• Member Statistics

    • 855,140 Colleagues-to-Date [Sponsored by a generous R&D grant from iMBA, Inc.]
  • David E. Marcinko [Editor-in-Chief]

    As a former Dean and appointed University Professor and Endowed Department Chair, Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA was a NYSE broker and investment banker for a decade who was respected for his unique perspectives, balanced contrarian thinking and measured judgment to influence key decision makers in strategic education, health economics, finance, investing and public policy management.

    Dr. Marcinko is originally from Loyola University MD, Temple University in Philadelphia and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in PA; as well as Oglethorpe University and Emory University in Georgia, the Atlanta Hospital & Medical Center; Kellogg-Keller Graduate School of Business and Management in Chicago, and the Aachen City University Hospital, Koln-Germany. He became one of the most innovative global thought leaders in medical business entrepreneurship today by leveraging and adding value with strategies to grow revenues and EBITDA while reducing non-essential expenditures and improving dated operational in-efficiencies.

    Professor David Marcinko was a board certified surgical fellow, hospital medical staff President, public and population health advocate, and Chief Executive & Education Officer with more than 425 published papers; 5,150 op-ed pieces and over 135+ domestic / international presentations to his credit; including the top ten [10] biggest drug, DME and pharmaceutical companies and financial services firms in the nation. He is also a best-selling Amazon author with 30 published academic text books in four languages [National Institute of Health, Library of Congress and Library of Medicine].

    Dr. David E. Marcinko is past Editor-in-Chief of the prestigious “Journal of Health Care Finance”, and a former Certified Financial Planner® who was named “Health Economist of the Year” in 2010. He is a Federal and State court approved expert witness featured in hundreds of peer reviewed medical, business, economics trade journals and publications [AMA, ADA, APMA, AAOS, Physicians Practice, Investment Advisor, Physician’s Money Digest and MD News] etc.

    Later, Dr. Marcinko was a vital and recruited BOD  member of several innovative companies like Physicians Nexus, First Global Financial Advisors and the Physician Services Group Inc; as well as mentor and coach for Deloitte-Touche and other start-up firms in Silicon Valley, CA.

    As a state licensed life, P&C and health insurance agent; and dual SEC registered investment advisor and representative, Marcinko was Founding Dean of the fiduciary and niche focused CERTIFIED MEDICAL PLANNER® chartered professional designation education program; as well as Chief Editor of the three print format HEALTH DICTIONARY SERIES® and online Wiki Project.

    Dr. David E. Marcinko’s professional memberships included: ASHE, AHIMA, ACHE, ACME, ACPE, MGMA, FMMA, FPA and HIMSS. He was a MSFT Beta tester, Google Scholar, “H” Index favorite and one of LinkedIn’s “Top Cited Voices”.

    Marcinko is “ex-officio” and R&D Scholar-on-Sabbatical for iMBA, Inc. who was recently appointed to the MedBlob® [military encrypted medical data warehouse and health information exchange] Advisory Board.



  • ME-P Information & Content Channels

  • ME-P Archives Silo [2006 – 2021]

  • Ann Miller RN MHA [Managing Editor]

    USNews.com, Reuters.com,
    News Alloy.com,
    and Congress.org

    Comprehensive Financial Planning Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners(TM)

    Product Details

    Product Details

    Product Details


    New "Self-Directed" Study Option SinceJanuary 1, 2020
  • Most Recent ME-Ps

  • PodiatryPrep.org

    Lower Extremity Trauma
    [Click on Image to Enlarge]

  • ME-P Free Advertising Consultation

    The “Medical Executive-Post” is about connecting doctors, health care executives and modern consulting advisors. It’s about free-enterprise, business, practice, policy, personal financial planning and wealth building capitalism. We have an attitude that’s independent, outspoken, intelligent and so Next-Gen; often edgy, usually controversial. And, our consultants “got fly”, just like U. Read it! Write it! Post it! “Medical Executive-Post”. Call or email us for your FREE advertising and sales consultation TODAY [770.448.0769]

    Product Details

    Product Details

  • Medical & Surgical e-Consent Forms

  • iMBA R&D Services

    Commission a Subject Matter Expert Report [$2500-$9999]January 1, 2020
    Medical Clinic Valuations * Endowment Fund Management * Health Capital Formation * Investment Policy Statement Analysis * Provider Contracting & Negotiations * Marketplace Competition * Revenue Cycle Enhancements; and more! HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
  • iMBA Inc., OFFICES

    Suite #5901 Wilbanks Drive, Norcross, Georgia, 30092 USA [1.770.448.0769]. Our location is real and we are now virtually enabled to assist new long distance clients and out-of-town colleagues.

