NationStates

Fartsniffage wrote:
I guess it depends. I have some loose metalwork in my ankle. My surgeons opinion is that he'll pull it whenever I want.

Expanded on the maybe why it's happening. They don't actually know what's really going on. I'm guessing they can actually take a look at scans of your leg and go "Yeah that's doable", with her they can't do that. They'd have to find out on the day if it's okay.

I know this might sound dumb, but that's something that vets do. It's not impossible.

Open up, take a look, yep that's operable, or nope it isn't.

Maybe with people they're just straight up not willing to do that in regards to brain surgery unless you force their hand. They're stuck with a vague notion that surgery is risky and unnecessary and not sure how risky or how unnecessary and so can't process the case and just go into a BSOD.

They know it's not growing because of the blood tests and other shit. But they don't actually know how big it is or what its attached to and so on.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
I guess it depends. I have some loose metalwork in my ankle. My surgeons opinion is that he'll pull it whenever I want.

Expanded on the maybe why it's happening. They don't actually know what's really going on. I'm guessing they can actually take a look at scans of your leg and go "Yeah that's doable", with her they can't do that. They'd have to find out on the day if it's okay.

I know this might sound dumb, but that's something that vets do. It's not impossible.

Open up, take a look, yep that's operable, or nope it isn't.

Maybe with people they're just straight up not willing to do that unless you force their hand.

General anesthetic on its own can kill people. Doctors try to avoid doing that if they can.

And given your edit I can see why they're reluctant. She might sign off on taking the risks but if she dies it's her family that sues.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Expanded on the maybe why it's happening. They don't actually know what's really going on. I'm guessing they can actually take a look at scans of your leg and go "Yeah that's doable", with her they can't do that. They'd have to find out on the day if it's okay.

I know this might sound dumb, but that's something that vets do. It's not impossible.

Open up, take a look, yep that's operable, or nope it isn't.

Maybe with people they're just straight up not willing to do that unless you force their hand.

General anesthetic on its own can kill people. Doctors try to avoid doing that if they can.

And given your edit I can see why they're reluctant. She might sign off on taking the risks but if she dies it's her family that sues.

I agree, but the thing is, I assumed patient agency would eventually trump that and it just sort of didn't.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
General anesthetic on its own can kill people. Doctors try to avoid doing that if they can.

And given your edit I can see why they're reluctant. She might sign off on taking the risks but if she dies it's her family that sues.

I agree, but the thing is, I assumed patient agency would eventually trump that and it just sort of didn't.

Of course it doesn't. You can't force a doctor to do something they think is wrong. It's one of the big advantages our system has over the American system, people are patients and not customers you might lose if you don't do what they want.

Maybe she can find a private doctor to perform a risky procedure but I doubt it. And I really do feel for her given her issues with the proper testing and such but that's life, sometimes it really sucks.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
General anesthetic on its own can kill people. Doctors try to avoid doing that if they can.

And given your edit I can see why they're reluctant. She might sign off on taking the risks but if she dies it's her family that sues.

I agree, but the thing is, I assumed patient agency would eventually trump that and it just sort of didn't.

Wow, that's a case you'd dream up as a cruel ethics/management question for consultant exams/interviews.

There could be various reasons as to why they acted like that. The risks involved in what essentially sounds like exploratory brain surgery (which isn't really a thing to begin with), the surgeons wanting to keep the lists clear for other cases that are more urgent (that sort of complex neurosurgery is going to be a tertiary centre thing at the minimum), and so on. I don't know whether the quality of life was directly related to the tumour itself or to chemotherapy or whatever reason, but that will also factor in.

Eastfield Lodge wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I agree, but the thing is, I assumed patient agency would eventually trump that and it just sort of didn't.

Wow, that's a case you'd dream up as a cruel ethics/management question for consultant exams/interviews.

There could be various reasons as to why they acted like that. The risks involved in what essentially sounds like exploratory brain surgery (which isn't really a thing to begin with), the surgeons wanting to keep the lists clear for other cases that are more urgent (that sort of complex neurosurgery is going to be a tertiary centre thing at the minimum), and so on. I don't know whether the quality of life was directly related to the tumour itself or to chemotherapy or whatever reason, but that will also factor in.

Also, without a clear picture from scans, healthy brain tissue looks very much the same as a tumour. That would make it almost impossible to remove it successfully even if it was operable.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Expanded on the maybe why it's happening. They don't actually know what's really going on. I'm guessing they can actually take a look at scans of your leg and go "Yeah that's doable", with her they can't do that. They'd have to find out on the day if it's okay.

