other problems which we manage to avoid. Without context, data is meaningless. It should also be noted that the singular of data is not anecdote.

Put another way, is it desirable to poulate a second house with lawyers and shop stewards?

* * * * *

The problem with liability has been exacerbated by this gvt’s decision to all but scrap legal aid whilst gifting the no-win-no-fee legal reps with civil cases of negligence and malpractice. Today’s numbers can not be compared with those of, say, 10 years ago.

The known fact is that the NHS itself says that it contributes to the deaths of 20,000 to 80,000 a year. (Personally I suspect the lower figure is the more accurate)

Now I suspect that you even doubt these numbers, but sit back and think before you post. Is this a realistic estimate? I’ll give you somethings to ponder.

1. Shipman. The NHS didn’t discover him for a long time, and he was killing his patients. What makes you think they will discover errors that kill patients?

2. Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells Hospital. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7037657.stm

From one cause alone, C-Diff, look at the death rates. Are they going to be killing from other causes? You bet. Are they an isolated case? Not a hope in hell. You need to scale it up across the NHS.

3. Basildon and Thurrock.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/26/essex-hospitals-deaths-hygiene-inquiry

Another hospital, another set of deaths.

It may cost a lot of money, but it is very cheap when compared to other systems of healthcare around the world.

It’s always interesting. No one puts a figure on it. What does the NHS cost you personally McDuff? Surely you know, because you’ve said it’s cheaper than elsewhere? Have you the figures for elsewhere so we can compare?

Now I’m pretty certain what you’re reply will be. It will be measured in percentages of GDP. That’s politicians deceiving you. It’s the political answer.

No one in this country pays a percentage of GDP for anything. They pay in pounds and pence.

So what does the NHS cost you in terms of pounds and pence as an individual?

What’s the figure for a family of four?

Have you included paying for all the people who don’t pay tax?

What about the compensation for those injured by NHS errors? People are arguing that the victim pays. No compensation. Go home and get on with life without legs. We know we chopped the wrong one off, so had to take off both as a consequence.

Nick

We had two midwives at the start. First was good. Second very good. Both immigrants. The second was a Nigerian woman, and just spot on. Calm and assertive when it was needed, after the birth very relaxed and we were left in quite unless needed.

Interestingly, we did have a political discussion. She was horrified at a large number of mothers in the UK and the state of the benefit system. If only there were more like her.

When it came to dealing with the aftermath of the birth, there was a doctor on her rotation doing her bit. Interestingly, she wasn’t running it, it was the midwife who was in charge. On the quite I was told she wasn’t going to sign the doctor off because they weren’t there for long enough.

What were the problems? I had do some cleaning in the first room, and on the post natal wards, they were clearly short staffed. Getting help with things took being assertive. Follow ups from the health vistors, or even a call are non existant.

In some ways we are lucky. We have family friends who are doctors, and so can get advice, even from a neo-natal doctor for a couple of issues.

Otherwise, on the way out, he’s already met his MP, on Christmas day.

It’s pretty representative of the NHS. Good it parts, bad in others. You have to know what you are doing to get results. Many won’t.

The usual comparison people want to make with the NHS, is the NHS now versus Victorian Britain. In reality, the comparison is say the NHS versus the French or the Swiss. ie. A modern 1st world health system with universal coverage. On that measure the NHS is pretty dire.

Out of all the systems, it does pay to look at which health systems work and which don’t.

Personally, I favour the Swiss model for lots of reasons. It’s pretty close to the same cost as the UK with far better results and service. It wins on value for money.

Separation of insurer from provider from regulator matters if you want to improve quality. Otherwise the obvious conflicts of interest come into play.

Nick