  • ME-P Publishing


    If you want the opportunity to work with leading health care industry insiders, innovators and watchers, the “ME-P” may be right for you? We are unbiased and operate at the nexus of theoretical and applied R&D. Collaborate with us and you’ll put your brand in front of a smart & tightly focused demographic; one at the forefront of our emerging healthcare free marketplace of informed and professional “movers and shakers.” Our Ad Rate Card is available upon request [770-448-0769].

  • Reader Comments, Quips, Opinions, News & Updates

  • Start-Up Advice for Businesses, DRs and Entrepreneurs

    ImageProxy “Providing Management, Financial and Business Solutions for Modernity”
  • Up-Trending ME-Ps

  • Capitalism and Free Enterprise Advocacy

    Whether you’re a mature CXO, physician or start-up entrepreneur in need of management, financial, HR or business planning information on free markets and competition, the "Medical Executive-Post” is the online place to meet for Capitalism 2.0 collaboration. Support our online development, and advance our onground research initiatives in free market economics, as we seek to showcase the brightest Next-Gen minds. THE ME-P DISCLAIMER: Posts, comments and opinions do not necessarily represent iMBA, Inc., but become our property after submission. Copyright © 2006 to-date. iMBA, Inc allows colleges, universities, medical and financial professionals and related clinics, hospitals and non-profit healthcare organizations to distribute our proprietary essays, photos, videos, audios and other documents; etc. However, please review copyright and usage information for each individual asset before submission to us, and/or placement on your publication or web site. Attestation references, citations and/or back-links are required. All other assets are property of the individual copyright holder.
  • OIG Fraud Warnings

    Beware of health insurance marketplace scams OIG's Most Wanted Fugitives at oig.hhs.gov

Life and Death Choices as South Africans Ration Dialysis Care

Dialysis Unit at Tygerberg Academic Hospital – Near Cape

By Sheri Fink, Special to ProPublica Dec. 15, 2010, 3:18 pm

Join Our Mailing List 

Late last August, 41-year-old Amos Phillips arrived by ambulance at Tygerberg Academic Hospital near Cape Town, South Africa. His kidneys had failed. He was confused, struggling to breathe, and desperate enough to ask doctors to end his life.

The same month, a 43-year-old widow with three children was also treated at Tygerberg for kidney failure. The patient, Karen MacPherson, desperately wanted to live. She said she had been plagued by high blood pressure, a risk factor for kidney disease, since her children’s birth. “It’s because of the high blood [pressure] the kidneys don’t want to work anymore,” she said.

Kidney failure can come on suddenly and affect anyone. Some forms are partial or reversible. Others are permanent and fatal without treatment.

To live, both Amos Phillips and Karen MacPherson would need ongoing dialysis treatment to filter toxins from their blood, sustaining them until they received a kidney transplant. But needing treatment didn’t mean they would get it.

Public hospitals in South Africa strictly limit the number of expensive dialysis treatment slots for chronic kidney failure to save money for other pressing health priorities. It falls to the medical staff to do the rationing.

The situation in South Africa is strikingly similar to that of the United Sates in the 1960s, when dialysis first became available. Demand for the procedure was far greater than the supply, and hospital-based committees quietly rationed dialysis—much as they do in South Africa today.

In the United States, committees granted or denied dialysis in large part by judging how much a particular patient’s life was worth. A 1962 article in LIFE magazine exposed the selection process at one Seattle clinic, triggering public outcry. Lawmakers created a program that now entitles almost anyone diagnosed with kidney failure to dialysis treatment under Medicare.

A few kidney doctors have argued publicly that access in the United States has become too broad, including patients who are unlikely to benefit from the expensive therapy. They have called for limits on which types of patients should receive dialysis.

But where to draw the line? The scenes that unfold each week in Cape Town, South Africa, where committees meet to choose dialysis patients, are a reminder of how difficult any selection process can be.

