View Full Version : terror in Wick General
did anyone hear that there was an incident in Wick General yesterday, Some guy was breaking down doors, throwing furniture etc.
the staff had to barricade themselves into an office, when the emergency button was activated 2x WPC's arrived to apprehend this crazed person and in the process 1 off the unfortunate WPC got their jaw broken.
connieb19
16-Sep-06, 12:11
That's terrible, whoever this person is, they should be banned from every Hospital in Britain.[evil] As if the Hospital staff don't have enough to do!!
pulteney person
16-Sep-06, 17:45
I heard that it was only 1 female police officer that arrived on the scene.
I think (but not absolutely sure) the person concerned may have had mental health problems therefore they wouldn't need to be banned from hospitals. I imagine it would be a scary thing to witness if you happened to be a patient but medical staff probably come across this kind of behaviour from time to time.
Of course this kind of behaviour would be totally unacceptable in a patient who was not suffering from any type of mental health illness.
Believe he was shipped off to New Craigs in the back of an ambulance - Care in the Community!!!!!?????
Believe he was shipped off to New Craigs in the back of an ambulance - Care in the Community!!!!!?????
I have no knowledge of the above incident, apart from what I've read here. I have the greatest respect for all our medical care staff & emergency services & would never condone them being subjected to any kind of abuse in the line of their duties. To my mind this is appalling.
However, I'm equally appalled at the scoffing tone of your post - you mention New Craigs (mental health rehabilitation centre in Inverness) & "Care in the Community" & adorn it with exclamation & question marks. Are you both astounded & questioning that these establishments/projects exist or do you simply not believe that some people suffer from mental health problems? Perhaps I've totally misunderstood your post - if so please enlighten me.
I don't understand the use of exclaimation marks either. Please explain yourself rainbow.
Alice in Blunderland
16-Sep-06, 22:22
I also do not condone what happened.For a long time a relative of mine was in and out of places like New Craigs and most of the time he was able to live quite happily in the community. I had the greatest respect for my uncle for not only suffering from a long term Mental Health problem but also living daily with people all around him who thought he was weird.New Craigs has a purpose the same as any other hospital it treats the ill and in need also like any other hospital when the patient is ready to return to daily life they are discharged and allowed home again.
personally i think those that knock hospitals for people with mental health problems or the patients, are just so ignorant, in more ways than one.[disgust]
here's hoping that they or members of their family never find themselves in a position where they may have to be admitted to one.
maybe they should think before giving their opinions after all none of us knows what lie's ahead for us:(
For too long Craig Dunain and now New Craigs have been used as derogatory terms instead of people appreciating that fact that there is a specialised place where people who are living with mental problems can go to get help and understanding and where they are safe.
In today's enlightened atmosphere, scorn should not be used for such places. We are supposed to be civilised and we should all know by now that mental illness is like any other; to the person suffering from it and their relatives.
We even have specialised teams who are on call to help those who can no longer cope and need care immediately. In the not too distant past, a police cell was the only "safe" place to house them until they got treatment. Thank goodness for understanding.
I heard that the gentleman in question was seen walking in lousburgh street in his pyjamas and the police took him in. hope he is now getting the help he needs and will make a speedy recovery.
I also heard that one on the staff nurses got puched. If the patient did indeed have mental health problems then New Craigs is the best place to treat and help this person. As far as i'm concerned people who take drink and drugs and are violent towards our hospital staff are the ones who should be banned and let them suffer alone. if you have a mental health problem then you are ill and need treatment like all other people. His violence was possibly because of forgetting to take his medication or plain terror at finding himself in a strange place with strange people. i cannot comment or condone anyone without knowing the full story.
j4bberw0ck
17-Sep-06, 09:02
As far as i'm concerned people who take drink and drugs and are violent towards our hospital staff are the ones who should be banned and let them suffer alone
I don't think you can reasonably ban certain people from hospitals or from treatment. Also, you need to factor in those who take drink and drugs (same thing anyway) because they're mentally ill in some way.
And if you ban a 16 year old who's drunk a half bottle of vodka on a Saturday night and is fighting drunk, what happens? He's left outside? If a kid dressed in a t-shirt gets left outside for long enough, vomiting and losing heat as fast as the body can pump it out, he'll die. Even in the middle of summer. I know that's not really what you were thinking of, but it does beg the question, where is the line drawn?
