Yes. I have also worked as a welfare advisor, with direct involvement in cases involving issues of mental capacity, legal guardianship and residential care.
>It's not any different.
Clearly it is very different. There's no financial incentive here for over-treating elderly patients - NHS trusts are not paid per treatment. If a doctor or hospital chooses to administer unnecessary treatment, they have less money in their budget and their performance targets are negatively impacted. A service provider cannot arbitrarily rack up fees, because that's not how we fund health or social care.
In many states in the US, a completely unvetted person can apply for guardianship of someone they have never met. In many states, there is effectively no oversight of legal guardianship due to a lack of funding. In many states, guardianship is administered by local courts with no specific expertise.
I did. On the first page of results I found some tabloid news articles, a Scientology front group and an NHS summary of the research paper they were all citing. The paper concluded that, while neuroleptic drugs are prescribed more frequently in care homes than in community prescribing, it is not clear whether that is due to inappropriate prescribing or selection bias.
I am not arguing that the UK is a utopia, but I cannot reconcile "Elderly without children to check in on them are seen as ATM's" and "Extract as much money as possible and don't care about the person" with my knowledge and experience of elderly care in the UK. Parts of our system are chronically under-funded, we have unreasonably long waiting times for many services, there's a shortage of care workers, but I've seen nothing to suggest that elderly people are being used as cash cows.
Yes. I have also worked as a welfare advisor, with direct involvement in cases involving issues of mental capacity, legal guardianship and residential care.
>It's not any different.
Clearly it is very different. There's no financial incentive here for over-treating elderly patients - NHS trusts are not paid per treatment. If a doctor or hospital chooses to administer unnecessary treatment, they have less money in their budget and their performance targets are negatively impacted. A service provider cannot arbitrarily rack up fees, because that's not how we fund health or social care.
In many states in the US, a completely unvetted person can apply for guardianship of someone they have never met. In many states, there is effectively no oversight of legal guardianship due to a lack of funding. In many states, guardianship is administered by local courts with no specific expertise.
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-1046
>Please google: "over drugging elderly UK"
I did. On the first page of results I found some tabloid news articles, a Scientology front group and an NHS summary of the research paper they were all citing. The paper concluded that, while neuroleptic drugs are prescribed more frequently in care homes than in community prescribing, it is not clear whether that is due to inappropriate prescribing or selection bias.
I am not arguing that the UK is a utopia, but I cannot reconcile "Elderly without children to check in on them are seen as ATM's" and "Extract as much money as possible and don't care about the person" with my knowledge and experience of elderly care in the UK. Parts of our system are chronically under-funded, we have unreasonably long waiting times for many services, there's a shortage of care workers, but I've seen nothing to suggest that elderly people are being used as cash cows.