5 yo boy - inspired Hamilton - dies

slowbike

Harry Shaw: Five-year-old who inspired Lewis Hamilton to F1 win dies after cancer battle.

It's on the sky news site if you want to find it.

I find it desperately sad that a life is taken so early. 10 months from diagnosis to death is just terrible - such a short time to have - yet a relief that his pain and suffering isn't drawn out.

What makes me angry is that we, as a country, piss money in the wind on seemingly stupid and trivial things - could we not put more time & resource into discovering what causes and how to treat cancer. Also - in the news is a Childrens hospice in Birmingham (https://www.acorns.org.uk/) set to close - all for the sake of a few million - snack money to many government departments.

To use a famous Simpson quote

helen lovejoy wrote:

Won't someone please think of the children?

meursault

Very sad.

How do you think we could channel money into more worthwhile things?

slowbike

meursault wrote:

Very sad.

How do you think we could channel money into more worthwhile things?

To start with - decide what is "worthwhile"

Is providing respite care, support and fun & laughter for life limited children and their families worthwhile?
Can we justify vanity projects in preference to providing these services?
Where do we draw the line on these services? Should they be providing lifetime memories of holidays - abroad and at home? Or should that be decided at an individual level?

Then - what about funding to find the cause and cure? Cancer - it kills old and young - it's a worldwide problem - can the governments do any more to resolve it?

drlodge

I always thought that cancer was the #2 cause of death, #1 being heart disease, so should we not plough more money into the latter?

slowbike

drlodge wrote:

I always thought that cancer was the #2 cause of death, #1 being heart disease, so should we not plough more money into the latter?

yes - but how many youngsters get Heart Disease?

You and I are "of a certain age" - where, if we went, it would be a significant loss - but we've lived reasonably fulfilling lives (mine more than yours obviously )

Children have yet to live ...

Eitherway - should we prioritise finding causes & cures - and care - over vanity projects? Or should they continue to rely on voluntary donations ...

rjsterry

Slowbike wrote:

drlodge wrote:

I always thought that cancer was the #2 cause of death, #1 being heart disease, so should we not plough more money into the latter?

yes - but how many youngsters get Heart Disease?

You and I are "of a certain age" - where, if we went, it would be a significant loss - but we've lived reasonably fulfilling lives (mine more than yours obviously )

Children have yet to live ...

Eitherway - should we prioritise finding causes & cures - and care - over vanity projects? Or should they continue to rely on voluntary donations ...

Have a look at how much is spent globally on cancer research. It is measured in billions.

slowbike

rjsterry wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

drlodge wrote:

I always thought that cancer was the #2 cause of death, #1 being heart disease, so should we not plough more money into the latter?

yes - but how many youngsters get Heart Disease?

You and I are "of a certain age" - where, if we went, it would be a significant loss - but we've lived reasonably fulfilling lives (mine more than yours obviously )

Children have yet to live ...

Eitherway - should we prioritise finding causes & cures - and care - over vanity projects? Or should they continue to rely on voluntary donations ...

Have a look at how much is spent globally on cancer research. It is measured in billions.

Then perhaps, if the answer is that additional government funding won't make any significant difference to the research - perhaps the hospices should receive (more?) public funds?

meursault

Slowbike wrote:

meursault wrote:

Very sad.

How do you think we could channel money into more worthwhile things?

To start with - decide what is "worthwhile"

But how to decide what is worthwhile. What would the process involve?

Slowbike wrote:

Is providing respite care, support and fun & laughter for life limited children and their families worthwhile?

yes, very much so.

Slowbike wrote:

Can we justify vanity projects in preference to providing these services?



Where do we draw the line on these services? Should they be providing lifetime memories of holidays - abroad and at home? Or should that be decided at an individual level?

Then - what about funding to find the cause and cure? Cancer - it kills old and young - it's a worldwide problem - can the governments do any more to resolve it?

It depends how we answer how to decide what is worthwhile.

meursault

rjsterry wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

drlodge wrote:

I always thought that cancer was the #2 cause of death, #1 being heart disease, so should we not plough more money into the latter?

yes - but how many youngsters get Heart Disease?

You and I are "of a certain age" - where, if we went, it would be a significant loss - but we've lived reasonably fulfilling lives (mine more than yours obviously )

Children have yet to live ...

Eitherway - should we prioritise finding causes & cures - and care - over vanity projects? Or should they continue to rely on voluntary donations ...

Have a look at how much is spent globally on cancer research. It is measured in billions.

