The direct approach is always best. For example, Good grief, man, were you eating rugby players’ socks this morning? That way, any hint of snideyness is removed and everyone knows where they stand. :D [/i]
What turns you on creatively, spiritually or emotionally? New ideas, place, family and football
What turns you off? Ugly, dull and stupid people
What is your favorite curse word? Bugger
What sound or noise do you love? Laughter
What sound or noise do you hate? Whining
What profession other than your own would you like to attempt? Fighter pilot
What profession would you not like to do? Yawny yawny IT
If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates? What a player! Skin up and tell me all about it. Use my stash.
I didn’t say it was unfair, Slayer, I said it was obviously part of the triage system. Available resources, including but not exclusively pure cost itself, must inform the process.
Maybe, Pikey there is some fact in recognising that there can never and will never be enough money in the pot to fund every treatment for every illness.
BUT, as someone who works in the health service, dont kid yourself that any decisions made upon who receives what is based on anything other than financial rationale. Patient outcome and patient benefit are not a consideration.
Agreed, Slayer, but availability of resources are obviously part of the triage system in every situation – micro or macro. If by spending a million pounds on one patient you don’t have enough money to treat one hundred others then the decision makes itself.
No system, no matter how well funded, can apply unlimited resources to unlimited patients. At some point the system is going to have to apply the practices of triage, even if the nation/local council/insurance company/whatever uses one hundred per cent of its budget to fund its health departments. Some awful, heart-breaking cases are always going to end up on the wrong side of this immutable law.