I was granted access to closed dialysis selection committee meetings at the two hospitals that provide public dialysis services to adult kidney patients in the Cape Town Area. It is the first time a reporter has been allowed to attend a committee meeting at Tygerberg and report on the process.

An investigation by ProPublica [1] recently highlighted the high cost of the massive, rapidly expanding kidney disease program in the United States and the poor outcomes experienced by many dialysis patients.

The challenge for the United States is to address systemic flaws and achieve the superior results that patients in other wealthy countries, such as Italy, enjoy. In less-affluent countries like South Africa, the central question is a different one: How can these nations expand access to dialysis—and in the interim bring some modicum of consistency and transparency to the heartbreaking task of rationing lifesaving care.

Global inequities

When it comes to expensive, chronic therapies like dialysis, there is still a stark divide between wealthy nations and much of the rest of the world. In the United States, Western Europe and Japan, there is widespread access to dialysis care, most of it paid for publicly. But in many countries, the vast majority of patients with kidney disease don’t have access to dialysis [2].

In South Africa, only the roughly one out of five patients who have a form of health insurance or the small proportion of patients who can afford pay are able to get dialysis at private clinics or hospitals based on medical need alone. The cost of paying out of pocket—about $20,000 per year— is nearly double the gross domestic product per capita.

The remaining patients rely on an overburdened public health system in which an increasing number of chronic kidney disease patients are denied dialysis.

“Probably in the middle of the last decade we were turning away 50 percent of the patients,” said Dr. Rafique Moosa, a kidney specialist at Tygerberg Hospital and head of the Department of Medicine at the University of Stellenbosch. According to him, as of August they were turning away 80 percent, and in November, only two out of 20 patients were accepted. “We just don’t have the resources to deal with the patients,” Moosa said. But deciding to reject patients for the program can feel like issuing a “death sentence,” he said.

“In a court of law, you have courts of appeal and you have a higher court and all those kinds of processes before the death sentence is eventually applied,” Moosa said. “Here, essentially if we say no, the process is essentially terminated.”

So, the doctors have adopted a firing-squad-like approach to share the responsibility and the burden. “It’s a tough process having to decide who lives and who doesn’t,” Moosa said. “One of the ways of dispersing the guilt and the blame and all the badgering that goes with this is to do it as a group rather than an individual.”

The question of how groups of medical professionals choose who lives is particularly important given South Africa’s history. Tygerberg was built during the apartheid era, when the government mandated racial segregation. The vast hospital has hallways that stretch out east and west, in wings that are mirror images. One side used to treat white patients. The other treated nonwhites.

For decades, a committee at the hospital has decided who gets dialysis treatment. In a recent study of historical data from Tygerberg’s program, Moosa found that patient selection often fell along racial lines. “What we clearly discovered in that initial paper was that black patients were disadvantaged,” he said.

The apartheid era ended with the first multiracial, democratic elections of 1994. However, between 1988 and 2003, Moosa’s study found, white patients were nearly four times more likely to be accepted for dialysis treatment than nonwhites at Tygerberg. (In recent years, the vast majority of white kidney disease patients have shifted to the growing private dialysis sector for care, and their cases are no longer subject to review by Tygerberg’s dialysis selection committee.) During that period, there was little in the way of detailed guidance governing the selection process. That left patients and the public with limited insight into the basis for the committee’s decisions.

Several years ago, the government announced cutbacks that would further squeeze the dialysis program. At the same time, the number of new kidney patients was skyrocketing thanks to a growing rate of diabetes and other risk factors.

Moosa protested the budget cuts and sought to have government officials in charge of his hospital take more public responsibility for rationing.

“We were making these clinical decisions that would have economic benefit to the hospital, and the hospital managers played absolutely no role in this,” he said. “We felt that was blatantly unfair.”

Provincial officials agreed to work with the medical professionals to establish official guidelines [3] for patient selection—essentially a more standardized and explicit rationing system. Ethicists and several patients with kidney disease also provided input.

Participants differed somewhat over the criteria for allotting dialysis treatment—there are no universally accepted methods to ration health care. However, they worked to ensure that the selection guidelines were developed in a just way and that the selection process would be more accountable.

“The main thrust of this was to be fair and equitable and transparent,” Moosa said. The provincial government adopted the new system earlier this year. It calls for the dialysis selection committees at public hospitals to place patients into three prioritization categories based on a variety of medical and social factors.

