posted 07-24- 03:51 PM               

"Cancer drug 'rationed' by NHS
By Patricia Reaney

LONDON (Reuters) - Cancer patients are not being given an immunity-boosting drug that could improve chemotherapy treatments and increase survival rates, doctors have said.

Up to 30 percent of breast cancer patients and 47 percent of lymphoma sufferers receive reduced doses of chemotherapy and could benefit from the drug filgrastim G-CSF.

But because of cost restrictions in the state-funded National Health Service they do not get it.

"It's a funding problem," Dr Ruth Pettengell, a cancer expert at St George's Hospital in London, told a news conference.

Filgrastim G-CSF, produced by biotechnology giant Amgen Inc under the brand name Neupogen, is a supportive care drug that boosts the production of infection-fighting white blood cells.

During chemotherapy white blood cell counts can drop dramatically causing a condition known as neutropenia, which impairs the body's ability to fight infection.

Patients with neutropenia have a weakened immune system so chemotherapy treatment is often delayed or reduced which can lead to poorer survival rates. The drug counters the effects of neutropenia and allows doctors to continue optimal treatment.

An audit, supported by Amgen, of hundreds of patients at 23 cancer units in hospitals showed G-CSF was used in less than six percent of breast cancer cases, compared to 20 percent in Europe and the United States.

Only 8.5 percent of Hodgkin's Lymphoma patients in Britain receive the drug, which is given to 34 percent of sufferers in the US and 21 percent in Europe.

"This drug is vastly under-used in the UK," said Dr Robert Thomas, a cancer specialist at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, "and current lack of funding continues to severely restrict prescription of supportive care drugs."

Thomas and Pettengell said scientific studies have shown that G-CSF increases a patient's ability to receive the optimal chemotherapy treatment which improves their chances of beating the disease.

Although the drug only costs about 1,000 pounds per patient during the course of treatment it is not widely used in Britain because it is a supportive therapy, according to Thomas.

He said the drug should be given to patients who have had neutropenia because it raises their risk of having it again.

The Campaign for Effective and Rational Treatment (CERT), a patient-centred group set up in response to concerns about the quality of treatment in the NHS, has called for a review of supportive care for cancer patients throughout the country.

"Maintaining chemotherapy dose intensity in curable cancers is very important and evidence suggests it does improve a patient's chance of survival," said Pettengell."

posted 07-24- 07:54 PM               

------------------

Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless!

posted 07-25- 04:21 PM            

I personally know of a woman who being diagnosed
with lukemia 6 or seven years ago rejected
main stream medical treatment and chose a
treatment involving diet, certain herbs, spices,
etc. This woman still leads a good life and
she was supposed to be DEAD around 5 years ago.

Unfortunately our medical plan didn't pay for
her treatment. Her husband, whom I worked
with and is a very good friend, has had to
delay his retirement because of the medical
expenses they have incured keeping his wife
alive.

I realize medical insurance can't be expected
to pay for every wacko idea that comes along.
Before I knew of this woman I would have been
the first person to say this treatment is
quackery. However, there are many medical
treatments and procedures our insurance doesn't
pay for because they are labeled "experimental",
"off the wall", etc. Insurance companies are
very slow to upgrade such practices to "Main
stream" because they will have to start paying
for them. Personally Chiropractic care is one
that would help me but again our insurance
doesn't pay for it and I must bear the cost
myself.

I just wonder if pertaining to the above drug
it wasn't the conservitive forces in England
that got the drug under-funded in the first
place. I'd say there is a good chance.
Conservitives in this country love to water
down a govt. program and then point out the
program is no good because it doesn't do
such and such.

posted 07-25- 05:52 PM               

How did buying food, herbs and spices prevent your friend from retiring? I'm happy for his wife, but lot's of people live longer than what doctor's say. Many of them say it's because of prayer. Does that prove that there is a God?

posted 07-25- 07:15 PM               

I don't think the average person should contribute to a plan (government or private) just to make it easier for me to get the medication. This includes my company's coverage. It is my problem that I have this condition, no one else’s!

