The best places to get sick
Apr 16th 2005 | 7:44 pm
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On 16/04/05 23:46, in article [email protected],
"nitram" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Netherlands I waited 14 months for a cataract operation.
Come to France. My wife had one last year, within a couple after it was
recommended. The couple of weeks prior to the operation were taken up
with blood tests, interview with the anesthetist. There was a two
week separation between operations. Essentially one month was taken
up with the operation.
She was surprised the operation gave her much better vision than
before, she gave up her reading glasses. She had assumed the operation
would just stop her vision getting worse. Here visit vastly improved.
Her condition developed rapidly in the last 6 months. I had the
impression she could have waited longer but not 14 months.
Earl
"nitram" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Netherlands I waited 14 months for a cataract operation.
Come to France. My wife had one last year, within a couple after it was
recommended. The couple of weeks prior to the operation were taken up
with blood tests, interview with the anesthetist. There was a two
week separation between operations. Essentially one month was taken
up with the operation.
She was surprised the operation gave her much better vision than
before, she gave up her reading glasses. She had assumed the operation
would just stop her vision getting worse. Here visit vastly improved.
Her condition developed rapidly in the last 6 months. I had the
impression she could have waited longer but not 14 months.
Earl
Apr 16th 2005 | 8:18 pm
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:44:35 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 16/04/05 23:46, in article [email protected],
>"nitram" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Netherlands I waited 14 months for a cataract operation.
>Come to France.
Not much point now as I have had both eyes done :-)
> My wife had one last year, within a couple after it was
>recommended. The couple of weeks prior to the operation were taken up
>with blood tests, interview with the anesthetist.
Having eyes measured for the correct lens ...
>There was a two
>week separation between operations. Essentially one month was taken
>up with the operation.
There should be more than a two week separation in case one gets an
infection with the first operation.Infection is the biggest risk.
>She was surprised the operation gave her much better vision than
>before, she gave up her reading glasses. She had assumed the operation
>would just stop her vision getting worse. Here visit vastly improved.
The doctor could have told her in advance.
>Her condition developed rapidly in the last 6 months. I had the
>impression she could have waited longer but not 14 months.
My sight was really bad at the end of the 14 months.
wrote:
>On 16/04/05 23:46, in article [email protected],
>"nitram" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Netherlands I waited 14 months for a cataract operation.
>Come to France.
Not much point now as I have had both eyes done :-)
> My wife had one last year, within a couple after it was
>recommended. The couple of weeks prior to the operation were taken up
>with blood tests, interview with the anesthetist.
Having eyes measured for the correct lens ...
>There was a two
>week separation between operations. Essentially one month was taken
>up with the operation.
There should be more than a two week separation in case one gets an
infection with the first operation.Infection is the biggest risk.
>She was surprised the operation gave her much better vision than
>before, she gave up her reading glasses. She had assumed the operation
>would just stop her vision getting worse. Here visit vastly improved.
The doctor could have told her in advance.
>Her condition developed rapidly in the last 6 months. I had the
>impression she could have waited longer but not 14 months.
My sight was really bad at the end of the 14 months.
Apr 16th 2005 | 10:02 pm
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
[email protected] writes:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:46:07 +0200, nitram <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:28:44 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>The waiting list exaggeration, stupid. Don't dodge, come up with "a list".
> >>Belgium, Switzerland, Austria who?
> >
> >The Netherlands I waited 14 months for a cataract operation.
>
> There's one for you Evleth
Most cataracts are age-related and progress with extreme slowness. A
14-month wait is thus not necessarily a hardship; there will hardly be
any change in vision over such a short period.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:46:07 +0200, nitram <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:28:44 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>The waiting list exaggeration, stupid. Don't dodge, come up with "a list".
> >>Belgium, Switzerland, Austria who?
> >
> >The Netherlands I waited 14 months for a cataract operation.
>
> There's one for you Evleth
Most cataracts are age-related and progress with extreme slowness. A
14-month wait is thus not necessarily a hardship; there will hardly be
any change in vision over such a short period.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Apr 16th 2005 | 10:18 pm
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:02:10 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote the usual bollocks:
>Most cataracts are age-related
> and progress with extreme slowness.
Rubbish!
