Interesting Medical News from the WSJ

"A former NHS director died after waiting for nine months for an operation--at her own hospital," London's Daily Mail reports:

Margaret Hutchon, a former mayor, had been waiting since last June for a follow-up stomach operation at Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford, Essex.

But her appointments to go under the knife were cancelled four times and she barely regained consciousness after finally having surgery.

Her devastated husband, Jim, is now demanding answers from Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust--the organisation where his wife had served as a non-executive member of the board of directors.

He said: "I don't really know why she died. I did not get a reason from the hospital. We all want to know for closure. She got weaker and weaker as she waited and operations were put off."
It would be cruel to put this down to karma, so instead we'll just note that it can't possibly be true. After all, as New York Times star columnist Paul Krugman has observed, "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false."

Today's Times features a news story on socialized medicine right here in the U.S.:

Of all the terrible chronic diseases, only one--end-stage kidney disease--gets special treatment by the federal government. A law passed by Congress 39 years ago provides nearly free care to almost all patients whose kidneys have failed, regardless of their age or ability to pay.
Guess what happened? "The law has had unintended consequences." Nooooo, it can't be! The Times explains:

It was meant to keep young and middle-aged people alive and productive. Instead, many of the patients who take advantage of the law are old and have other medical problems, often suffering through dialysis as a replacement for their failed kidneys but not living long because the other chronic diseases kill them.
The solution is to hasten the deaths of those patients. But of course you can't say that, so docs are coming up with new euphemisms:

Kidney specialists are pushing doctors to be more forthright with elderly people who have other serious medical conditions, to tell the patients that even though they are entitled to dialysis, they may want to decline such treatment and enter a hospice instead. In the end, it is always the patient's choice.

One idea, promoted by leading specialists, is to change the way doctors refer to the decision to forgo dialysis. Instead of saying that a patient is withdrawing from dialysis or agreeing not to start it, these specialists say the patient has chosen "medical management without dialysis."

"That is the preferred term," said Nancy Armistead, executive director of the Mid-Atlantic Renal Coalition, a Medicare contractor that collects data and patient grievances.
The phrase, she says, "acknowledges that death is imminent," but it also sends an important message: "We are not just sending people home to die. We are offering palliative care."
Hey, here's an idea. Let's get Congress to pass legislation making the government responsible for providing all kinds of medical care to everyone. Then we can all get palliative care, even if our kidneys are fine!