Now, I'm am glad I have a medical problem that many people have (and with increasing prevalent in the population). We comprise a large market that the drug companies target research towards.

It must suck to have a rare medical condition.

But, THERE IS NOW GUARENTEE YOU WILL LIVE THROUGH TOMORROW, AND THERE SHOULD NOT BE!

I've come close to dying 2.5 times, and I'm ready face death again!

I heard the story on NPR about the little girl that had the condition which cost $300,000 a year to treat. It is a shame she faces such unfair odds. But, how many people who have serious treatable conditions could benefit from part of the $300,000?

Gotta make tough choices, we're in the trenches and they'll be some casualties in this war called life!

Some Republican Bastard on some TV show (about 2 months ago) mentioned that Government intervention in the healthcase system has given us the system we have today. In the old days, Rich Bastards used to contribute to/support Hospitals with private fund raisers. These allowed Hosptials to take in people with out the ability to pay. Medicare/Medicaid destroyed this system.

True or False?

posted 07-25- 08:46 PM            

False, in the old days only rich bastards
went to hospitals.

posted 07-25- 10:25 PM               

No system is perfect. I myself would prefer a system in the US where everyone had equal access even if it meant a lower standard of care. That could be improved with time. Almost all systems have something good about them.

The problem is that, in the US at least, no meaningful reform can occur since the interests involved are so powerful and have the money to lobby effectively for what they want. I have heard and read many reports on how this or that aspect of the German, Canadian, and yes, even the UK health systems could be very effectively worked into the US system to the greater good of all. Has any of it come to pass? NO!

When I think of all the money, red tape, and aggravation which could be solved with a single payer system (although some problems will always remain, nothing's perfect), and the peace of mind it would give me to not have to worry about losing my insurance with my job (my family is now being driven financially into the ground by the cost of our healthcare since I became unemployed several months back), it keeps me up at night.

I once heard it said that we do not have a healthcare system in the US, we have a medical system which is set up to move money through the system, not to help people (or words to that effect). The lack of so much preventative care coverage bears witness to this truth. Like I said, it keeps me up at night . . .

posted 07-26- 07:54 AM               

Be happy that so much incentive causes so much effort to discover medicines. (and write cool tunes).

I too would have been dead 100 times over without Ventolin for my Asthma that I picked up near the end of high school. I played full price for it each month, my insurance did not cover prescriptions. Best $80 a month I ever spent. I would be at least $200 a month for medicine that will cure the cancer I may someday get...

Free markets work, and baby sitting society does not. Only the free markets worked SO well that we are cocky and actually think we can "share all the wealth" and still keep up our standard of living. Fact is that as soon as you take competition and free market away, you are on the decline. Oh it does take time for the end to come though...

The truth is that people are children today, there are very few adults... and those adults that do exist get called bad names. It is this childishness that creates state run medical systems because children don't think they should have to pay for stuff that is not "fun." Remember? When did your mother EVER ask you to pay the doctor's bill when you were sick? Never. But you better plan to save your allowance for that new bike.

So we live like children today... not wanting to pay for stuff that we DARE think we have a "right" to. Who has a RIGHT to ANYONE's work? Why should a doctor be treated with less value than an auto mechanic?

The solution is, if society can afford it, to pay its poorer citizens enough money so that they can afford basic care. Never take over the private system, rather give money to the people.

I would be for increasing my taxes for welfare purposes IF the money went only to the people with no strings attached... because I have 2 children now, I don't want millions more. If the people choose to squander the money and then have none for the doctors, such is the life of a free man! As soon as you step in and dictate who gets what how, you take away freedom and dignity... from men to pets. There is dignity for the free, even when, pitiful, the suffer and die. But the captive slave is only found dignified in his natural habitat of ancient society that could not afford the benefits of modern life.

posted 07-26- 09:29 AM               

Just me thoughts from the front-line.

posted 07-26- 09:43 AM               

Personally, I think the the most important factor in the statement "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is "Life". I (and most of the Western world by the way) do consider healthcare a right, and I don't consider that childish. What more basic right could there be? A government's first duty is the health and well being of its citizens. Unrestrained capitalism is little better than slavery. Just look at the end of the 19th century. If the Western states did not adapt like they eventually did in the 20th century, revolutions would have occured in them as well, and just look what that did for Russia.