This was the system that was in place when Amos Phillips and Karen MacPherson, two of the recent patients at Tygerberg, were considered.

The Committee

On a recent Tuesday morning, about a dozen medical professionals, stethoscopes dangling from their necks, gathered in a small conference room at the hospital. The committee meets weekly to decide who will be accepted into the dialysis treatment and transplant program.

The hospital’s longtime social worker for kidney patients, Marietjie Swart, presided. She projected a photo of Amos Phillips onto a large screen.

The image showed a man with closely cropped brown hair lying in his hospital bed.

Phillips’ doctor outlined his medical condition, and then Swart reviewed other aspects of his life that might have a bearing on the committee’s decision. She began with his age and where he lives. “He can read and write,” she added. “He speaks Afrikaans and Xhosa, as well.”

Phillips “never smoked, never used any drugs,” Swart continued. “He only drank over weekends with his wife, but they would only buy about four bottles, 750 ml, between the two of them.” Phillips was, Swart said, “not a party animal.”

That was a point in his favor. Under the guidelines, active substance abuse automatically excludes a patient from receiving dialysis.

Swart also discussed Phillips’ living conditions. “It’s a one-bedroom house, with a lounge, kitchen and a bathroom,” she said. The bathroom had a tub, sink and a toilet.

The guidelines call these “good home circumstances,” and they, too, improved Phillips’ chances of being chosen for dialysis. Running water, sanitation and electricity are important for performing a form of dialysis safely at home. However, these criteria can disadvantage the poorest South Africans, who often lack such utilities.

Swart offered more personal details. “He is employed on a farm,” she said. “His income is more or less 1,200-1,500 rand ($175-$220) a month.” He had “no criminal record” and was married to a 33-year-old woman. “They’ve got three children of 13, 9, and 4 years old, all three living with them.”

These factors—criminal and employment history, whether the patient is a parent—have little to do with the chances of benefiting medically from dialysis. They are, instead, measures of social worth.

Dr. Moosa said the committee used to weigh these factors heavily when considering patients for dialysis. “I suppose we used a utilitarian approach,” he said. “The question that we used to ask ourselves—you know, if we put this patient onto our program, of what benefit can he be to the society?”

According to the new guidelines, those factors are no longer considered. The ethicists who helped draw up the guidelines argued that medical practitioners should not judge which patients are the worthiest contributors to society.

Judgments are often wrong. For example, former prisoners might have been falsely convicted, especially during the apartheid years. Patients who lack their own children might be helping to raise others.

Most important, the ethicists said, are medical criteria. Is the patient healthy enough to undergo a kidney transplant? If so, he or she might someday no longer need dialysis, and that would free up a slot for a new patient.

The problem is, few actually are able to get transplants. There are far more good medical candidates than there are dialysis slots. Therefore, the committee falls back on subjective criteria—does the patient seem motivated? Does he or she have a good social support network?

The committee still discusses some social factors that are no longer included in the government-approved priority setting guidelines Moosa helped to develop for the province. For example, the checklist still used by the committee penalizes those who’ve been convicted of serious crimes and requires gainful employment for a patient to be accepted into “Category One,” the only category of patients guaranteed access to the dialysis program. Both of these “social worth” factors are missing from the new guidelines.

Moosa said in an interview that he had not had time to update the checklist tool to conform with the new guidelines, but that those factors are mentioned at committee meetings “more out of habit” and are “not something we pay a lot of attention to anymore.”

The assessment committee weighed the factors in Amos Phillips’ case, deciding whether he should be ranked “Category One” and guaranteed dialysis.

“I think he would almost be a Category One patient if it wasn’t for his late presentation,” Moosa said to his colleagues at the committee meeting.

By “late presentation,” Moosa meant that Phillips had arrived at the hospital after his kidneys had already failed. He needed to be put on life support, with a breathing tube and emergency dialysis, until he was stabilized. That bumped him to Category Two—not guaranteed a spot in the chronic dialysis program.

The Case for Karen MacPherson

The same day, the committee members also talked about Karen MacPherson, the widowed mother of three.

Her picture was projected on the screen. Her wide eyes peered at the camera through large plastic glasses. Dr. Yazid Chothia described her medical and social situation.