I don't think that rainbows language or use of exclamation marks indicates anymore that indignation with the fact that people with mental problems are shipped so far away from home that contact with their families and communities becomes impossible or very difficult to say the least. The whole point of care in the community is to keep people in the place that they know, so there is no added stress of being seperated. Unfortunately there can't be facilities every 20 miles ( though sometimes I do wonder if they are needed), so the closest one is 120 odd miles away.
As for choosing to treat some and not others, that is as Jabberwock an impossibility. You cannot insist on hipocratical oaths and then decide not to treat him because he is drunk, drugged or because you dissaprove of general behaviour. Being in a medical profession is dangerous, especially in an emergency room. The best that can be done to mitigate that danger, is to make sure that everyone knows that if you behave badly in a hospital you will be punished (not these pishel fines and warnings that happen now- but real punishment).
[QUOTE=_Ju_;135334]I don't think that rainbows language or use of exclamation marks indicates anymore that indignation with the fact that people with mental problems are shipped so far away from home that contact with their families and communities becomes impossible or very difficult to say the least. The whole point of care in the community is to keep people in the place that they know, so there is no added stress of being seperated. /QUOTE]
Caithness has an excellent mental health team which offers real care in the community wherever possible. the only reason anyone would be shipped to new craigs would be if he was a danger to himself or others, and needed more expert care than could be provided locally. What exactly does rainbow think should have been done?
philupmaboug
17-Sep-06, 11:21
The person may not have been local and removing them to Newcraigs may take them nearer to home.
connieb19
17-Sep-06, 11:53
I don't think you can reasonably ban certain people from hospitals or from treatment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/3770081.stm
pultneytooner
17-Sep-06, 13:05
[quote=_Ju_;135334]I don't think that rainbows language or use of exclamation marks indicates anymore that indignation with the fact that people with mental problems are shipped so far away from home that contact with their families and communities becomes impossible or very difficult to say the least. The whole point of care in the community is to keep people in the place that they know, so there is no added stress of being seperated. /QUOTE]
Caithness has an excellent mental health team which offers real care in the community wherever possible. the only reason anyone would be shipped to new craigs would be if he was a danger to himself or others, and needed more expert care than could be provided locally. What exactly does rainbow think should have been done?
Danger to him/herself, not neccessarily true.
can i just add one thing, if someone has a head injury they may not act in their normal self, i.e. they may be violent or abusive when they are not normally so. you can not always tell just by looking at someone if they have had a head injury, they may appear drunk etc.. so it is not always too clear
pultneytooner
17-Sep-06, 13:21
Quite right fluff so lets stop all the speculation and wait until the truth comes out about what really happened.
Dreadnought
17-Sep-06, 13:39
And if you ban a 16 year old who's drunk a half bottle of vodka on a Saturday night and is fighting drunk, what happens? He's left outside? If a kid dressed in a t-shirt gets left outside for long enough, vomiting and losing heat as fast as the body can pump it out, he'll die. Even in the middle of summer. I know that's not really what you were thinking of, but it does beg the question, where is the line drawn?
That's natural selection in action, removes the 'stupid' gene from the gene pool.
changilass
17-Sep-06, 14:12
can i just add one thing, if someone has a head injury they may not act in their normal self, i.e. they may be violent or abusive when they are not normally so. you can not always tell just by looking at someone if they have had a head injury, they may appear drunk etc.. so it is not always too clear
Diabetics are also sometimes assumed to be drunk when having a hypo.
Maybe some folk would rather we all be tested for drink, drugs, smoking, mental inteligence (and a few other things) before we are given treatment[disgust] , save wasting the tax payers money.
j4bberw0ck
17-Sep-06, 14:20
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/3770081.stm
I stand corrected! Thanks, Connie. Truthfully, what I had in mind when I wrote the bit above was just saying to someone "Right, you've blown it, never again will you be treated", which is how I interpreted Lucy's input; I stand corrected nonetheless.
This is an injunction, and clever too:
<snip>
The order prohibits Hutchins from entering or contacting by telephone or any other means any NHS establishment, primary care trust or private medical establishment in England and Wales, including hospitals, dentists, walk-in centres, GPs and emergency doctors.