Is it well spent?

Is it spent with any accountability or enough efficiency? Is there a target deadline, to get it done?

Will profits be affected? If so, could they justify constant research and no cure?

bonzo_banana

Government is running a huge public sector funding deficit so is constantly borrowing and has been for many years and we have a large trade deficit which again is funded through borrowing and selling off of assets, financially this country is in a very poor position. Much of a our industry is now foreign owned so profits are exported.

As a country we are getting a lot poorer whether we are in or out of Europe at least for the short term. Just the interest payments alone are something like 60 billion a year, that is £1000 per head of dead money just paying the interest or perhaps £2,000 per tax payers head per year of dead, wasted money roughly.

I don't think people realise the damage both Conservatives and Labour have done to this country financially through constant borrowing and lack of a proper industrial policy.

People are happy to export most of their money on foreign goods doing huge damage to the country and then complain when the police are cut back or the NHS is failing and they can't get the treatment they want. Just the way it is.

So many people are happy to suggest ways the government can borrow even more money and saddle future generations with huge debts which means they may not even have access to a NHS or some of the services we enjoy today.

Personally I can't imagine anything more important than free at the point of delivery health care for everyone that would always be my personal priority along with a decent police service and justice for all and being able to afford new cars, AV equipment and many luxury goods are a low priority.

I think these moral issues of funding are going to get a lot worse in the future unfortunately with expensive treatments for the elderly probably getting the lowest priority and those with incurable illnesses probably going down the pecking order too. I think in many countries with more basic health services many more advanced treatments simply aren't available at all except privately.

Whatever your moral, political or idealistic opinion is the truth is in the financial data that so many ignore.

meursault

Bonzo Banana wrote:

Government is running a huge public sector funding deficit so is constantly borrowing and has been for many years and we have a large trade deficit which again is funded through borrowing and selling off of assets, financially this country is in a very poor position. Much of a our industry is now foreign owned so profits are exported.

As a country we are getting a lot poorer whether we are in or out of Europe at least for the short term. Just the interest payments alone are something like 60 billion a year, that is £1000 per head of dead money just paying the interest or perhaps £2,000 per tax payers head per year of dead, wasted money roughly.

I don't think people realise the damage both Conservatives and Labour have done to this country financially through constant borrowing and lack of a proper industrial policy.

People are happy to export most of their money on foreign goods doing huge damage to the country and then complain when the police are cut back or the NHS is failing and they can't get the treatment they want. Just the way it is.

So many people are happy to suggest ways the government can borrow even more money and saddle future generations with huge debts which means they may not even have access to a NHS or some of the services we enjoy today.

Personally I can't imagine anything more important than free at the point of delivery health care for everyone that would always be my personal priority along with a decent police service and justice for all and being able to afford new cars, AV equipment and many luxury goods are a low priority.

I think these moral issues of funding are going to get a lot worse in the future unfortunately with expensive treatments for the elderly probably getting the lowest priority and those with incurable illnesses probably going down the pecking order too. I think in many countries with more basic health services many more advanced treatments simply aren't available at all except privately.

Whatever your moral, political or idealistic opinion is the truth is in the financial data that so many ignore.

So governments and the economic system are failing us. How could this be resolved?

rjsterry

Slowbike wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

drlodge wrote:

I always thought that cancer was the #2 cause of death, #1 being heart disease, so should we not plough more money into the latter?

yes - but how many youngsters get Heart Disease?

You and I are "of a certain age" - where, if we went, it would be a significant loss - but we've lived reasonably fulfilling lives (mine more than yours obviously )

Children have yet to live ...

Eitherway - should we prioritise finding causes & cures - and care - over vanity projects? Or should they continue to rely on voluntary donations ...

Have a look at how much is spent globally on cancer research. It is measured in billions.

Then perhaps, if the answer is that additional government funding won't make any significant difference to the research - perhaps the hospices should receive (more?) public funds?

The story is desperately sad and hospices deserve all the support they can get, but I don't know if it being Ewing's sarcoma rather than typhoid makes it more sad. And typhoid is much more common and much easier to treat.

slowbike

rjsterry wrote:

The story is desperately sad and hospices deserve all the support they can get, but I don't know if it being Ewing's sarcoma rather than typhoid makes it more sad. And typhoid is much more common and much easier to treat.

yes - both stories are desperately sad - the news about Harry probably hit me more because Little SB is only a little younger. The news about the hospice mad me angry as it's (apparently) going to cost 10's of millions to host Trumps little visit - and you then think of how many children & their families that could be supported at one of the worst moments of their lives ...