> A
>14-month wait is thus not necessarily a hardship; there will hardly be
>any change in vision over such a short period.
Totally wrong. My sight went from -6 to -12 during the 14 month wait.
Something else you know SFA about.
wrote the usual bollocks:
>Most cataracts are age-related
> and progress with extreme slowness.
Rubbish!
> A
>14-month wait is thus not necessarily a hardship; there will hardly be
>any change in vision over such a short period.
Totally wrong. My sight went from -6 to -12 during the 14 month wait.
Something else you know SFA about.
Apr 17th 2005 | 12:02 am
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
nitram writes:
> Rubbish!
Not rubbish at all. They can take years or decades to progress to a
point where they interfere with vision. Indeed, they may not even be
diagnosed until long after they've started to develop.
> Totally wrong. My sight went from -6 to -12 during the 14 month wait.
> Something else you know SFA about.
Your experience is not necessarily representative. I'm going by my
research on the topic.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Rubbish!
Not rubbish at all. They can take years or decades to progress to a
point where they interfere with vision. Indeed, they may not even be
diagnosed until long after they've started to develop.
> Totally wrong. My sight went from -6 to -12 during the 14 month wait.
> Something else you know SFA about.
Your experience is not necessarily representative. I'm going by my
research on the topic.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Apr 17th 2005 | 12:30 am
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:02:29 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>nitram writes:
>> Rubbish!
>Not rubbish at all. They can take years or decades to progress to a
>point where they interfere with vision. Indeed, they may not even be
>diagnosed until long after they've started to develop.
They can, but they don't always.
>> Totally wrong. My sight went from -6 to -12 during the 14 month wait.
>> Something else you know SFA about.
>Your experience is not necessarily representative. I'm going by my
>research on the topic.
The usual 5 seconds with google?
wrote:
>nitram writes:
>> Rubbish!
>Not rubbish at all. They can take years or decades to progress to a
>point where they interfere with vision. Indeed, they may not even be
>diagnosed until long after they've started to develop.
They can, but they don't always.
>> Totally wrong. My sight went from -6 to -12 during the 14 month wait.
>> Something else you know SFA about.
>Your experience is not necessarily representative. I'm going by my
>research on the topic.
The usual 5 seconds with google?
Apr 17th 2005 | 12:57 am
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On 17/04/05 10:18, in article [email protected],
"nitram" <[email protected]> wrote:
> My sight was really bad at the end of the 14 months.
There is a good English study on the whole issue of cataract operations, the
part on international comparisons is posted below
http://hcna.radcliffe-oxford.com/cataract.htm
International comparisons
International comparisons are fraught with problems because of the
difficulty of standardising for confounding factors and variation in case
definition. Nonetheless they are important, not just because of possible
relevance to ethnic minorities living in Britain but also because a lot can
be learnt from studies of cataract surgery rates in places such as Western
Europe, North America and Australasia, where the incidence of cataract is
similar to that in the UK but health services are differently organised.
Such studies allow us to see the impact of changing the definition of need.
Although attempts are underway to try to objectify the criteria for cataract
surgery, need is still subjectively defined. In countries where there are
fewer economic restraints on healthcare, less conservative definitions of
need have resulted in much higher rates of surgery. Information,
particularly from places where the patient is more able to define his or her
own need, gives a clue to the UK health services as to just how far the
level of surgery may grow.
Some of the most interesting surgery data come from Sweden. In 1991, Sweden
introduced a healthcare guarantee that a cataract patient with a visual
acuity of 0.5 (6/12) or less in the better eye could expect surgery within 3
months of listing. In an effort to monitor this guarantee, a national
cataract register was set up and run by a small group of enthusiastic
ophthalmologists. (114) ,(115)
By 1995, the Swedish cataract register covered 95% of all cataract surgery
in that country. A recent analysis (115) has shown that the immediate impact
of the guarantee was to reduce waiting times, but after a couple of years
the waiting times started to increase again. The guarantee did not have the
anticipated effect of removing variations between districts within Sweden,
which were still evident in 1995.