Many socialized medicine systems do work very well and it is grossly unfair (and childish) to condemn them all because of the failings of some. Nor is the US system all bad. Responsible governments should strive to improve the systems they have without the undue influence of big corporations. Make no mistake, they should have a voice (as noted by others above, their contribution is crucial), but it should be an equal one in the dialog, not an overwhelming one like it is now.

(However, before you have any sympathy for the drug and medical companies, I ask you to look at the top paid CEOs in the US and you'll see the OBSCENE amounts of money they make and how many of them are health care related. They make their money many times over. On the issue of executive pay, I am a completely unashamed Socialist and proud of it, but that's another issue altogether . . .)

By the way, the difference between auto mechanics and doctors is that one takes care of machines, the other takes care of human beings. A greater difference I can not imagine.

If we're going to use anecdotes, then I'll just say that my wife works at a Meals-on-Wheels program and she sees senior citizens every day who literally have to choose between paying for their medication or their food. A disgraceful number of them are veterans (particularly pertinent to this BB). God bless America.

posted 07-26- 10:07 AM               

Be careful of what you ask for... once you don't pay for something, you don't really get it. Americans take for granted the huge level of freedom we have... we don't understand that the freedom to chose X or Y is only available when there is X or Y to choose! Once the free market is taken away, it is the states way, or no way.

Your argument against my "childish" analogy 3dp, could be applied to Ol' Yeller as well. The "adult" knows that you have to shoot Ol' Yeller, but the children can not understand. An adult knows that the best thing to do may have some pain involved. I say that letting Ol' Yeller live is childish and lacking in responsibility. Your counter argument is sort of like this:

"Ol' Yeller has been our pet and trusted guard dog for years. I can't think of anyhting more important than saving Ol' Yeller. You are so calouse with life! How can you look into that dog's eye and shoot him?"

Practicality can be hard, but it does far more better than it does harm. If you treat medical service as free, it will live up to its value and become worthless.

If one had the choice - to either make medicine 10 times better, or ten times cheaper, what would one choose?

I say 10 times better - then the case is AS IF it were 10 times cheaper, because even the cheap care is better.

If you make it 10 times cheaper, then you gain no more, but you skim off the top technology.

If healthcare was only administered by your barber and with leaches, would free healthcare still be such a priority?

One must remember that our medical care today is like trerating with leaches compared to what lies ahead of us... we must do what it takes to move medicine forward, THAT is what is best for all... even though it is hard to see if you stare at the immediate situation.

posted 07-26- 12:24 PM               

I don't think people should go without, I just think they should get money that they can apply to needs - I just don't like to see an institution have the life sucked out of it.

And I do think that more money should buy more healthcare. This way you can use your money for advanced care if you want... or choose to spend it elsewhere. This is not just about rich vs. poor - this is about choices. The idea of "equal" healthcare on exists for those who think healthcare is ONE thing, that it is constant. These people think that all doctors are the same, that medicine is a hard science. Medicine is an art, and the approach is much like any art - the doctor practices art when he heals... it takes human creativity and inventiveness... it can not be found in a book. If we remove the freedom of this art by canning it, we remove the art and spirit of medicine - and we are left with "work" - "jobs" that are priced out and sold off of a menu.

Also I would be VERY happy to see an invention that makes very advanced care almost free - this would solve EVERYTHING! I think it is very worthwhile trying to discover ways of making healthcare equally available to all... no one is motivated to keep healthcare exclusive.

But right now I see the best path to better care for everyone is open market... and large incentive for progress. Midical problems are damn tough - and you really need to start with very little to work with... the goal is so far down the line, if not even achievable! It is hard to spend a dedicated life on a problem that you know might very well never be solved in your life time.