Pross

Slowbike wrote:

What makes me angry is that we, as a country, wee-wee money in the wind on seemingly stupid and trivial things - could we not put more time & resource into discovering what causes and how to treat cancer. Also - in the news is a Childrens hospice in Birmingham (https://www.acorns.org.uk/) set to close - all for the sake of a few million - snack money to many government departments.

And possibly less than the amount of UK tax Hamilton manages to legally avoid paying

Having had a child with cancer I would say there's actually a lot of charity money being invested in research, almost certainly more than into pretty much any other health issue.

rolf_f

Well, with Brexit we are sticking two fingers up at research investment so from a UK perspective expect to see things get a lot worse before they get better. No point chucking money at research as a short term, knee jerk reaction. You need to invest in the Universities and long term planning to attract people into research. We aren't doing that and we won't be for the next decade or two. People want quick answers and they won't invest in something that won't give them that. And cancer research won't give them that. Truth is, people don't actually care. A bit like the climate (which is 100 times more important than cancer research tbh).

tangled_metal

I once read that the glamour conditions get disproportionately high charity donations and research funding compared to less glamorous or celebrity supported conditions.

Take AIDS/HIV funding. Great strides taken but there was research that said if medical research funding distribution was made based on those affected HIV research and other well supported conditions would end up with a lot less but MND would be cured or a management of the condition would be 5 to 10 years away. That was 15 to 20 years ago!

My point being is that you read about heart breakingly sad stories and want to help. That's understandable but it's just a drop in the ocean. There's so much that could be done that's more effective on its use of available resources but it's often a beauty pageant as to what does get funded. And after every new government gets in priorities change too.

BTW stop the production of arms globally or develop the world to eradicate poverty you'd probably prolong life by a lot more than eliminating cancer. If we weren't so selfish as a species then things would be better. BTW treating cancer is a form of selfishness. A lot of parts of the world people don't live long enough to get cancer (with cancer being significantly an age related condition - according to a medical person in that field I had cause to be referred to).

slowbike

Pross wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

snack money to many government departments.

And possibly less than the amount of UK tax Hamilton manages to legally avoid paying

Probably - but that does mean he can pass a lot on directly to causes that he values ....

Pross wrote:

Having had a child with cancer I would say there's actually a lot of charity money being invested in research, almost certainly more than into pretty much any other health issue.

yup - you're probably right - it is a massive charity drive - it's just the combination of the two stories along with a (to some minds questionable) state visit made me question government spending priorities ...

Add in that a boy (11) got killed yesterday - crossing a road ... (no idea on fault - so not blaming anyone)

I know - these things happen ... but it's just the youth angle that gets to me.

slowbike

Tangled Metal wrote:

IA lot of parts of the world people don't live long enough to get cancer (with cancer being significantly an age related condition - according to a medical person in that field I had cause to be referred to).

I almost don't care about the old age illness - I don't want to get to the point of being reliant on carers - however, old age illnesses often affect the younger generation too ..

bonzo_banana

meursault wrote:

Bonzo Banana wrote:

Government is running a huge public sector funding deficit so is constantly borrowing and has been for many years and we have a large trade deficit which again is funded through borrowing and selling off of assets, financially this country is in a very poor position. Much of a our industry is now foreign owned so profits are exported.

As a country we are getting a lot poorer whether we are in or out of Europe at least for the short term. Just the interest payments alone are something like 60 billion a year, that is £1000 per head of dead money just paying the interest or perhaps £2,000 per tax payers head per year of dead, wasted money roughly.

I don't think people realise the damage both Conservatives and Labour have done to this country financially through constant borrowing and lack of a proper industrial policy.

People are happy to export most of their money on foreign goods doing huge damage to the country and then complain when the police are cut back or the NHS is failing and they can't get the treatment they want. Just the way it is.

So many people are happy to suggest ways the government can borrow even more money and saddle future generations with huge debts which means they may not even have access to a NHS or some of the services we enjoy today.

Personally I can't imagine anything more important than free at the point of delivery health care for everyone that would always be my personal priority along with a decent police service and justice for all and being able to afford new cars, AV equipment and many luxury goods are a low priority.

I think these moral issues of funding are going to get a lot worse in the future unfortunately with expensive treatments for the elderly probably getting the lowest priority and those with incurable illnesses probably going down the pecking order too. I think in many countries with more basic health services many more advanced treatments simply aren't available at all except privately.