He is also not allowed to contact establishments to try to obtain medical masks, gowns or any other medical-related clothing or equipment.
Finally, he is prohibited from engaging in any behaviour which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
The order states that if Hutchins does need medical attention during the term of the order, he must have a lawful excuse or prior written permission of the establishment concerned before he can use the NHS service.
He must notify the relevant establishment of his name and that he is the subject of this order.
<snip>
That seems a reasonable way of doing it. If he falls over with a heart attack in the street, he'll get treated. If he genuinely needs treatment, he'll get it. Otherwise, he goes to jail. It wouldn't apply to our fighting drunk 16 year old, though.
Shame some folk get so expensive.........
That's natural selection in action, removes the 'stupid' gene from the gene pool.
That's one way of looking at it, but I presume from it you never made a mistake, did something silly, or thoughtless, or childish, that might have proven fatal if someone else hadn't pulled your chestnuts out of the fire? :eek:
Dreadnought
17-Sep-06, 14:36
That's one way of looking at it, but I presume from it you never made a mistake, did something silly, or thoughtless, or childish, that might have proven fatal if someone else hadn't pulled your chestnuts out of the fire? :eek:
I have never been so stupid as to drink so much I needed hospitalising, no. (and no I am not a teetotaller).
I also believe smokers, alcoholics, in fact all drug addicts, should have to pay for any hospital treatment. They choose to use harmful drugs and deliberately damage their own health, why should I have to pay for their treatment?
changilass
17-Sep-06, 14:39
I have never been so stupid as to drink so much I needed hospitalising, no.
I also believe smokers, alcoholics, in fact all drug addicts, should have to pay for any hospital treatment. They choose to use harmful drugs and deliberately damage their own health, why should I have to pay for their treatment?
You don't pay for my treatment, I do, with the high level of taxation on cigarettes and alcohol I probably pay for some of your treatment too[disgust]
Dreadnought
17-Sep-06, 14:43
I very much doubt it. Any money given to the NHS from tobacco and alcohol taxation is immediately wasted treating those same drug addicts that the money came from.
j4bberw0ck
17-Sep-06, 15:27
I also believe smokers, alcoholics, in fact all drug addicts, should have to pay for any hospital treatment. They choose to use harmful drugs and deliberately damage their own health, why should I have to pay for their treatment?
That's an interesting concept. In fact, it's so compelling that we might extend it to victims of road traffic accidents who caused their own injuries by carelessness, or even, taking it a stage further, to people who have a greater-than-average predisposition to certain disorders....... yes! You have me convinced! Charge those with genetic diseases - or maybe, charge their parents who should have known better than to reproduce!
And for the record, taxes on tobacco raise hugely more money (£7 billion a year) than it costs the NHS to treat smoking related diseases (£1.7 billion a year).
I notice also you avoided answering my point about never having done anything stupid. You avoided it by choosing to answer a much smaller question, and confirming you'd never drunk yourself into a state of needing medical treatment. Good for you, and I'm happy to be able to report the same.
Would you let 16 year-olds die for making their first, stupid, mistake? Seems harsh to me, but then again I may be wrong. A quick Google tells me that between 1999 / 2001 773 people in Caithness were hospitalised because of alcohol abuse, compared with 142 deaths from heart disease, 163 from cancers, and 21 from accidents. And you want to add appear to want to add 773 to that?
I'm not sure even that nice Mr Stalin managed to improve on the natural death rate of the Soviet people by that kind of percentage! Are you bucking for the job of Antichrist? :eek::lol:
Dreadnought
17-Sep-06, 15:46
That's an interesting concept. In fact, it's so compelling that we might extend it to victims of road traffic accidents who caused their own injuries by carelessness, or even, taking it a stage further, to people who have a greater-than-average predisposition to certain disorders....... yes! You have me convinced! Charge those with genetic diseases - or maybe, charge their parents who should have known better than to reproduce!
People with genetic disorders do not have a choice. Smokers and alcoholics CHOOSE to destroy their health. Therefore they should not be permitted to be a drain on the NHS. There is nothing stopping them paying for private health care. If they can afford to smoke/drink, they can afford to pay for private health care.
Ps. How much of that 7 billion raised from tabacco tax goes to the NHS? Not all of it I'll bet. As for the £1.7 billion spent on smoking related diseases, wouldn't that be better spent elsewhere? rather than on people who deliberately ruined their own health? Maybe on research into genetic disorders, where the money would be better spent.