Now many great men love to work - just to be a part of somehting wonderful - but even they need funding to make things happen.

I know many can't get past it - that money IS real, and it is important - it is the most powerful societal tool we have. If you can not get past that money is evil, it will be very hard to get anything you want done... especialy if your plan is to cure cancer.

We need boldness now, not lots of public money into cautious research. Sure, there is a place for that, and it makes sense... but without the bold risk takers innovating - like Tesla did - solving problems at an intuitive level, taking risks on crazy ideas based on gut feelings - that is how you break barriers.

We need energy... and a society of positive thinkers - people who believe that it is OK to send men to the moon even though we have poor and starving in the streets... because decades later that technology will make the world magnitudes better, even for those poor.

Don't ask only who gets healthcare, ask how good the healthcare is. If the crowd decides that "healthcare" consists of band-aids and asprin, then what good is free universal healthcare?

I say let's make healthcare better. Instead of spending so much effort "saving," let's earn! I know that man can earn with much more grace than he can save... man is positive, he works better when he is building - not cleaning up.

posted 07-26- 01:33 PM               

The same can be said for healthcare. The technologically best medical system in the world is not morally worth a damn if everyone does not have equal access to it. Choice is only valuable if everyone has access to the same resources. Surely, as a responsible society, we can find solutions if we don't lock ourselves into any straight jackets. As much as I support a single payer system, I'm willing to try some hybrid reforms, but even these go nowhere under the current US environment.

And yes, in a open and fair dialog, I can see no reason that a goverment, citizen's groups, and the medical establishment can not sit down and determine a reasonable level of healthcare for all (I believe something like this goes on in Germany annually. It has been suggested for adaptation in the US, but as usual, it's been dismissed out of hand).

Anecdotal yes, but here is a simple example of one reason I consider heathcare a right. The costs of the US system are so astronomically high now (Maybe elsewhere, but I can't speak to that) that an average person can work their whole life to about the age of 30, saving every penny beyond what's necessary to feed, cloth, and house their family, and one incident can destroy them completely. Friends of ours, with insurance mind you, are now losing everything, including their house because their daughter became gravely ill. Soon their daughter may die and they will have nothing to boot. That is simply WRONG and MUST be changed. The US system has much going for it, but the idea that it's fine is sadly mistaken. Nothing is perfect and we must strive to make things better for all.

The Ol' Yeller analogy is a matter of perspective. The more I see with my own eyes, read, hear, and research, the more I consider the US system to be Ol' Yeller.

posted 07-26- 02:01 PM            

If our society can afford to give a low-life,
obvious criminal a lawyer we can afford to
give our lower income people a doctor and
the care he is able to prescribe.

All you right wingers claim to be so religeous
maybe you need to re-read the part about
your brother's keeper. There's also something
about a camel and the eye of a needle I think
applies.

posted 07-26- 02:27 PM               

3dp,

But here is my concern with the notion of equal access: new developing technology will - by its nature - be way more expensive. And there may be only 1 or 2 machines in use at the research hospital. If we are to enforce equal for all, then these machines (or drugs, or training) will be off limits to all.

It is just the nature of things... fast cpu chips will cost WAY too much until time passes and they are made cheaper for the masses... you can not escape this. And with healthcare this pattern of innovation is even more pronounced.

Not once have I been against finding a way to get everyone healthcare - rather I maintain that keeping the medical industry itself fully private is imperative for a high quality and quick progressing helth care system.

I hate manditory insurance as much as most of you hate big business - and to me, HMO's are nothing but manditory insurace. Well, they are not manditory yet - and it is my hope to keep it that way.

But I do believe in insurance to be sure... no once would be able to afford stuff like kidney transplant, etc. The insurance system is a must for modern society... I only hopw that the insurance companies stay competetive... they need freedom so that one can be better than another - and so I can choose one that you would never choose.