The Swedish cataract register collects a minimal set of information on each
treated patient, including waiting time, age, sex, employment status, visual
acuity, two simple questions of visual function, previous surgery and ocular
co-morbidity. Based on 1992 data, they estimated that in Sweden there were
4.5 operations per 1000 inhabitants, compared to 5.4 per 1000 in the USA,
2.8 per 1000 in Denmark, 2.7 per 1000 in Norway and 1.8 per 1000 in Britain.
(10) The comparatively low rate of surgery in the UK had been noted earlier,
(11) and possible explanations have been proposed, (116) but none has
satisfactorily explained the discrepancy. Although unexplained, the
international comparisons do probably demonstrate the extent to which the
NHS needed to expand its service.
An important analysis of time trends in the rates of surgery was made in
North Jutland, Denmark, (9) where the rate in 1990 was found to be three
times that for the same area in 1980. They found no increase in the
proportion of second-eye operations and very little change in the average
age at surgery. The increased proportion of very elderly people may have
contributed slightly to the rise, but by far the most important factor was
the tendency to operate at better levels of visual acuity.
****
The US medical system, because it is largely for profit, has a high general
rate of surgery, not just in cataract operations. This is also do to the
culture which treats the body as a machine, to be repaired like a car.
There is a over consumption of surgical interventions. Bypass operations
are often cited as a problem area.
The French favor medicines, so an over consumption of pills are encountered!
Earl
"nitram" <[email protected]> wrote:
> My sight was really bad at the end of the 14 months.
There is a good English study on the whole issue of cataract operations, the
part on international comparisons is posted below
http://hcna.radcliffe-oxford.com/cataract.htm
International comparisons
International comparisons are fraught with problems because of the
difficulty of standardising for confounding factors and variation in case
definition. Nonetheless they are important, not just because of possible
relevance to ethnic minorities living in Britain but also because a lot can
be learnt from studies of cataract surgery rates in places such as Western
Europe, North America and Australasia, where the incidence of cataract is
similar to that in the UK but health services are differently organised.
Such studies allow us to see the impact of changing the definition of need.
Although attempts are underway to try to objectify the criteria for cataract
surgery, need is still subjectively defined. In countries where there are
fewer economic restraints on healthcare, less conservative definitions of
need have resulted in much higher rates of surgery. Information,
particularly from places where the patient is more able to define his or her
own need, gives a clue to the UK health services as to just how far the
level of surgery may grow.
Some of the most interesting surgery data come from Sweden. In 1991, Sweden
introduced a healthcare guarantee that a cataract patient with a visual
acuity of 0.5 (6/12) or less in the better eye could expect surgery within 3
months of listing. In an effort to monitor this guarantee, a national
cataract register was set up and run by a small group of enthusiastic
ophthalmologists. (114) ,(115)
By 1995, the Swedish cataract register covered 95% of all cataract surgery
in that country. A recent analysis (115) has shown that the immediate impact
of the guarantee was to reduce waiting times, but after a couple of years
the waiting times started to increase again. The guarantee did not have the
anticipated effect of removing variations between districts within Sweden,
which were still evident in 1995.
The Swedish cataract register collects a minimal set of information on each
treated patient, including waiting time, age, sex, employment status, visual
acuity, two simple questions of visual function, previous surgery and ocular
co-morbidity. Based on 1992 data, they estimated that in Sweden there were
4.5 operations per 1000 inhabitants, compared to 5.4 per 1000 in the USA,
2.8 per 1000 in Denmark, 2.7 per 1000 in Norway and 1.8 per 1000 in Britain.
(10) The comparatively low rate of surgery in the UK had been noted earlier,
(11) and possible explanations have been proposed, (116) but none has
satisfactorily explained the discrepancy. Although unexplained, the
international comparisons do probably demonstrate the extent to which the
NHS needed to expand its service.
An important analysis of time trends in the rates of surgery was made in
North Jutland, Denmark, (9) where the rate in 1990 was found to be three
times that for the same area in 1980. They found no increase in the
proportion of second-eye operations and very little change in the average
age at surgery. The increased proportion of very elderly people may have
contributed slightly to the rise, but by far the most important factor was
the tendency to operate at better levels of visual acuity.
****
The US medical system, because it is largely for profit, has a high general
rate of surgery, not just in cataract operations. This is also do to the
culture which treats the body as a machine, to be repaired like a car.
