HW 30- Illness & Dying- Culminating Experimental Project

The amount of dominant social practices associated with the human processes of illness and dying that go overlooked by the majority of people in this country is extremely extensive. Practices such as our dualist methods of utilizing anesthesia to "put the mind in another place" while the body is being opened up and operated on by surgeons, or how the real incentives of the American health care system are to benefit the large health insurance companies and to make sure the people get less care. However, one aspect of illness and dying that even less people look into the the ones that are stated above are the incentives of health care systems in countries that utilize a socialist health care system, such as Canada, France, and England. More specifically, what flaws could the health care systems in these countries possibly have? Michael Moore did an excellent job in his film, Sicko, of showing us all the great things about how illness and dying are handled in Canada, France, and England. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a perfect health care system, and by observing the flaws in not only our own imperfect system, but also those of the countries that have better methods then us, one can gain insight into what aspects of health care are beneficial to all different groups of people.

My first bit of research came when watching Sicko by Michael Moore. After he finished speaking on how the American system of health care was designed to get the public less care and giving examples of how horrible it was, he moved on to what the health care systems were like in countries that practice a socialized health care system such as Canada, France, and England. Although he "tried very hard" to find flaws in these systems when he was interviewing citizens in all three of those countries, he was only able to tell us about all the good things such as how even though the doctors were living under state control, they never had to decline any patients their treatment and are inspired to help patients do things like quit smoking because of the way that the system works. The more patients that a doctor in Britain can get to stop smoking, the more money he will be paid, not to mention the fact that any patient can get any number of their prescribed pills for the standard price of just over six and a half pounds (according to the NHS it is actually currently at 7.20.). 

All these good things about the socialized health care system caused me to wonder if there even were any flaws. It doesn't seem possible to have a perfect health care system where everyone is covered and happy about their coverage, but I could be wrong. It turns out that the main principle of the British health care system, otherwise known as the National Health Service, (NHS) is that, "there should be a free, comprehensive health service for everyone according to need, regardless of their income." (http://neamh.cns.uni.edu/MedInfo/bhs.html) It is clear that the positive aspect of the NHS in England is that all the citizens qualify for care no matter what their income/living conditions are. However, the result of this extensively broad coverage is that man patients have to wait a long time to be seen for treatment as well as surgery. "In fact the waiting lists have become so long the the NHS has started paying for people to cross into the European Union for treatment." (http://neamh.cns.uni.edu/MedInfo/bhs.html) So it seems that despite the noble intentions of the National Health Service, treating everyone in a country is not quite as easy as it sounds, and it has been proven to cause long waits for patients in hospitals.

A complaint made on the National Health Service website is stated below-

My friend had been robbed and physically assaulted on Saturday. He suffered a serious injury to his eye, as well as scull bone fracture under the eye. NHS emergency doctors have identified the need for my friend to be inspected by a specialist doctor and considered for a possible operation. Now, one detail. My friend's phone was taken away by the criminals when he was robbed. NHS didn't ask if the contact details were still valid, when they were telling him he would be referred to another doctor. He and I were still on shock which was quite reasonable. So we left later. Now a doctor from the King's hospital is supposed to contact my friend but the details they gave are incorrect. We tried to call the original Lewisham hospital, but after being transferred between different lines for five times my friend had been told to call the first line again. This happened two times. At the King's hospital they cannot do anything and are advising to call the Lewisham hospital. Now, how is my friend is going to find out if he needs an operation at all, if he's being told off everywhere? Is it not going to be too late while all these people who are supposed to help are transferring the lines, and responsibility?

(http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/complaints/Pages/NHScomplaints.aspx)

Although this complaint seems to be directed at the specific receptionists who are repeatedly transferring the call to someone else in order to avoid the responsibility of dealing with the problem, it is still a definite case of denying a patient care, though not as blunt as the health insurance companies in America would make it. Who is to say that this kind of situation does not occur on a daily basis at all the hospital's in England? Although I cannot say for sure if it does or not, I can say that the situation above is not the only case of a patient being denied care. There was a story in the New York Times on February 21, 2008, that addressed another example. "One such case was Debbie Hirst’s. Her breast cancer had metastasized, and the health service would not provide her with Avastin, a drug that is widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such cancers at bay. So, with her oncologist’s support, she decided last year to try to pay the $120,000 cost herself," (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/world/europe/21britain.html) It says in the article that Ms. Hirst had raised 20,000 dollars and was planning on selling her house to raise more just so she could pay for a part of her medication, in the hopes that the health service would cover the rest. But when she was talking to her doctor, the conversation went like this, “I said, ‘Where does that leave me?’ He said, ‘If you pay for Avastin, you’ll have to pay for everything’ ” — in other words, for all her cancer treatment, far more than she could afford." These kind of stories make you wonder if the Pharmacist from Sicko was telling the truth when Michael Moore (questioning the price for amount and type of drugs being purchased) asked, "What if it's like an HIV drug, or a cancer drug?" and the pharmacist responded, "Six pounds 65." I'm sure that Debbie Hirst would not agree with this 'standard price'.

Although these examples do sound very similar to the kind of rejection that so many Americans here all the time, it would be inaccurate to say that the National Health Service in Britain is similar to America in any way as far as what the incentives of the health cares system are. I have a friend who is currently living in England and has lived there for over 10 years, and is in her late 40's. (that has asked to remain anonymous for this project) When I asked her about how she felt about the National Health Service in England, being someone who had previously experienced the American health care system, she said that it was wonderful in comparison. "When I was working as a full-time bartender making a pretty low salary[compared to what I make now], I recieved all the same coverage as the coverage I recieve now, even though I am paid almost twice the amount while acting that I was previously being paid as a bartender." She went on to describe how she had only been sick enough to need antibiotics about five or six times throughout her years in England, but that when her general practitioner had prescribed her medication, she never even had to pay a single pound.

After conducting this research, my conclusion is that I was correct in saying that there is no way to have a perfect health system, and that saying there will be coverage for every citizen in an entire nation is a lot easier than actually making it happen. Overall though, the National Health Service in Britain is a much more effective and honorable system than whatever system we practice in America, and the idea of socialized health care is benefiting a much larger portion of England then the percentage of people in America that benefit from health care, which might have something to do with the fact that about 50 million people in America are not covered by heatlh insurance at all.