As soon as insurace becomes manditory (ie, government intervention) then things get very yuky and these people pretty much start telling us what we can have for breakfast on Tuesday mornings. Nobody done gonna take my mornin' 6-pack away form me!

posted 07-26- 02:48 PM               

The more liberal view is that health care is like the road systems... big, expensive, and best run by the government who will distribute it fairly and see it progress so its citezens will be best taken care of.

The more conservative view is that health care is a vital private industry that has achieved, by huge margin, the most successful healthcare available in the world. The fact that not everyone has equal access to the system is a painful side effect of a free market, but over time ALL people will have better health care over all because the healthcare quality and standard of living is so high.

I think it is sad than more conservative minded people think that the liberals just want a more even distribution of wealth... and I think it is sad that the more liberal minded people think that conservatives just want to keep the wealth for the upper class and large business.

The fact is that both sides passionately want better healthcare for all. Different people just have different assumptions base don different experiences in life... and so we see the path to success in different ways. It is mean spirited for either side to hold on to the notion that the other is trying to ruin healthcare for their own gain.

posted 07-26- 03:11 PM               

In addition, food stamps are a supplement. They don't replace the entire food budget. Secondly, once you have used up your food stamps for a week you don't get more. If you blow your stamps on steaks and run out then tough. The same does not apply to health care.

Also, food stamps are administered by local governments where the taxpayer has more control. National Health would be administered out of Washington like Medicare.

posted 07-26- 03:56 PM               

Someone above made a good point about new technologies only being available to the few to begin with. Very true. I accept this. But it is when access to those technologies is determined by wealth, not first come first serve or more pressing need, that the system become morally repugnant. This happens, make no mistake.

I have worked for companies from small (you've never heard of them) to large (Hewlett-Packard), and frankly, I have never been pleased with the quality of the healthcare I've received in our supposedly wonderful system. From poor diagnoses, to terrible bedside manner, to administrative nightmares, it has always sucked. This goes for doctors and insurance companies. I've only stayed with my dentist for any length of time!

Put simply, an industry which is (or should be) about caring for people is by definition different from one which is about fixing cars, managing stocks, etc., etc. It should be treated as such. Perhaps if we had a system (modified or new, I'm open minded) which was more about healing people than making money, hmmmm . . . ?

posted 07-26- 04:27 PM               

Problem is, it takes money to do stuff, period. So if you let people pay, then you get more money to use. Offering things to people based on need (that is hard when you have hundreds of thousands who need, but only one heal-o-matic) is just pretty much offering free services, and that implies that take no value to create.

Also, healing people and cars are the exact same thing at a high level.. sure, you don't need the human touch with a car - but work is work. Replacing a clutch or a kidney - both take skill and just pure simple sweat! And when so very few people are qualified to do a transplant operation - just the math works out so that there are not enough qualified people to go around - this math has NOTHING to do with money!

posted 07-26- 07:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3dp:
There is a famous saying that "None are free while others are oppressed".

And yes, in a open and fair dialog, I can see no reason that a government, citizen's groups, and the medical establishment can not sit down and determine a reasonable level of healthcare for all (I believe something like this goes on in Germany annually. It has been suggested for adaptation in the US, but as usual, it's been dismissed out of hand).

Anecdotal yes, but here is a simple example of one reason I consider healthcare a right. The costs of the US system are so astronomically high now (Maybe elsewhere, but I can't speak to that) that an average person can work their whole life to about the age of 30, saving every penny beyond what's necessary to feed, cloth, and house their family, and one incident can destroy them completely. Friends of ours, with insurance mind you, are now losing everything, including their house because their daughter became gravely ill. Soon their daughter may die and they will have nothing to boot. That is simply WRONG and MUST be changed. The US system has much going for it, but the idea that it's fine is sadly mistaken. Nothing is perfect and we must strive to make things better for all.

---

If I'm paying for others health care, then I'm the oppressed one! Why should I be burdened by other's problems, I have my own (asthma).

On a side note, Single German citizens pay 50% income tax, plus every sale has 15% VAT [sales tax](maybe it went up, there was talk of 18%-20%). The same VAT is applied to auto purchases I believe. Also, Germany is not a cheap place to live on an "average" income.