There is a over consumption of surgical interventions. Bypass operations
are often cited as a problem area.
The French favor medicines, so an over consumption of pills are encountered!
Earl
Apr 17th 2005 | 1:02 am
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
> From: nitram <[email protected]>
> Organization: ------
> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:18:55 +0200
> Subject: Re: The best places to get sick
>
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:02:10 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> wrote the usual bollocks:
>
>> Most cataracts are age-related
>
>
>
>> and progress with extreme slowness.
>
> Rubbish!
>
>> A
>> 14-month wait is thus not necessarily a hardship; there will hardly be
>> any change in vision over such a short period.
>
> Totally wrong. My sight went from -6 to -12 during the 14 month wait.
> Something else you know SFA about.
My cataracts had progressed with great speed also. I was 68, and the
difference between the checkup I had had just six months before and the
checkup I had in April 2004 was so great that the doctor felt I should have
the surgery soonest. So I did.
Donna Evleth
> Organization: ------
> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:18:55 +0200
> Subject: Re: The best places to get sick
>
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:02:10 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> wrote the usual bollocks:
>
>> Most cataracts are age-related
>
>
>
>> and progress with extreme slowness.
>
> Rubbish!
>
>> A
>> 14-month wait is thus not necessarily a hardship; there will hardly be
>> any change in vision over such a short period.
>
> Totally wrong. My sight went from -6 to -12 during the 14 month wait.
> Something else you know SFA about.
My cataracts had progressed with great speed also. I was 68, and the
difference between the checkup I had had just six months before and the
checkup I had in April 2004 was so great that the doctor felt I should have
the surgery soonest. So I did.
Donna Evleth
Apr 17th 2005 | 1:04 am
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
> From: Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> Organization: None
> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:02:29 +0200
> Subject: Re: The best places to get sick
>
> nitram writes:
>
>> Rubbish!
>
> Not rubbish at all. They can take years or decades to progress to a
> point where they interfere with vision. Indeed, they may not even be
> diagnosed until long after they've started to develop.
>
>> Totally wrong. My sight went from -6 to -12 during the 14 month wait.
>> Something else you know SFA about.
>
> Your experience is not necessarily representative. I'm going by my
> research on the topic.
Maybe not, but as I reported in a previous post, my experience agrees with
Nitram's.
Donna Evleth
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Organization: None
> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:02:29 +0200
> Subject: Re: The best places to get sick
>
> nitram writes:
>
>> Rubbish!
>
> Not rubbish at all. They can take years or decades to progress to a
> point where they interfere with vision. Indeed, they may not even be
> diagnosed until long after they've started to develop.
>
>> Totally wrong. My sight went from -6 to -12 during the 14 month wait.
>> Something else you know SFA about.
>
> Your experience is not necessarily representative. I'm going by my
> research on the topic.
Maybe not, but as I reported in a previous post, my experience agrees with
Nitram's.
Donna Evleth
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Apr 17th 2005 | 1:05 am
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:02:41 +0200, Donna Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> From: nitram <[email protected]>
>> Organization: ------
>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
>> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:18:55 +0200
>> Subject: Re: The best places to get sick
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:02:10 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>> wrote the usual bollocks:
>>
>>> Most cataracts are age-related
>>
>>
>>
>>> and progress with extreme slowness.
>>
>> Rubbish!
>>
>>> A
>>> 14-month wait is thus not necessarily a hardship; there will hardly be
>>> any change in vision over such a short period.
>>
>> Totally wrong. My sight went from -6 to -12 during the 14 month wait.
>> Something else you know SFA about.
>My cataracts had progressed with great speed also. I was 68, and the
>difference between the checkup I had had just six months before and the
>checkup I had in April 2004 was so great that the doctor felt I should have
>the surgery soonest. So I did.
Ignore Mixi he talks out of his bum.
Both my cataracts went from being detected to needing an operation in
six months.
wrote:
>> From: nitram <[email protected]>
>> Organization: ------
>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
>> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:18:55 +0200
>> Subject: Re: The best places to get sick
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:02:10 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>> wrote the usual bollocks:
>>
>>> Most cataracts are age-related
>>
>>
>>
>>> and progress with extreme slowness.
>>
>> Rubbish!
>>
>>> A
>>> 14-month wait is thus not necessarily a hardship; there will hardly be
>>> any change in vision over such a short period.
>>
>> Totally wrong. My sight went from -6 to -12 during the 14 month wait.
>> Something else you know SFA about.
>My cataracts had progressed with great speed also. I was 68, and the
>difference between the checkup I had had just six months before and the
>checkup I had in April 2004 was so great that the doctor felt I should have
>the surgery soonest. So I did.
Ignore Mixi he talks out of his bum.
Both my cataracts went from being detected to needing an operation in
six months.
Apr 17th 2005 | 1:10 am
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:57:35 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 17/04/05 10:18, in article [email protected],
>"nitram" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> My sight was really bad at the end of the 14 months.
>There is a good English study on the whole issue of cataract operations, the
>part on international comparisons is posted below
>http://hcna.radcliffe-oxford.com/cataract.htm
The problems locally were caused by a hospital administrator who made
economies by cutting operating theatre nursing staff budgets rather
than administrators to save money. Although surgeons anaesthetists and
the operating theatre were all available, there were only enough
nurses to allow the use of the facilities for 4 hours a day.
wrote:
>On 17/04/05 10:18, in article [email protected],
>"nitram" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> My sight was really bad at the end of the 14 months.
>There is a good English study on the whole issue of cataract operations, the
>part on international comparisons is posted below
>http://hcna.radcliffe-oxford.com/cataract.htm
The problems locally were caused by a hospital administrator who made
economies by cutting operating theatre nursing staff budgets rather
than administrators to save money. Although surgeons anaesthetists and
the operating theatre were all available, there were only enough
nurses to allow the use of the facilities for 4 hours a day.
Apr 17th 2005 | 1:10 am
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
nitram writes:
> The usual 5 seconds with google?
More than that. I've researched it at length on numerous occasions.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> The usual 5 seconds with google?
More than that. I've researched it at length on numerous occasions.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Apr 17th 2005 | 1:16 am
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:10:43 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>nitram writes:
>> The usual 5 seconds with google?
>More than that. I've researched it at length on numerous occasions.
and failed miserably.
wrote:
>nitram writes:
>> The usual 5 seconds with google?
>More than that. I've researched it at length on numerous occasions.
and failed miserably.
Apr 17th 2005 | 1:36 am
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On 17/04/05 9:43, in article [email protected],
"Erick T. Barkhuis" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Earl Evleth [on Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:18:19 +0200] wrote:
>> On 16/04/05 19:28, in article [email protected],
>> "Erick T. Barkhuis" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> With due respect, I will agree that certain delays are 'no big deal'. But
>>> in that case, I wouldn't describe the need for such treatment as "being
>>> sick" (which is what this thread's subject line refers to).
>>
>> Have you personally, or somebody you know, had problems obtaining medical
>> treatment because of a waiting list problem?
>
> I remember that last year, a report was published showing an alarming
> number of cases where patients would have survived if not for the waiting
> lists. I can't find the report anymore, though. :-(
Waiting for what?
If you are talking about cancer, cancer 5 year survival rates have been
moving higher but the over all death rates from cancers are static, hardly
improving for most types of cancers. This has been attributed to
earlier discoveries of cancers, people are surviving longer but dying
anyway. The real question is whether you are surviving longer than
you would if you were not treated! I think that most cancer current
treatments to extend life, however. Few cure.
Believe it or not the history of medicine is full of examples of
treatments which are counter productive. Treatment of severe burns
fell into this category prior to about 1960s.
> However, I found several articles indicating that the wating list problem
> is quite severe in the Netherlands. And frankly, I didn't know that this
> country was more of an exception in Europe than the general rule.
I have seen no study. Awaiting lists should mean denial of immediate
treatment of problems which can be delayed.
>> Here one links up with a doctor (one can change) and that doctor
>> knows your medical history. If you need a specialist you are sent to
>> one.
>
> That's generally the same in Holland. Problems arise when you try to get
> in contact with a specialist, and learn that it's your turn for a first
> visit in "two weeks from now" and the actual treatment has a waiting list
> of, say, 20-30 weeks.
I think that long of a delay is unreasonable for definitive treatment.
The only delay I remember was my wife having a scanner exam about two
years ago. That took a month but the disorder was not life threatening
so there was no reason to speed it up. It also occurred during the
early summer, the number of scanner services in Paris are closed for
vacation. Not only to the Parisians themselves close their shutters,
but the baker, the butcher and some medical services. I still had a
cardiac stress test one summer without a problem, however.
> will try and help you right away. But due to the waiting lists, some
> patients get to the specialist too late in order for them to be known in
> time as 'an urgent case'.
Last summer I had my first encounter with arthritis of the knee which
left me nearly crippled for about a week, on crutches. I got an immediate
appointment, x-rays and all that stuff with a specialist and got the proper
pills. I thought I was in for a long duration problem but it was over
almost as quickly as it started. It was like a "bad back" attack,
self-curing for the most part. Like a cold, it lasts a week and goes away.
Earl
"Erick T. Barkhuis" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Earl Evleth [on Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:18:19 +0200] wrote:
>> On 16/04/05 19:28, in article [email protected],
>> "Erick T. Barkhuis" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> With due respect, I will agree that certain delays are 'no big deal'. But
>>> in that case, I wouldn't describe the need for such treatment as "being
>>> sick" (which is what this thread's subject line refers to).
>>
>> Have you personally, or somebody you know, had problems obtaining medical
>> treatment because of a waiting list problem?
>
> I remember that last year, a report was published showing an alarming
> number of cases where patients would have survived if not for the waiting
> lists. I can't find the report anymore, though. :-(
Waiting for what?
If you are talking about cancer, cancer 5 year survival rates have been
moving higher but the over all death rates from cancers are static, hardly
improving for most types of cancers. This has been attributed to
earlier discoveries of cancers, people are surviving longer but dying
anyway. The real question is whether you are surviving longer than
you would if you were not treated! I think that most cancer current
treatments to extend life, however. Few cure.
Believe it or not the history of medicine is full of examples of
treatments which are counter productive. Treatment of severe burns
fell into this category prior to about 1960s.
> However, I found several articles indicating that the wating list problem
> is quite severe in the Netherlands. And frankly, I didn't know that this
> country was more of an exception in Europe than the general rule.
I have seen no study. Awaiting lists should mean denial of immediate
treatment of problems which can be delayed.
>> Here one links up with a doctor (one can change) and that doctor
>> knows your medical history. If you need a specialist you are sent to
>> one.
>
> That's generally the same in Holland. Problems arise when you try to get
> in contact with a specialist, and learn that it's your turn for a first
> visit in "two weeks from now" and the actual treatment has a waiting list
> of, say, 20-30 weeks.
I think that long of a delay is unreasonable for definitive treatment.
The only delay I remember was my wife having a scanner exam about two
years ago. That took a month but the disorder was not life threatening
so there was no reason to speed it up. It also occurred during the
early summer, the number of scanner services in Paris are closed for
vacation. Not only to the Parisians themselves close their shutters,
but the baker, the butcher and some medical services. I still had a
cardiac stress test one summer without a problem, however.
> will try and help you right away. But due to the waiting lists, some
> patients get to the specialist too late in order for them to be known in
> time as 'an urgent case'.
Last summer I had my first encounter with arthritis of the knee which
left me nearly crippled for about a week, on crutches. I got an immediate
appointment, x-rays and all that stuff with a specialist and got the proper
pills. I thought I was in for a long duration problem but it was over
almost as quickly as it started. It was like a "bad back" attack,
self-curing for the most part. Like a cold, it lasts a week and goes away.
Earl
Apr 17th 2005 | 1:54 am
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
Donna Evleth writes:
> My cataracts had progressed with great speed also. I was 68, and the
> difference between the checkup I had had just six months before and the
> checkup I had in April 2004 was so great that the doctor felt I should have
> the surgery soonest. So I did.
What was the cause of the cataracts? When they develop quickly, they
may be secondary to something else.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> My cataracts had progressed with great speed also. I was 68, and the
> difference between the checkup I had had just six months before and the
> checkup I had in April 2004 was so great that the doctor felt I should have
> the surgery soonest. So I did.
What was the cause of the cataracts? When they develop quickly, they
may be secondary to something else.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