“She’s the only breadwinner,” he said, and she had been raising several children. Now other family members were caring for her. “Yesterday they brought her in here because she was nauseous, vomiting,” Chothia said. “It sounds like the family is struggling in terms of taking care of her.”

MacPherson’s case had come to the committee before. She had many characteristics that counted in her favor.

She was well below age 60, the cutoff for initiating dialysis under the government-approved guidelines used at the hospital. She didn’t have any other serious medical or psychiatric disorder, which could disqualify her. She had a home near the hospital with running water and electricity.

Before the new guidelines were adopted, the selection committee might have given great consideration to the fact that she was a mother with a steady job and no criminal history. But the committee had recently turned her down.

“We didn’t accept her for the program?” Moosa asked his colleagues. He had been on vacation when the case had come up before.

“It was mainly based on her BMI, prof,” Chothia said. “Her BMI was 39.”

BMI is body mass index. MacPherson’s was high. She was obese.

Although obese patients do better than average on dialysis, they have a poorer prognosis when it comes to a kidney transplant. That, according to the new rationing guidelines, takes precedence.

Moosa accepted the committee’s previous decision. MacPherson had been assigned to Category Three—automatically excluded from dialysis treatment. She was already very sick.

“It probably won’t be for very much longer,” Moosa said. “Shame.”

The committee members took some steps to help her. They agreed to provide a letter that could be used to relieve a debt. They also referred her to Eagle’s Rest, an inpatient hospice located on the grounds of an evangelical church.

Grasping for Hope

The next day, MacPherson lay in bed at the hospice beneath a pink blanket. She trembled when she sat up. She was too nauseated to keep down her food.

Her father came to visit, and she asked him about her prognosis. “Did the doctor tell you how much longer I’ve got to live?”

“You’re going to live long enough,” her father, Richard MacPherson, answered. “Don’t you worry about that. You just get well. That’s all.” He smiled at her. “There’s no limitation. The doctor can’t say that.”

With her family’s support and the nurses’ prayers, Karen MacPherson tried to stay hopeful.

“I want to get better, I want to get out of here, get my life back on track—get back to my kids,” she said. “My daughter needs me.”

As she spoke, she seemed unaware that she had been turned down for dialysis, or even that dialysis could help her. Her doctor later confirmed that he didn’t tell Karen MacPherson about the program, although he said he informed her father.

According to the prioritization guidelines, patients or their family membersare supposed to be fully informed of the committee’s decision and the reasons for denial and given the opportunity to appeal.

“It’s an ethical obligation to actually communicate openly, truthfully, and sincerely with one’s patients,” said Dr. Keymanthrie Moodley, a bioethics professor at Tygerberg and Stellenbosch University. Moodley said this can prevent the misconception that a patient was rejected for reasons of race or socioeconomic status. “To create a healthier society from both a physical and a mental and psychological perspective, an open line of communication is absolutely critical.”

Dr. Moosa said the guidelines require informing patients or their family members however challenging that may be.

“The reality is that it’s very difficult to go to a patient and inform them, well look, there is this particular form of therapy which is available to you which will help you live another reasonably healthy life for another five to 10 years, and then in the same breath say, well, unfortunately I can’t offer it to you,” he said. “I think it’s actually cruel to dangle that almost as a carrot in front of the patient.”

Pushing the Boundaries

South African physicians are looking to expand public dialysis programs by partnering with private clinics, campaigning for more funding and trying to cut costs. Still, any such plans will come too late for today’s kidney patients. Tygerberg Hospital has no free slots for dialysis.

Sometimes, however, room is made for exceptions.

Several months ago, one of the patients who had received a kidney transplant at Tygerberg in the mid-1990s experienced rejection of her organ and developed kidney failure again. She was brought before the committee to be reconsidered for dialysis. She was now 59 years old and experiencing heart failure­—no longer a candidate for kidney transplant under the guidelines, and therefore no longer a candidate for dialysis at the public hospital.

“If you look at the criteria, she should not be [accepted to] our program,” Swart said. But the woman had provided many years of service to the hospital’s patient-support group overseen by Swart. By this point, the woman had secured private health coverage, known as “medical aid,” but she wanted to continue being treated at Tygerberg, which no longer accepts such patients.

“I just said, ‘Guys, there’s no way that you’re going to turn down this lady,’ ” Swart recalled. “ ‘She’s my left and my right hand.’ ” The committee approved her, and she currently performs dialysis at home that is overseen by the clinic at Tygerberg. “She’s just a very, very special case,” Swart said.