If I were to in danger of dying today, I'd appreciate community support for my condition, but I would never expect any right to assistance. Death is part of life; I can't understand how someone can not accept this. I guess it is easy for me to believe this as I don't have children.

Health is not a right, or even an expectation. Health is like wealth, some have it and some don't. Those that have gathered more wealth can hope to buy medical treatment. But honestly, you can't buy health.

posted 07-26- 08:55 PM               

Its called civilization. We care for those around us.

posted 07-27- 09:32 PM               

Going back to the child who needs $300,000/yr of medical treatment. How many children in a poor country (in Eastern Europe, Africa, S. America) could have their lives saved by that $300,000? 1000 children?

Save one, or save one thousand. Every year.

Is it a tough choice? I don't think so, we'd apparently rather save the one. Maybe we don't want to save other people's "colored" children as much as we want to save our own.

Next point:

While saving a life is a great goal, a national healthcare system would quickly be ruined by the lack of restraint Americans have when choosing how to allocate these limited resources.

In America, a woman who burns her private parts with a cup of hot McDonnalds coffee gets millions in a court case. How can we support a healthcare system with these kinds of people? They'd drain it in months, or tie it up in court cases. Every denied medication or treatment would become a matter for the courts (complete with a complement of protesters screaming about rights).

My rant's goal is to show who we really are, not to advocate the withdrawal of support from sick people.

Sv put better words to the topic than I have.

I've heard that an auto accident victim in an Arab country isn't treated for the first hour. This is Allah's Time with the victim. If the victim survives Allah's Time (I guess meaning the victim is worthy in Allah's eyes), then treatment may begin. I've heard there is a similar standard in Germany.

True or Falsh?

posted 07-27- 09:45 PM            

Of course this is not the goal of most
republicans. They want to raise the standard
of living for themselves and those of like
minds while lowering the standard for every-
one else.

It is one of the great hyprocracys that Dick
Army, Tom Delay, Trent Lott and crew keep
stalling and denying national health care
while they enjoy health care provided by the
federal government themselves.

posted 07-27- 09:52 PM               

When I had an anaphylactic "episode" in Germany in 1990, my sister, who was with me, took a shine to the Doctor in the Hospital I was taken to.

Anyway, this Doctor had a little conversation with my sister afterward (we'd just flow into Germany that day, my first day overseas). During this conversation the Doctor revealed that he hated practicing medicine in Germany because the pay was so low. He wanted to quit medicine.

I think he said he had some thought of going to the US, where Doctors are paid better.

While I some times make criticism of Germans, this man is the only German person who I've heard complain openly about his income. Maybe he was a fluke.

But, I see this being a problem in the US too. In the future, Doctors (the good and bad) may face such low income levels that very few students will consider medical school. Especially if National Healthcare drives down the cost of treatment.

posted 07-27- 11:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smokey:
If you like the way the Arabs and the Germans....

It is one of the great hyprocracys that Dick
Army, Tom Delay, Trent Lott and crew keep
stalling and denying national health care
while they enjoy health care provided by the
federal government themselves.

[This message has been edited by Smokey (edited 07-27-2001).]

---

NO WAY! I've been to the Middle East, and there is no way in Hell I'd live there. Life there sucks beyond measure.

Germany is an OK place if you are German, genetically. I'm not German, so I do not wish to live there again.

I'd love to live in London, but the poor air quality would kill me in 6 months (asthman again). I'm hoping I have avoided Mad Cow (nvCJD) though, I'll know in 20 years or less.

The point is to make America better, not to make it like some other place. We make it better by creating an atmosphere where anyone has the oppurtunity to improve their situation. Most countries make it very diffcult for someone to improve their economic status (class). America is the only country I've visited that someone can riase from nothing to something in short order (and a lot of luck and hard work). Of course someone can also go from something to nothing here.

However, you're living in a fantacy world if you think that the government can protect you from personal loss. You've got to deal with what you have, and look for ways to improve your situation.

