Getty
Show Hide image

How a sore throat became a life-or-death situation

Through the clear plastic of his carrier bag, I spotted the bright orange boxes of four EpiPens: syringes pre-filled with a dose of adrenalin.

The out-of-hours receptionist, Gaby, came to find me while I was still setting up for the evening shift. A patient had arrived unexpectedly early for his appointment, she told me, but rather than let him wait to be seen, Gaby thought she ought to let me know he was “swelling up, and finding it hard to breathe”.

I glanced at the summary from the 111 call handler: the problem was supposed to have been a sore throat. Nothing about swelling or breathlessness at all. I hurried along to the waiting room.

Jay turned out to be in his early twenties. He was accompanied by a concerned neighbour and a huge bag, full of medication. He wasn’t able to explain much about what was happening, as he was preoccupied with taking each laboured breath. His lips were huge and rubbery. He indicated a MedicAlert bracelet round his wrist. “Chronic angioedema”, it read, along with a list of half a dozen medications that mustn’t be administered.

In the few moments it took me to gather these first impressions, Jay’s inspirations developed a disconcerting “whoop” and his breathing rate plummeted. He sagged sideways in his chair. It never fails to feel slightly surreal when you suddenly realise you’re in a life-and-death situation – and Jay was steaming full-speed towards a respiratory arrest.

Through the clear plastic of his carrier bag, I spotted the bright orange boxes of four EpiPens: syringes pre-filled with a dose of adrenalin.

“Has he had any?” I asked the neighbour, who looked as alarmed as I felt. “No,” he said.

I shelled one of the EpiPens out. They’re brilliant bits of kit: you flip a protective cover off the top, press with your thumb, then stab the other end hard against the patient’s thigh. That fires a needle through clothing and skin and into muscle, injecting a life-saving hormone. It functioned like a dream. I then got Jay horizontal and shoved his legs in the air to boost the blood pressure that – had I had the time to measure it – we’d have found somewhere in the region of his boots.

Gaby phoned 999 for an ambulance and I stayed monitoring while the adrenalin did its miraculous work. Within a couple of minutes, Jay’s breathing had eased, his lip swelling began to subside, and he was able to speak to assure me that he was much improved. I filled in some of the story.

This was the umpteenth time he’d developed anaphylaxis – an acute-onset, rapidly fatal, whole-body allergic reaction. Most often it’s caused by insect stings or food allergies, but Jay has an extremely rare variant whereby common infections trigger the same calamitous response. His drug bag contained all manner of steroids, antihistamines and other allergy-suppressant tablets, which he took every day to try to prevent it happening. They didn’t seem to be doing a very good job.

The thing that mystified me was why he hadn’t self-administered an EpiPen and called 999 when he’d realised what was happening. It seemed a great example of cognitive dissonance. At one level, Jay knew he should have done, but he so hated having to be admitted repeatedly to hospital that he had convinced himself that he would be able to fend off the impending crisis with an increased dose of steroids.

The only place for someone with anaphylaxis is hospital: though adrenalin is life-saving, it can wear off quite quickly. Anyone who doubts that the NHS is overstretched should try phoning for an ambulance round here. Twenty-five minutes elapsed with no sign of flashing blue lights. Jay’s lips started ballooning again and his breathing began to deteriorate. Another EpiPen. Another call to ambulance control. Another 25 minutes before a crew – who’d had to come from about 50 miles away – arrived.

With Jay safely despatched to hospital, I congratulated Gaby on her quick thinking. I, for my part, was more than a little adrenalin-pumped, something Gaby kindly treated with a large infusion of tea.

Phil Whitaker’s latest novel, “Sister Sebastian’s Library”, is published by Salt

This article first appeared in the 17 November 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Trump world

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, John McDonnell, people earning over £42,000 have not been "hit hard" by the Conservatives

The shadow chancellor's decision to support this tax cut is as disappointing as it is innumerate. 

John McDonnell has backed Conservative plans to raise the point at which you start paying the 40p rate (that’s 40p of every pound earned after you hit the threshold) to above £45,000 by April 2017 (part of the Conservative manifesto pledge to raise the 40p rate so that it only covers people earning above £50,000 by 2020).

Speaking to the BBC, the shadow chancellor said that those affected “need a tax giveaway at the moment because the mismanagement of the economy by the Conservatives is hitting them hard”.

Is he right? Well, let’s crunch some numbers. Let’s say I earn £42,000, my partner doesn’t work and we have two children. That puts our household in the upper 30 per cent of all British earners, and, thanks to changes to tax and benefits, we are 1.6 per cent worse off than an equivalent household in 2010. Have we been “hit hard”? Well, no, actually, in point of fact, we have been the least affected of any household with children of the coalition.

The pattern holds for every type of household that will feel the benefit of the 40p rate hike. Those with children have seen smaller decreases (1.0-2.3 per cent) in their living standards that those in the bottom three-quarters of the income distribution. The beneficiaries of this change without children, excluding pensioners, who have done well out of Conservative-led governments but are unaffected by this change, have actually seen increases in their tax-home incomes already under David Cameron. There is no case that they need a bigger one under Theresa May.

But, nonetheless, they’re getting one, and it’s the biggest bung to higher earners since Margaret Thatcher was in office.  For context: a single parent family earning £42,000 is in the top 15 per cent of earners. A family in which one person is earning above £42,000 and the other is working minimum wage for 16 hours to look after their two children is in the top 13 per cent. A single person earning £42,000 is in the top 6 per cent of earners.  

That’s before you get into the big winners from this policy, because higher earners tend to marry other higher earners. A couple with one person earning £45,000 and the other earning £35,000 is in the top three per cent of earners. A couple in which both are earning £45,000 with one child are in the top four per cent.  (Childless couples earning above average income are, incidentally, the only working age demographic to do better since 2010 than under New Labour.)

And these are not cheap tax cuts, either. To meet the Conservative proposal to raise the 40p rate to £50,000 by 2020 will cost £9bn over the course of the parliament, and giving a tax cut to “hard-pressed” earners on £42,000 will cost around £1.7bn.

The political argument for giving up on taxing this group is fairly weak, too. Hostilty to tax rises among swing voters extends all the way up to the super-rich, so Labour’s commitment to the top rate of tax has already hurt them among voters. To win support even for that measure, the party is going to have to persuade voters of the merits of tax-and-spend – it makes no sense to eschew the revenue from people in the top five per cent of earners while still taking the political pian.

Which isn’t to say that people earning above £42,000 should be tarred and feathered, but it is to say that any claim that this group has been “hit hard” by the government or that they should be the target for further tax relief, rather than clawing back some of the losses to the Exchequer of the threshold raise and the planned hike in the higher rate to £50,000, should be given extremely short shrift. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.