Re: OT: More on nuclear accidents..

In message , Tim Streater writes

> >> >> > Only if he was actually killed by a cancer and not one of his other >> > conditions. >> I think that you are making a point something like "It's okay for >>the government to try to distort statistics and/or wriggle out of >>liability and negligence claims if for instance the 'cause of death' >>box was going to be filled in incorrectly as a result of an innocent >>mistake and quite by chance the true and correct entry is the one >>which the MOD wanted to have on the record. Extraordinary. There is >>no sensible answer to that. > >How do you get that out of the above? If he died from cancer, and that >was not put in as cause of death, that's skewing the stats slightly. If >he died from general organ failure caused by drinking a bottle of vodka >a day for the last 40 years, then it isn't.

Surely most *high pain* diseases will end with the sufferer dying from prescribed pain relief?

>
Reply to
Tim Lamb
Loading thread data ...

I don't really see that being put down as the cause of death; it could lead to an accusation of euthanasia. In the case described, I would expect something more on the lines of heart failure due to .

Reply to
Nightjar

Xmas Island?

Reply to
bert

In message , "Nightjar "@?.?.invalid> writes

Who finds them these days?

Reply to
bert

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.