I know this might sound dumb, but that's something that vets do. It's not impossible.

Open up, take a look, yep that's operable, or nope it isn't.

Maybe with people they're just straight up not willing to do that unless you force their hand.

General anesthetic on its own can kill people. Doctors try to avoid doing that if they can.

And given your edit I can see why they're reluctant. She might sign off on taking the risks but if she dies it's her family that sues.

Sues for what, precisely?
If the operation was performed well, and the death was not related to negligence, in an operation which she gave informed consent for in full knowledge of the risks?

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
General anesthetic on its own can kill people. Doctors try to avoid doing that if they can.

And given your edit I can see why they're reluctant. She might sign off on taking the risks but if she dies it's her family that sues.

Sues for what, precisely?
If the operation was performed well, and the death was not related to negligence, in an operation which she gave informed consent for in full knowledge of the risks?

Doesn't matter whether they win. Malpractice insurance goes up since a case had to be defended.

Ostroeuropa wrote:Someone close to me has a tumor and has for a while. They're now stable provided they take the appropriate meds, it's not getting *worse*. The radiotherapy stopped the growth. They have a gene that makes them resistant to chemotherapy.

Yeah it fucking sucks when that turns out to be the case. It's like lightning striking twice in the same place.

Eastfield Lodge wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I agree, but the thing is, I assumed patient agency would eventually trump that and it just sort of didn't.

Wow, that's a case you'd dream up as a cruel ethics/management question for consultant exams/interviews.

There could be various reasons as to why they acted like that. The risks involved in what essentially sounds like exploratory brain surgery (which isn't really a thing to begin with), the surgeons wanting to keep the lists clear for other cases that are more urgent (that sort of complex neurosurgery is going to be a tertiary centre thing at the minimum), and so on. I don't know whether the quality of life was directly related to the tumour itself or to chemotherapy or whatever reason, but that will also factor in.

I know right? It's been surreal as I get to know her and the complexities unfold. You can kind of tell the doctors don't know how to act. Sucks. I didn't think of keeping the lists clear for more urgent stuff.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I agree, but the thing is, I assumed patient agency would eventually trump that and it just sort of didn't.

Of course it doesn't. You can't force a doctor to do something they think is wrong. It's one of the big advantages our system has over the American system, people are patients and not customers you might lose if you don't do what they want.

Maybe she can find a private doctor to perform a risky procedure but I doubt it. And I really do feel for her given her issues with the proper testing and such but that's life, sometimes it really sucks.

I guess. The specialist who deals with like, patient advocacy and so on did basically recommend private as a way to go. Which... on benefit money? That's not really happening. Maybe with some planning and saving. But that strikes me as just plain wrong for a British person to have to go for if they're determined to have a treatment. Idk.

The New California Republic wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:Someone close to me has a tumor and has for a while. They're now stable provided they take the appropriate meds, it's not getting *worse*. The radiotherapy stopped the growth. They have a gene that makes them resistant to chemotherapy.

Yeah it fucking sucks when that turns out to be the case. It's like lightning striking twice in the same place.

I didn't even know it was a thing.

She can't get more radiotherapy despite that having seemed to have worked because she's had her dose and more would be extremely risky and unwise.

Ostroeuropa wrote:I guess. The specialist who deals with like, patient advocacy and so on did basically recommend private as a way to go. Which... on benefit money? That's not really happening. Maybe with some planning and saving. But that strikes me as just plain wrong for a British person to have to go for if they're determined to have a treatment. Idk.

You can't force a doctor to do what they think is wrong. They have to live with themselves too.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:I guess. The specialist who deals with like, patient advocacy and so on did basically recommend private as a way to go. Which... on benefit money? That's not really happening. Maybe with some planning and saving. But that strikes me as just plain wrong for a British person to have to go for if they're determined to have a treatment. Idk.

You can't force a doctor to do what they think is wrong. They have to live with themselves too.

I guess rationally I know this is true. It's just not occurred to me that way and I'm a bit angry that it is true. I've not really considered their point of view in that way and have been seeing them more as a thing to be overcome and their obstinate crap as infuriating or tiresome.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
You can't force a doctor to do what they think is wrong. They have to live with themselves too.