Whatever your moral, political or idealistic opinion is the truth is in the financial data that so many ignore.

So governments and the economic system are failing us. How could this be resolved?

Not sure what you mean by governments, I'm just referring to the UK although much of the criticism could be labelled at the USA, not the NHS bit obviously. Many countries do have a proper industrial policy and manage their economy to protect assets, prevent a trade inbalance and minimise borrowing. The public sector debt criticism is something that could be thrown at many European countries but the large trade deficit and asset stripping is more a UK issue. It's not an issue I know much about but I've read much of the research done at UK universities etc hasn't been properly commercialized and protected by patents etc so again much tax payers money has gone in with little chance of a return on that work, from what I've read many such projects don't even start with a commercial goal at all. In fact many commercial products developed elsewhere in the world made use of research done in the UK whose results were open to all.

rjsterry

Slowbike wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

IA lot of parts of the world people don't live long enough to get cancer (with cancer being significantly an age related condition - according to a medical person in that field I had cause to be referred to).

I almost don't care about the old age illness - I don't want to get to the point of being reliant on carers - however, old age illnesses often affect the younger generation too ..

Come back in however many years time and let us know how that goes. Either you go before your time or you end up needing care of some sort. And you don't get to choose which unless you fancy a trip to Switzerland.

slowbike

rjsterry wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

IA lot of parts of the world people don't live long enough to get cancer (with cancer being significantly an age related condition - according to a medical person in that field I had cause to be referred to).

I almost don't care about the old age illness - I don't want to get to the point of being reliant on carers - however, old age illnesses often affect the younger generation too ..

Come back in however many years time and let us know how that goes. Either you go before your time or you end up needing care of some sort. And you don't get to choose which unless you fancy a trip to Switzerland.

yer- I know - I quite fancy the equivalent of a trip to Switzerland ...

There was a(nother) sad piece about a dutch girl who has legally ended her life in the news yesterday - no life limiting illness - mental issues she couldn't resolve.

rjsterry

Slowbike wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

IA lot of parts of the world people don't live long enough to get cancer (with cancer being significantly an age related condition - according to a medical person in that field I had cause to be referred to).

I almost don't care about the old age illness - I don't want to get to the point of being reliant on carers - however, old age illnesses often affect the younger generation too ..

Come back in however many years time and let us know how that goes. Either you go before your time or you end up needing care of some sort. And you don't get to choose which unless you fancy a trip to Switzerland.

yer- I know - I quite fancy the equivalent of a trip to Switzerland ...

There was a(nother) sad piece about a dutch girl who has legally ended her life in the news yesterday - no life limiting illness - mental issues she couldn't resolve.

Yes, saw that story a while back. No physical illness, maybe, but her mental illness was clearly intolerable.

rick_chasey

Slowbike wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

IA lot of parts of the world people don't live long enough to get cancer (with cancer being significantly an age related condition - according to a medical person in that field I had cause to be referred to).

I almost don't care about the old age illness - I don't want to get to the point of being reliant on carers - however, old age illnesses often affect the younger generation too ..

Come back in however many years time and let us know how that goes. Either you go before your time or you end up needing care of some sort. And you don't get to choose which unless you fancy a trip to Switzerland.

yer- I know - I quite fancy the equivalent of a trip to Switzerland ...

There was a(nother) sad piece about a dutch girl who has legally ended her life in the news yesterday - no life limiting illness - mental issues she couldn't resolve.

Eerr that was bad reporting. That didn't happen in that way.

https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/statu ... 9672084480

slowbike

Rick Chasey wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

IA lot of parts of the world people don't live long enough to get cancer (with cancer being significantly an age related condition - according to a medical person in that field I had cause to be referred to).

I almost don't care about the old age illness - I don't want to get to the point of being reliant on carers - however, old age illnesses often affect the younger generation too ..

Come back in however many years time and let us know how that goes. Either you go before your time or you end up needing care of some sort. And you don't get to choose which unless you fancy a trip to Switzerland.

yer- I know - I quite fancy the equivalent of a trip to Switzerland ...

There was a(nother) sad piece about a dutch girl who has legally ended her life in the news yesterday - no life limiting illness - mental issues she couldn't resolve.

Eerr that was bad reporting. That didn't happen in that way.

https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/statu ... 9672084480

thanks - didn't realise that - so, reading that twitter feed - she took her own life by refusing food/drink - after a prolonged period of self harm and forced treatment - sounds like it was all brought on by a rape in her early years ...

Poor girl, poor family.