Andy's test refusal may prove a deadly decision

IT's a question that's as old as the hills. Would you really want to know the time and manner of your passing? Would you want a few weeks or months to get your affairs in order, fulfil all those last-minute ambitions, make your peace with the man upstairs and properly say your goodbyes?

Or would you rather death just came quickly, without warning and, crucially, without giving you time to think about it?

For poor Andy Lees from Blackburn in West Lothian, the debate became academic when he collapsed last September and doctors told him he had only weeks to live. At 72, he may have already taken some time to ponder over what he would do with his last days. But when the death sentence is for real, there's little time for thought and some urgency for action.

So, one way and another, between getting his headstone prepared and personally handing out his assets rather than simply leaving bequests in a will, he divested himself of £18,000 in life savings. And why not? You can't take it with you.

Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, Andy wasn't going anywhere . . . at least not yet. And sadly for him he declined to undergo a crucial biopsy test which would have proved one way or another whether doctors at St John's in Livingston had correctly diagnosed his condition. As it turned out, their preliminary diagnosis was wrong. He has a chronic lung condition, but it's not cancer, it's not terminal – but now he's skint.

It's an interesting, if not enviable, situation to be in. Who could possibly hear of his case without asking themselves what they would have done in his shoes? Anyone who says they would simply carry on as normal is fibbing. Perhaps it might be nice to think we could do just that, but, of course, if you believe your demise is imminent, your behaviour will change.

For one thing, who's going to bother searching for a parking space? Leave the car anywhere, let the parking tickets come thick and fast, who cares?

Ditto for council tax and irritating bills. But if that's the plan, take a leaf out of Andy's book – not that this was his intention – and give away your estate first so that there's nothing left in the pot to pay debts. Better still, book a last-minute cruise to blow the lot.

Those struggling to quit fags could throw away their nicotine patches and quit quitting; what would be the point with only weeks to go?

I may be making light of what appeared to be a death sentence, but the point is that under those circumstances anyone would take decisions and behave in a way that they would never have done otherwise. So it's hardly surprising that, despite sincere apologies and a full investigation promised by NHS Lothian, Andy is considering suing the health authority. Today he can't even afford the mobility scooter he needs to get around, having given away every penny he had.

Of course, there will be some people, of a more noble order than I, who will say there's too much medical litigation and Andy should be delighted that doctors made a mistake and that he is not about to shuffle off his mortal coil after all. Certainly, there's an argument that an indeterminate number of years ahead, rather than a few weeks, is worth a helluva lot more than £18,000.

But it wasn't a trade. Andy was due his years and his savings with which to enjoy them.

Tax of the matter

I'm the first to say there is too much litigation against the medical profession. Much of medicine, more than we might care to think, is far from an exact science and comes down to doctors making an educated guess, sometimes following little more than gifted hunches, in order to achieve the best outcome for patients. Andy will not have helped his case by refusing to have that crucial final test. A biopsy would have confirmed cancer and without that scientific evidence, it is questionable whether he should have been told he had cancer and had only weeks to live, giving him all the anguish, fear and sorrow that entails. Someone did blunder but it will be interesting to see how much the legal system holds Andy to blame for the situation he now finds himself in.

A report by the Taxpayers' Alliance in England complains that the English are paying £200 billion so that we, Wales and Northern Ireland can enjoy a whole range of benefits they don't, including university fees, social care for the elderly, free eye tests and soon-to-be-abolished prescription charges.

I'll leave the maths and the debate over the Barnett Formula to the experts, but the benefits are not down to how much money governments have, and rather how they choose to spend it. Surely instead of negatively moaning, the Alliance should be positively campaigning for parity?