I guess rationally I know this is true. It's just not occurred to me that way and I'm a bit angry that it is true. I've not really considered their point of view in that way and have been seeing them more as a thing to be overcome and their obstinate crap as infuriating or tiresome.

I see things differently because my brother is a doctor.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I guess rationally I know this is true. It's just not occurred to me that way and I'm a bit angry that it is true. I've not really considered their point of view in that way and have been seeing them more as a thing to be overcome and their obstinate crap as infuriating or tiresome.

I see things differently because my brother is a doctor.

So does that make him a drother?

Runners for election of a new Speaker of the House of Commons

Chris Bryant - former minister and shadow Commons leader; Labour MP for Rhondda since 2001
Harriet Harman - former minister and deputy Labour leader; Labour MP since 1982, for Peckham and its successor constituency Camberwell
Meg Hillier - chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee and former minister; Labour MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch since 2005
Sir Lindsay Hoyle - elected Labour MP for Chorley in 1997; elected deputy Speaker in 2010
Dame Eleanor Laing - elected Conservative MP for Epping Forest in 1997; elected deputy Speaker in 2013
Sir Edward Leigh - Conservative MP for Gainsborough since 1983; former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee
Dame Rosie Winterton - elected Labour MP for Doncaster Central in 1997; former Labour chief whip; elected deputy Speaker in 2017


Sir Lindsay Hoyle would be my bet.

The Archregimancy wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Add UKIP and BRX votes to Tory votes. It's been clear for a while it's about 52% of the country.

The last two opinion polls do indeed show that combined total, as described, at 51-52% of the vote.

However, it's untrue that this has 'been clear for a while'.

Between the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election (1 August) and the calling of the election (30 October), the combined Conservative, Brexit, and UKIP share of the opinion polls was usually in the 42-48% range, roughly averaging 45%.

Indeed, since the Brexit Party was registered with the Electoral Commission back in February, I'm hard pressed to find any polls - other than the two most recent ones - where the combined total share of polls was over 50% (though I haven't checked every poll); until this past month, that 42-48% range for the three parties was holding fairly steady.

Furthermore, the very recent rise in the combined share of the polls of those three parties is almost entirely attributable to a rise in the Conservative Party poll rating, and has nothing - or very little - to do with the other two parties.

You can check all of the opinion polls for 2019 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... ction#2019


No doubt there's something interesting to be said about the recent shift in the polls, but otherwise the little rant you've just treated us to about '52%' being 'clear for a while' seems to based on what you bellyfeel the polling data should have said rather than what it actually says.

Yougov was actually quite interesting in one of their latest polls. They managed to show how 2017 voters were intending to vote in 2019.



Tories have done a much better job than Labour of holding onto their voters, but still lost a decent wedge to BXP and LD.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:Runners for election of a new Speaker of the House of Commons

Chris Bryant - former minister and shadow Commons leader; Labour MP for Rhondda since 2001
Harriet Harman - former minister and deputy Labour leader; Labour MP since 1982, for Peckham and its successor constituency Camberwell
Meg Hillier - chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee and former minister; Labour MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch since 2005
Sir Lindsay Hoyle - elected Labour MP for Chorley in 1997; elected deputy Speaker in 2010
Dame Eleanor Laing - elected Conservative MP for Epping Forest in 1997; elected deputy Speaker in 2013
Sir Edward Leigh - Conservative MP for Gainsborough since 1983; former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee
Dame Rosie Winterton - elected Labour MP for Doncaster Central in 1997; former Labour chief whip; elected deputy Speaker in 2017


Sir Lindsay Hoyle would be my bet.

Barring anything happening, Hoyle is going to win it.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:Runners for election of a new Speaker of the House of Commons

Chris Bryant - former minister and shadow Commons leader; Labour MP for Rhondda since 2001
Harriet Harman - former minister and deputy Labour leader; Labour MP since 1982, for Peckham and its successor constituency Camberwell
Meg Hillier - chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee and former minister; Labour MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch since 2005
Sir Lindsay Hoyle - elected Labour MP for Chorley in 1997; elected deputy Speaker in 2010
Dame Eleanor Laing - elected Conservative MP for Epping Forest in 1997; elected deputy Speaker in 2013
Sir Edward Leigh - Conservative MP for Gainsborough since 1983; former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee
Dame Rosie Winterton - elected Labour MP for Doncaster Central in 1997; former Labour chief whip; elected deputy Speaker in 2017


Sir Lindsay Hoyle would be my bet.