[quote=_Ju_;135334]I don't think that rainbows language or use of exclamation marks indicates anymore that indignation with the fact that people with mental problems are shipped so far away from home that contact with their families and communities becomes impossible or very difficult to say the least. The whole point of care in the community is to keep people in the place that they know, so there is no added stress of being seperated. /QUOTE]
Caithness has an excellent mental health team which offers real care in the community wherever possible. the only reason anyone would be shipped to new craigs would be if he was a danger to himself or others, and needed more expert care than could be provided locally. What exactly does rainbow think should have been done?
Are you having a laugh katrina i can only assume that your employed by the so called excellent mental health team ,If there so excellent please could you explain why the highlands have the worst suicide rate.
I know of two people who had severe mental health problems only to be told they were nothing but attention seekers unfotunatly one of the so called attention seekers is now lying dead in a cemetary
BINDI 42:~(
That's an interesting concept. In fact, it's so compelling that we might extend it to victims of road traffic accidents who caused their own injuries by carelessness, or even, taking it a stage further, to people who have a greater-than-average predisposition to certain disorders....... yes! You have me convinced! Charge those with genetic diseases - or maybe, charge their parents who should have known better than to reproduce! ........
Ah j4bberw0ck - now you're talking. But let's not stop just there - what about the overweight people who put unnecessary strain on their bodies' organs by being unable to control their food intake - all their own fault, isn't it? And then there are the sporty folk who might need hip/knee replacements due to the punishment their joints have taken while they pursue their various hobbies. Charge them all, I say. Can only lead to a reduction in taxation & a turn to profit for the good old NHS :lol:
j4bberw0ck
17-Sep-06, 16:06
People with genetic disorders do not have a choice. Smokers and alcoholics CHOOSE to destroy their health. Therefore they should not be permitted to be a drain on the NHS. There is nothing stopping them paying for private health care. If they can afford to smoke/drink, they can afford to pay for private health care.
<sigh> I notice you're still selectively answering questions that avoid your having actually to think very much about the consequences of the rule you want to put in place.
If you choose not to treat smokers and drinkers (and presumably other drug users, too) because they chose to use drugs, then if they get to pay for their own health care, do they get to opt out of paying for your treatment if you're ill, because they need more money to pay for their treatment?
In fact, isn't it the case that the very minute that you implement rules about paying for this and not paying for that, you've either (a) unscrambled the Health Service altogether, or (b) assumed for yourself a God-like status that may mean you need treatment for delusions, or (c) just described a risk-based funding approach to the NHS where you abandon all central funding and let people pay an insurance premium based on their lifestyle and genetic heritage?
Quote for you from the General Medical Council Guidelines, published July 2000:
No-one should be discriminated against [even if] their illnesses are to some extent self-inflicted.
So if you're a farmer and you get farmer's lung, you're covered. (You could have chosen to be something else). If you choose to drive a car and as a result, get injured - you're covered. (You could have chosen not to drive). Ever had a car accident, Dreadnought? If you were to, then official Government figures, 1997 basis, give the total cost to the economy as being in the range £750,000 to £1,250,000 depending on the number and severity of injuries (if any). Should a driver have to pay that, too?
j4bberw0ck
17-Sep-06, 16:11
Ah j4bberw0ck - now you're talking
Hey Moira! I see a business opportunity here..... what do you say we start a consultancy and specialise in identifying the myriad of ways in which people affect their own health? I would have thought, say, £1,000 a day - each, of course - plus expenses would be cheap enough to get local Health Trusts interested as a starter.
And another thought! Those old people....... we can charge the living daylights out of them! All those assets they've got salted away....... wow!
Oh woops. Someone already thought of that. Maybe Dreadnought.
Alice in Blunderland
17-Sep-06, 16:32
Quite right fluff so lets stop all the speculation and wait until the truth comes out about what really happened.
Technically because of confidentiality the truth should never come out unless its from family or friends of the person concerned. The staff all sign a confidentiality clause when they start work in the hospital I know that means nothing to many people but to me what happens in a hospital really should stay there.
Technically because of confidentiality the truth should never come out unless its from family or friends of the person concerned. The staff all sign a confidentiality clause when they start work in the hospital I know that means nothing to many people but to me what happens in a hospital really should stay there.
