Jean, If this is true, I am appalled. Mark, you say: > >Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the practice, but if you HAD to >choose between attending a 25 YO and a >60 YO, other things being equal, >who should get the higher priority? Even so, I find it difficult to >believe that the neurologist can (or is forced to) wash his hands of his >elderly patients so callously. I understand what you are saying Mark, but we should only accept this principle when it is genuinely out of our control - ie, the sinking ship with insufficient lifeboats scenario. The situation described by Jean however, is NOT out of our control. The resources available for state medical care in any country are dependent on two things only: a) The collective wealth of the country. b) The priority, in terms of funding by taxes, that the government gives it. It is therefore the politicians (and to a certain extent the people who elect them) who decide where to draw the line on state health care. The excuse I have heard often in this country is that the Health Service is a bottomless pit into which one throws money. Maybe, but if we have to limit Neurologist consultations by age, ANY AGE, then the line has been drawn far too low in my opinion. By the way, I know it is only a word but, <grinning> I have several 60 year old friends who would hate to be described as elderly. Ernie. Aged 54 (six years to elderly). PD diag 3.4yrs. Ernie Peters <[log in to unmask]>