As long as it isn't Harriet Harman.

And we should bring back Betty Boothroyd. She's not dead yet is she?

Now the SDLP has withdrawn from North Belfast as well as East Belfast and North Down

The SDLP, particularly their leader Eastwood, made a big talking point about there not being a nationalist/remain voice for the people of NI because of SF's abstention policies. So they step down to allow a possible abstentionist mp win. Not saying the SDLP stood a chance of taking North Belfast but still, moderates fucking themselves over by going against what they said is just so fucking typical of NI politics, its honestly getting too tiring to deal with.

Hey at least it was not over paramilitary threats... thats.. something i guess. SDLP and the UUP just continue to fuck themselves over.

You know, this thread would be pretty boring without all those wacky Northern Irish parties.

Well, that's not true, but it wouldn't be quite as bonkers.

Hirota wrote:You know, this thread would be pretty boring without all those wacky Northern Irish parties.

Well, that's not true, but it wouldn't be quite as bonkers.

Its like, i understand why they are making these pacts and not running in certain areas. But as someone who wants moderates to make even more strides at chipping away at SF and the DUP's hold on Northern Ireland it is soo disheartening.

UUP's new leader makes a big show about their being no pacts with the DUP, then mumbles about whether or not the UUP will run in every constituency, then backs down in North Belfast over UDA threats and because "Themmuns are worse" showing that they are a fucking facade of a Moderate Unionist party. If you are a moderate unionist, back an independent or the Alliance party because the UUP have nothing to offer you and are fucking themselves. Now they might stand to take Fermanagh back from SF but thats not set in stone.

The SDLP go on about how there is no remain representation in westminster bar Hermon because of Sinn Fein's abstentionist policy and thus refusing to take their seats, and how this should change. So they then agree to step down in North Belfast to potentially allow SF to win over the DUP, giving another abstentionist seat in Westminster, and though it reduces the DUP's position, it doesnt increase the remain voice for NI, it just leaves another empty voice. Like stepping down in North Down makes sense if Hermon will run again, as some SDLP voters might swing her way, but that isnt even set in stone, what if she doesnt run?

These pacts are often at times, sectarian headcounts and amount to fuck all more than that.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Now the SDLP has withdrawn from North Belfast as well as East Belfast and North Down


The SDLP, particularly their leader Eastwood, made a big talking point about there not being a nationalist/remain voice for the people of NI because of SF's abstention policies. So they step down to allow a possible abstentionist mp win.


Hey at least it was not over paramilitary threats... thats.. something i guess. SDLP and the UUP just continue to fuck themselves over.

Not saying the SDLP stood a chance of taking North Belfast but still, moderates fucking themselves over by going against what they said is just so fucking typical of NI politics, its honestly getting too tiring to deal with.

UUP and SDLP: Complain that the DUP and Sinn Fein are fucking over Northern Ireland
Also the UUP and SDLP: Actively facilitate the DUP and Sinn Fein fucking over Northern Ireland

Philjia wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Now the SDLP has withdrawn from North Belfast as well as East Belfast and North Down


The SDLP, particularly their leader Eastwood, made a big talking point about there not being a nationalist/remain voice for the people of NI because of SF's abstention policies. So they step down to allow a possible abstentionist mp win.


Hey at least it was not over paramilitary threats... thats.. something i guess. SDLP and the UUP just continue to fuck themselves over.

Not saying the SDLP stood a chance of taking North Belfast but still, moderates fucking themselves over by going against what they said is just so fucking typical of NI politics, its honestly getting too tiring to deal with.

UUP and SDLP: Complain that the DUP and Sinn Fein are fucking over Northern Ireland
Also the UUP and SDLP: Actively facilitate the DUP and Sinn Fein fucking over Northern Ireland

Exactly! Right on the fucking money! They constantly fuck themselves giving SF and the DUP more ground to stand upon.

It doesnt matter if you are gona fucking lose in a place, stand your ground and show you wont fucking back down. Try and actually show you can offer something different, SF and the DUP arnt gona go away any time soon unless the moderates actually pull themselves together and try and take them on.

Its why im happy the alliance party is running in all 18 constituencies (well so far anyway) they know they wont fucking come close to winning in most of them but they still do it, they still try.

FPTP is fucking garbage, dont @ me


So are NI electoral pacts, dont @ me Michelle O'neill you.... fucking... radical agenda woman you