Very well said alice in Blunderland.
why is it anyone's business other that the people concerned what happened at the hospital, what a place for gossips the org is becoming[disgust]
Unfortunately 1 in 4 of us will suffer from Mental Ill Health at some stage in our lives.Unfortunately in small rural communities such as the Highlands, stigmatisation is one of our worst fears. I personally suffer from Bi-Polar/Manic Depression and Anxiety coupled with OCD and some severe mood-swings. I was diagnosed approx 10 years ago and over the course of the years prior to being diagnosed, knew that something was “just not right” within my-self.
Apparently looking back with hind-sight (isn’t hindsight just wonderful?), my Mother suffered from Manic-Depression which late back in the 50’s / early 60’s wasn’t really discussed in our family or society at the time. On many occasions she just disappeared and myself and other siblings where placed in foster-homes for short periods of time whilst she was stabilised and returned to the family home. She was always a “volatile” person when she obviously wasn’t well, and unfortunately the Maternal Bonding process was disrupted during those periods in my life.
It is only in these last few years that I have learnt and accepted that I suffer from the same (obviously genetic/hereditary) and have led an emotional and mental roller-coaster in life. Several failed suicide attempts, two admissions into the local institution, wandering round isolated places avoiding any form of human contact for months on end, before either finding somewhere to stay or had been hospitalised due to the consequences.
Married twice and countless failed relationships due to the “emotional difficulties” I have experienced coupled with my illness, and not knowing why I am the way I am. Basically at the end of the day, I am very people-orientated, altruistic, caring and sensitive, and up till recently was a Samaritan on the National Help-Lines as well as the Branch Secretary for our local group. But part of the illness makes me isolate myself from the very support systems that are in place to help at times of need. Better facilities in communities, more understanding from professional staff as well as other sufferers should be a pre-requisite and a basic human right for us all.
Most people do not understand or even know what type of Depression/Mental Illness they suffer from, as we do have a tendency to stigmatise ourselves, especially when we are feeling ill, and like most people in society, it’s the not knowing or the fear of the unknown with regards to mental Ill Health that is frightening. Knowledge is poer, ad with that power, gives us a small amout of control. We do not have very much control in our lives for what-ever reasons, so learning about our illness and what actually triggers off these episodes in our lives, is information and a type of control that we did not have previously. We may understand and admit to what ails us, but be in no condition or situation to be able to do anything about it. Admitting to ourselves as individuals that we are “not well” is one of the hardest things any human-being can do, as it touches our very core of what and who we are as individuals.
Trying to accept and understand this fundamental belief, is one of the 1st steps down the road to helping ourselves as well as others less fortunate. It has been said that to truly understand another, one has to walk a mile in their shoes, however, if we have travelled down that road, we are better placed to have empathy and understanding towards others who suffer. The help, is out there, unfortunately Bureaucratic Stigmatisation, Media coverage and reporting on Mental Health issues, General Public perception of Mental Ill Health affects us as well.
The help we seek is invariably within ourselves, only we as the “Experts” of our own individual illnesses can seek help from the “Professionals” and attempt to get our message across to them of how we feel, how we react to given circumstances, which in turn, makes their job easier, but ideally we get the benefit of the understanding and involvement of our recovery back to some form of “normality” in our lives.
Nobody is saying that it is an easy journey, or that success is there for everybody, as some of us will have to remain on medication for the rest of our lives. However, highlighting issues that affect us, which make us “unwell” and not feeling ashamed of our illness, or to be apologetic for what we suffer from should be the norm.
Empirical studies show that we are part of a group in society that has a very high I.Q. and the list of famous people over the years is astronomical. More acceptance and understanding from our peers and the state we live in should be a basic “human-right”, and as politically un-correct as it may sound, it seems to be more fashionable these days to be Gay (not that I am attacking people of this group) than to suffer from any form of mental illness…Say for example, 40 years ago, acceptance of homo-sexuality was severely frowned upon and was hidden in society. However, now it is more acceptable in the media and society as opposed to 1 in 4 of us suffering with Mental Illness at some stage in our lives.
Even though we are in the 21st century, we are still in the dark ages with regards to mental heath issues, more so in small rural communities, whether through lack of knowledge, fear of the unknown, and general stigma.