She is not the only one for whom extraordinary efforts have been made.

The day after the recent committee meeting, Dr. André Nortje went to the bedside of kidney patient Amos Phillips. “Mr. Phillips, we discussed you yesterday in our meeting,” Nortje informed him.

The committee had classified Phillips as a Category Two patient— eligible for dialysis only “provided resources allow.”

The program was full, but Phillips was borderline. The committee members thought he had a good chance of benefitting from dialysis, and they hate turning anyone away. They had accepted him for dialysis.

“We decided at our meeting yesterday morning that we will support you in terms of that,” Nortje said. “What I mean by that is that we will offer you, in future, a kidney transplant.”

Phillips looked up at the doctor from his hospital bed. “Yes. I understand.”

“You understand?” Nortje asked.

“I understand and am very happy.”

Phillips began receiving regular dialysis and soon returned home to his family.

Karen MacPherson was buried two weeks after the committee meeting—on what would have been her 44th birthday.


Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com


Product DetailsProduct DetailsProduct Details

Product Details  Product Details

   Product Details 

13 Responses

  1. More on Dialysis Patient Tracking


    Dr. Williams


  2. Ask an Advisor

    A large, urban public medical center announces the closure of its outpatient dialysis clinic due to massive funding shortfalls. A significant number of the patients receiving dialysis in the clinic are undocumented individuals who do not have resources to pay for the care and are not eligible for public assistance (Medicaid) due to their status. Without access to regular dialysis, many of these patients will likely die.

    As a clinician at this facility, how might you respond to this issue? Should this problem be addressed by the institution’s ethics committee?

    Hope Rachel Hetico RN MHA
    [Managing Editor]


  3. What is Appropriate [Medical] Care


    Ann Miller RN MHA


  4. In US health care, rationing is not a new concept

    Rationing is defined as the controlled distribution of scarce resources, goods, or services.

    In health care, rationing is not a new concept and has been occurring for years, most often in times of emergency but also when resources are merely limited or demand is greater.

    Health insurance presence, type and/or abscence is another way.




  5. On Healthcare Rationing

    A wise man once quipped by opining that to say we may need to ration healthcare – is like saying that we may need to respect the laws of gravity.

    In other words, when societies have more healthcare needs and wants than resources (and all societies do), rationing is inevitable.



  6. Rationing Types

    Here are a few more references of interesting papers on explicit v. implicit rationing in the spirit of continuing the conversation:

    •David Mechanic with a defense of implicit rationing in the BMJ (1995), along with some comparisons as he sees them between the NHS and managed care in the U.S. circa early 1990s.

    •Len Doyal making the case for explicit rationing, also in the BMJ (1997).

    •Joanna Coast in the same issue as the Doyal paper arguing against explicit rationing, in favor of implicit BMJ (in 1997).

    These are short, clear papers. Lots more that you could read; check references of these papers and papers that have cited them.

    Courtesy of Austin Frakt PhD, over at the Incidental Economist.



  7. The Case For Rational Rationing

    The House Republicans justy took another swipe at the alleged rationing in Obamacare, voting to eliminate the independent advisory panel that will propose cuts in Medicare spending when it grows substantially faster than the rest of the economy.

    An essay by Merrill Goozner:



  8. Smart Tiering

    Isn’t smart health insurance tiering polices the same as rationed care?




  9. On Rationing

    Health care is, always was, and always will be rationed. However much people hate the idea, it’s a fact, not a choice. The only choice we have is to ration it rationally, or irrationally.


    At present, we ration it — and everything it affects — irrationally.



  10. Patients dying on NHS waiting lists ‘surges by 10,000

    A freedom of information request to NHS Trusts, carried out by the Express, revealed that the number of patients dying while on a waiting list rose from 18,876 in 2012/13 to 29,553 in 2017/18.

    The information request also saw that across dozens of NHS Trusts, there was an increase of more than 50%.

    But, this number could be higher, as only half (67 of 135) of the NHS Trusts responded, the paper reported.



  11. Social Medicine?

    Man told he’s going to die by doctor on video-link robot.



  12. In US, 84% of donor kidneys rejected at least once, says study


    Dr. David E. Marcinko MBA


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: