Comments on: The Curious Case of the Death Panels and the Lockerbie Bomber http://www.bloggernews.net/124054 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Sun, 27 May 2012 19:30:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: tioedong http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1938991 tioedong Sat, 20 Aug 2011 22:56:07 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1938991 August 2011 update: I was both wrong and right. he was denied a medicine that had not been released but was known to put folks in remission, Zytiga. In the US, most docs would have put him into a "clinical trial" to save his life, but the UK didn't, so Ghadaffy got him home for the medicine. August 2011 update: I was both wrong and right.
he was denied a medicine that had not been released but was known to put folks in remission, Zytiga.
In the US, most docs would have put him into a “clinical trial” to save his life, but the UK didn’t, so Ghadaffy got him home for the medicine.

]]> By: tioedong http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1789833 tioedong Fri, 03 Dec 2010 06:37:07 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1789833 and now the family is suing Scotland http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Megrahi39s-family-to-sue-over.6648587.jp?articlepage=2 and now the family is suing Scotland

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Megrahi39s-family-to-sue-over.6648587.jp?articlepage=2

]]> By: Nancy Reyes http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1729534 Nancy Reyes Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:00:18 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1729534 update August 14 2010: The Mail just confirmed it was the Taxotere that prolonged his life. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302916/Lockerbie-bomber-freed-die-given-miracle-cure-drug.html update August 14 2010:
The Mail just confirmed it was the Taxotere that prolonged his life.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302916/Lockerbie-bomber-freed-die-given-miracle-cure-drug.html

]]> By: louise http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1561022 louise Thu, 01 Apr 2010 13:16:12 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1561022 If you refer to http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/lockerbie_killer_lives_Lp0URehiDYUKPslEFTZH7L it does not come to any conclusion- and certainly nothing suggesting that he was denied a drug because of his performance status or because he was a prisoner. If you refer to http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/lockerbie_killer_lives_Lp0URehiDYUKPslEFTZH7L it does not come to any conclusion- and certainly nothing suggesting that he was denied a drug because of his performance status or because he was a prisoner.

]]> By: Nancy Reyes http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1549361 Nancy Reyes Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:27:43 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1549361 Well, Louise, the NYPost editorial comes to the same conclusion as I do. <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/terrorist_last_laugh_39UyfNOQfzhjRyeGBT9P0J" rel="nofollow">link</a> Well, Louise, the NYPost editorial comes to the same conclusion as I do.

link

]]> By: louise http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1545957 louise Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:27:21 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1545957 As i said before-and indeed as you have said above, we have no idea whether he received chemo in prison, or what any decisions made were based on. It is therefore ridiculous to guess as to why a decision that you dont even know happened was made. And again, your language is emotive and misleading. The performance status does not decide "whether your quality of life is good enough". the PS is nothiong to do with assessing quality of life- it is one of many assessments to advise clinicians and patients and their families as to whether a course of treatment would be likely to improve their symptoms, make their symptoms worse or kill them. I agree that the performance status isnt perfect as an assessment tool- but it also isnt the only thing that the decision to give chemo is based on. As i explained above, the guiding principle in giving treatment is to Do No Harm. And giving a cytotoxic drug to someone who is not well enough to tolerate it is negligent. we are not talking discomfort here- people die from chemotherapy side effects. And our aim in caring for peple with advanced prostate cancer is to ensure that not only do we control their cancer for as long as possible, but that their quality of life (as assessed by themselves, not us) remains as good as poosible for as long as possible. And once the desease progresses, that they die peacefully in the manner and place of their choosing if that is possible. No one is Lebensunwertes Leben (unworthy of life). To suggest as much based on your assumptions of what may or may not have been offered or accepted to and by this man is lazy journalism. By all means, write about facts. And by all means feel free to criticize our system based on figures and evidence. But i take great exception to your sweeping generalisations based on someone you dont know facing a situation you clearly havent taken the time to understand fully. It is irresponsible writing for all the men out there living with advanced prostate cancer. As i said before-and indeed as you have said above, we have no idea whether he received chemo in prison, or what any decisions made were based on. It is therefore ridiculous to guess as to why a decision that you dont even know happened was made.

And again, your language is emotive and misleading. The performance status does not decide “whether your quality of life is good enough”. the PS is nothiong to do with assessing quality of life- it is one of many assessments to advise clinicians and patients and their families as to whether a course of treatment would be likely to improve their symptoms, make their symptoms worse or kill them.