Most of our issues can be traced back to our childhood, not that our parents where bad, or that we where abused, it’s unfortunate that we can’t all ask for perfect parents (if there is such a thing). As they say, anyone can fill a pram, it’s looking after them that can create difficulties especially when one of the partners suffers from Mental Illness.
I class myself as having a “privileged childhood and upbringing”, albeit, emotionally starved from the maternal point of view, and even to this day, I have no recollections of “nice Motherly moments” only fear and trauma episodes that even to this day still have an affect me as an adult.
Over the last few years I have learnt to recognise and attempt to avoid the “triggers” that set me off down that spiralling path towards that insidious illness, we call Depression, or as Winston Churchill called it – “His Black Dog”. I still suffer at times with my illness, I may never totally control it, but at least I know more about it and what devastating effects it has on my life.
I have recently climbed back out of a 5 day spell of severe Depression with suicidal thoughts, and even though at my most-darkest hour, I had to keep telling myself that there was a light at the end of the tunnel (sometimes it felt as if it was the train coming the other way) and it’s hard to convince yourself that you will survive, but we do, we have to.
It’s definitely not easy, and it will always be an up-hill struggle at times when we are “vulnerable”. Having a good understanding of our own illnesses and with the support of a sympathetic GP, and any other back-up systems such as family and friends who understand of what we are going through, trying to get them to appreciate what we experience, which unfortunately can freak them out sometimes if they are unsure or have no concept of Mental Ill Health. Getting the message across to others and creating our own back-up facilities is a basic rule of survival.
I would never want anyone, not even society’s worst enemy, to go through what I go through at times in my life, We wouldn’t allow an animal to suffer this way, let alone another human being.
Standing up and talking about our illness can be therapeutic at times and I appreciate that there are others that will never be able to do so or even consider it, but at the end of the day we have to survive, if not for us, then for others less fortunate who have no back-up systems, family or friends to help them when they really need it in life.
Find a friend or someone you can trust and that you are able to confide in with the utmost confidentiality, someone who will always be there and who you are able to listen to and accept that they have your good intentions to heart. Support groups, close relatives, partners, support workers and other professionals that you feel that you can trust can all be beneficial in understanding of what we go through.
But at the end of the day, we should not blame ourselves, it is the way we are, not necessarily by choice. And as I look back through my life, as we all do at times, I’d go though it all again, as it makes me who I am today, and I suppose with hind-sight (that wonderful word again), when I’m reasonably well, I am quite happy with myself as an individual.
Keep the faith and always remember, “you are not alone”, you won’t be the 1st and definitely won’t be last to journey down that road, just try and leave a few signposts for others who may travel your way.
So all you people out there who lack the knowledge or have fear and concerns about Mental Ill Health should try and learn more about the issues in question. Some of us are unfortunate and we may suffer, it is not our fault and we should not be condemed for our actions when we are suffering from our illness.
Understanding of Mental Ill Health shows a sign of compassion and understanding towards others less fortunate than ourselves. We are not dangerous, we have a lot to offer society in general. Fear of the unknown is no excuse for condemnation.
If anybody requires any information or has any concerns regarding Mental Ill Health, whjether it be themselves or a friend or relative, there 1st point of call should be their GP or Health Care Provider. Please feel free to contact myself at Caithness_Depression@hotmail.com
or you can access our website at http://www.caithnessdepression.co.uk
martin macdonald
17-Sep-06, 19:13
People with genetic disorders do not have a choice. Smokers and alcoholics CHOOSE to destroy their health. Therefore they should not be permitted to be a drain on the NHS. There is nothing stopping them paying for private health care. If they can afford to smoke/drink, they can afford to pay for private health care.
Ps. How much of that 7 billion raised from tabacco tax goes to the NHS? Not all of it I'll bet. As for the £1.7 billion spent on smoking related diseases, wouldn't that be better spent elsewhere? rather than on people who deliberately ruined their own health? Maybe on research into genetic disorders, where the money would be better spent.alcoholisim is an illness. there is no cure and is the third biggest killer in the world.i have been sober eighteen years by the grace of God. and try to help the still suffering alcoholic.a little understanding rather than condemnation from the general public would help:cool:
Billy Boy
17-Sep-06, 19:26
alcoholisim is an illness. there is no cure and is the third biggest killer in the world.i have been sober eighteen years by the grace of God. and try to help the still suffering alcoholic.a little understanding rather than condemnation from the general public would help:cool:
well said lol
You don't pay for my treatment, I do, with the high level of taxation on cigarettes and alcohol I probably pay for some of your treatment too[disgust]
well said changilass I was just going to put in the same reply.
Dreadnought
17-Sep-06, 20:00
alcoholisim is an illness. there is no cure and is the third biggest killer in the world.i have been sober eighteen years by the grace of God. and try to help the still suffering alcoholic.a little understanding rather than condemnation from the general public would help:cool:
Alcoholism is NOT an illness. Can you catch it? Is it contageous? Is it a virus? Is it a bacteria?
No.
People claiming alcoholism/drug addiction is an illness is simply an attempt to remove themselves from responsibility for their own actions.
cuddlepop
17-Sep-06, 20:06
This is an all to familiar face of a care package that has not been implemented,or someone who's slipped through the net.Please stop and think about this poor person and their family before you pass judgement.
I personnely feel that if we all had a more tolerant attitude to people who are different then the world would be a happy place.:(
martin macdonald
17-Sep-06, 20:07
Alcoholism is NOT an illness. Can you catch it? Is it contageous? Is it a virus? Is it a bacteria?
No.
People claiming alcoholism/drug addiction is an illness is simply an attempt to remove themselves from responsibility for their own actions.
the medical proffesion now accept alcholisim as an illness and treat it as such:Razz
[QUOTE=Dreadnought;135539]Alcoholism is NOT an illness. Can you catch it? Is it contageous? Is it a virus? Is it a bacteria?
No.
People claiming alcoholism/drug addiction is an illness is simply an attempt to remove themselves from responsibility for their own actions.[/QUI
I am humbled to be in the presence of such a perfect human being it is a shame that as a human race we are not all as perfect as you seem to be.
Dreadnought
17-Sep-06, 20:13
<sigh> I notice you're still selectively answering questions that avoid your having actually to think very much about the consequences of the rule you want to put in place.
If you choose not to treat smokers and drinkers (and presumably other drug users, too) because they chose to use drugs, then if they get to pay for their own health care, do they get to opt out of paying for your treatment if you're ill, because they need more money to pay for their treatment?
In fact, isn't it the case that the very minute that you implement rules about paying for this and not paying for that, you've either (a) unscrambled the Health Service altogether, or (b) assumed for yourself a God-like status that may mean you need treatment for delusions, or (c) just described a risk-based funding approach to the NHS where you abandon all central funding and let people pay an insurance premium based on their lifestyle and genetic heritage?
Quote for you from the General Medical Council Guidelines, published July 2000:
So if you're a farmer and you get farmer's lung, you're covered. (You could have chosen to be something else). If you choose to drive a car and as a result, get injured - you're covered. (You could have chosen not to drive). Ever had a car accident, Dreadnought? If you were to, then official Government figures, 1997 basis, give the total cost to the economy as being in the range £750,000 to £1,250,000 depending on the number and severity of injuries (if any). Should a driver have to pay that, too?
I am not the only person being selective, pot, kettle, black etc.
If I have a car accident my insurance covers the cost of any medical treatment required. Maybe you drive uninsured, I don't know.
I would rather see NHS resources used on people who need them most, those born prematurely, those with real diseases, and not squandered on smokers, alcoholics and other drug addicts. Let them pay for their own treatment and stop taking treatment away from those who deserve it.
You can slip in all the ad hominem attacks you want, it will not change my opinion (except of you).
And what do you suggest we do with the elderly and infirm who serve no purpose and dont work anymore??? euthanase them as opposed to taking up precious beds? get real and take off your rose tinted glasses everyone has the right to medical care not just the perfect like yourself.
Dreadnought
17-Sep-06, 20:22
And what do you suggest we do with the elderly and infirm who serve no purpose and dont work anymore??? euthanase them as opposed to taking up precious beds? get real and take off your rose tinted glasses everyone has the right to medical care not just the perfect like yourself.