I have a plan for restarting my life should my job disolve tomorrow. This is my security, the idea & possibility that I can do something else.

If I were a sick little child with an untreatable condition, I would want my parents to make my remaining moments of life full of love. I wouldn't want them to prolong my suffering any longer than necessary (as it wouldn't benifit me, and would be selfish of them to keep me around just because they couldn't let me go). I'd hope they'd take the loss, and endevor to appreciate life more as a lesson from the loss. Maybe help some child somewhere else.

PS My girlfriend's father gets an annual $80,000 pension from his Federal Service. Is this privately funded, or at taxpayer's expense?

posted 07-27- 11:31 PM               

People often cite this case as the prime example of a frivolous lawsuit, but the fact of the matter is that the woman in question had a VERY legitimate and reasonable case against McDonalds.

Some facts about the case...

The coffee was extremely hot... somewhere around 190 degrees. That's about 50 to 60 degrees hotter than coffee served at other establishments. At that temperature, liquids can cause 3rd degree burns almost instantaneously... not an exaggeration and please do not try this at home.

The coffee caused 2nd and 3rd degree burns over a large area of the woman's legs. I don't know if you know this, but 3rd degree burns are extremely painful and disfiguring. They can also be life-threatening when infection sets in, as is often the case with 3rd degree burns. They always require surgery and they always heal very slowly.

The woman won this case and was awarded millions... and rightfully so. As a direct result of this case, McDonalds has lowered the temperature of their coffee.

Anyway, I'm not trying to defeat the primary thrust of your post... just trying to say that if you're looking for an example of a frivolous lawsuit, this one is not it. This was a fair case... one where the system actually worked like it should.

posted 07-27- 11:59 PM               

In Europe, it is usually illegal to drive with beverages in hand (or lap). Perhaps we should put together a law that forbids this behavior so no one else gets burned.

Or.

Maybe we could use our brains once and a while and not put hot spillable coffee near our private parts while driving in our cars.

That woman was paid compensation for being stupid. Amazing.

The European (German) mentality is that the individual is responsible for his actions. If the individual suffers loss because the individual didn't follow the "rules", then the individual is not entitled to ANY compensation.

Americans could never put this system in America. America is founded on the idea that we have a right to break the rules occasionally, and that we are entitled to compensation if we suffer loss as a result of rule-breaking. See above coffee example.

posted 07-28- 12:10 AM               

The woman was not driving when she spilled the coffee. She was parked in the lot. But don't take my word for it. Look the case up. There are articles about it all over the net.

Even so, if you're asking me to believe that you've never enjoyed a hot beverage while driving, I'll tell you right now... I don't believe you.

>That woman was paid compensation for being stupid. Amazing.

What did she do that was stupid? Sure, she spilled the coffee and that was her fault, but she had no way of knowing that the coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. The cup may have said "CAUTION: CONTENTS HOT", but is that an adequate enough warning? Is it even reasonable that McDonalds was selling coffee at 190 degrees?

Let me give you an analogy. Let's say you buy some shampoo. On the label, it says that the shampoo could be harmful to the eyes if it comes in contact with the eyes. Now, let's say you use the shampoo and you accidently get some in your eyes. It burns like hell and 5 minutes later, you are totally blind. Were you stupid for letting the shampoo get in your eyes? Is it fair that you are now blind? If you say yes, then you are not being intellectually honest.

The bottom line... regardless of who spilled the coffee, the coffee was too hot and the warning on the cup was inadequate.

Perhaps you think painful and disfiguring 3rd degree burns from a cup of coffee labeled "HOT" is reasonable, but I don't.

posted 07-28- 12:21 AM               

Here is my real-life example. I eat something, 30 minutes later I can't breath and I'm getting closer to death by the minute.

Who's problem is it? Mine or the person who served me the food? This is the anaphylactic "episode" I had in Germany. I think it is my problem, and apparently everyone to was standing around pointing at me thought so also.

Anyway, just don't like it when people think everything they suffer is due to others.