I agree that the performance status isnt perfect as an assessment tool- but it also isnt the only thing that the decision to give chemo is based on. As i explained above, the guiding principle in giving treatment is to Do No Harm. And giving a cytotoxic drug to someone who is not well enough to tolerate it is negligent. we are not talking discomfort here- people die from chemotherapy side effects. And our aim in caring for peple with advanced prostate cancer is to ensure that not only do we control their cancer for as long as possible, but that their quality of life (as assessed by themselves, not us) remains as good as poosible for as long as possible. And once the desease progresses, that they die peacefully in the manner and place of their choosing if that is possible.

No one is Lebensunwertes Leben (unworthy of life). To suggest as much based on your assumptions of what may or may not have been offered or accepted to and by this man is lazy journalism. By all means, write about facts. And by all means feel free to criticize our system based on figures and evidence. But i take great exception to your sweeping generalisations based on someone you dont know facing a situation you clearly havent taken the time to understand fully. It is irresponsible writing for all the men out there living with advanced prostate cancer.

]]> By: Nancy Reyes http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1545941 Nancy Reyes Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:00:44 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1545941 Oh, so you mean they didn't treat him because he healthy enough to receive the medicine, but was denied it because was a prisoner? Or do you mean they didn't treat him because a flawed test decided his quality of life wasn't good enough for the government to waste money trying to prolong his life? Either way, it sounds awfully like he was denied it because he was "Lebensunwertes Leben"... no wonder the Libyans were up in arms trying to get him back home. Oh, so you mean they didn’t treat him because he healthy enough to receive the medicine, but was denied it because was a prisoner?

Or do you mean they didn’t treat him because a flawed test decided his quality of life wasn’t good enough for the government to waste money trying to prolong his life?

Either way, it sounds awfully like he was denied it because he was “Lebensunwertes Leben”…

no wonder the Libyans were up in arms trying to get him back home.

]]> By: louise http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1545928 louise Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:35:31 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1545928 this article is incredibly misleading. Performance status is used to try and ensure that people receiving chemo are not harmed. taxotere is a potent chemotherapy agent with side effects- some of which are life threatening and debilitating. The decision to give/ not give chemo is made WITH the patient and involves a discussion about whether it will improve the patients quality of life. studies have shown that it will improve survival by on average 4 months compared to not using chemo. The issue is whether the patient is fit enough to withstand the risks of therapy. If their performance status is poor, you are likely to make them sick and debilitated in their final months...or worse, even shorten their life. Patients have access to taxotere here if it is appropriate. I cannot comment on the reasons Mr.al-Megrahi did or didnt receive chemo in scotland- however, watching footage of him boarding an aircraft, i would doubt whether it was based on his performance status this article is incredibly misleading. Performance status is used to try and ensure that people receiving chemo are not harmed. taxotere is a potent chemotherapy agent with side effects- some of which are life threatening and debilitating. The decision to give/ not give chemo is made WITH the patient and involves a discussion about whether it will improve the patients quality of life. studies have shown that it will improve survival by on average 4 months compared to not using chemo. The issue is whether the patient is fit enough to withstand the risks of therapy. If their performance status is poor, you are likely to make them sick and debilitated in their final months…or worse, even shorten their life. Patients have access to taxotere here if it is appropriate. I cannot comment on the reasons Mr.al-Megrahi did or didnt receive chemo in scotland- however, watching footage of him boarding an aircraft, i would doubt whether it was based on his performance status

]]> By: yossarian http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1545921 yossarian Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:19:01 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/124054#comment-1545921 A baby born in the US in 2006 has a life expectancy of 78.1. A baby born in the UK in 2006 has the life expectancy of 79.5 The US is 24th out of 30 OECD countries in terns of life expectancy, with only Turkey, Mexico and former eastern bloc countries behind it. Almost every one of the 23 countries ahead of the US has "socialised" medicine in some form. So the "Death Panels" work out far better than the US' system almost every time. A baby born in the US in 2006 has a life expectancy of 78.1. A baby born in the UK in 2006 has the life expectancy of 79.5

The US is 24th out of 30 OECD countries in terns of life expectancy, with only Turkey, Mexico and former eastern bloc countries behind it. Almost every one of the 23 countries ahead of the US has “socialised” medicine in some form.

So the “Death Panels” work out far better than the US’ system almost every time.

]]>