Give them the health care they deserve in their twilight years. Instead of them being stuck on filthy wards, with no decent level of care, as happened to my 93 year old aunt who died alone surrounded by strangers on a filthy ward, in filthy clothes, because all the resources were being wasted on smokers and alcoholics.
but I am sure that will only be for those who have never smoked or let drink pass their lips during their lives.
changilass
17-Sep-06, 20:30
Give them the health care they deserve in their twilight years. Instead of them being stuck on filthy wards, with no decent level of care, as happened to my 93 year old aunt who died alone surrounded by strangers on a filthy ward, in filthy clothes, because all the resources were being wasted on smokers and alcoholics.
I am really sorry to hear about your aunt dying, but think you should maybe shoulder some of the blame for her dying alone amongst strangers.
I both smoke and drink, I pay high taxes to do both of these things, so far I have never required any medical attention as a result of either of these things.
How dare you try to blame myself or any other somker for what happened.
My nana could have died in exactly the same way, however we put in a lot of time and effort to ensure she was never left on her own, both myself and my mother moved into the hospital.
You have stated previously that the taxes from the sale of cigarettes should be spent on more 'worthy' cases. If all the smokers stopped tomorrow there would be no money to look after your worthy causes.
rockchick
17-Sep-06, 20:35
Alcoholism is NOT an illness. Can you catch it? Is it contageous? Is it a virus? Is it a bacteria?
No.
People claiming alcoholism/drug addiction is an illness is simply an attempt to remove themselves from responsibility for their own actions.
Sorry Dreadnought, but alcoholism is as much an illness as is diabetes. Yes, you can catch it, but you can also be born with it. You can "catch" diabetes by overloading your system with sugar; the same goes for alcohol. Some people become alcoholics over time and misuse; others are alcoholics from their first drink. If you are lucky enough not to understand this, if you don't have an alcoholic in your family or your close friends, well then count yourself blessed, cuz it's a nasty thing to live with.
And to Martin McD, congrats on being 18years sober. Heck of an achievement. Glad to see you've got a Higher Power that works for you.
Dreadnought
17-Sep-06, 20:42
I am really sorry to hear about your aunt dying, but think you should maybe shoulder some of the blame for her dying alone amongst strangers.
She was in Winchester, I was in Essex. I went to the hospital as often as I could, twice a week. But I was not there when she died.
I both smoke and drink, I pay high taxes to do both of these things, so far I have never required any medical attention as a result of either of these things.
But you will. Why should I have to pay for it?
How dare you try to blame myself or any other somker for what happened.
Why shouldn't I? If the system wasn't clogged up with these drug addicts there would be more resources for those who have not deliberately harmed themselves.
My nana could have died in exactly the same way, however we put in a lot of time and effort to ensure she was never left on her own, both myself and my mother moved into the hospital.
You were lucky to be able to do that. Not everyone is so privileged that they can give up work and their family to do such a thing.
You have stated previously that the taxes from the sale of cigarettes should be spent on more 'worthy' cases. If all the smokers stopped tomorrow there would be no money to look after your worthy causes.
Of course there would. Government would just raise tax elsewhere, as they always do.
grumpyhippo
17-Sep-06, 21:08
. You can "catch" diabetes by overloading your system with sugar;
You cannot 'catch' diabetes. Type 1 diabetes develops as a result of the pancreas ceasing production of insulin, the cause of this is uncertain; Type 2 diabetes is a result of the insulin producing cells in the pancreas slowing down producion of insulin. This is often age related but lifestyle factors are involved.
You can no more 'catch' diabetes than you can blame spots on eating too much chocolate.
Believe he was shipped off to New Craigs in the back of an ambulance - Care in the Community!!!!!?????
Care in the community has a wider defenition. Do you have a friend who needs an ear, a work colleague going through a hard time? When times are hard I would hope someone will look out for me. I once went into a ward as a friend ,when it was the same ward I worked on, and I scraped my friend out of the bed, got him showered and shaved and into the real world:( . He thanked me for it ever since. If we aren't willing to help each other then that's sad.
The good thing was he married his nurse and they now have 3 kids even tho he is a raving lunatic!!:D
Alcoholism is NOT an illness. Can you catch it? Is it contageous? Is it a virus? Is it a bacteria?
No.
People claiming alcoholism/drug addiction is an illness is simply an attempt to remove themselves from responsibility for their own actions.
Common ailments you cannot catch (off the top of my head):
Immune and auto immune diseases (Lupus, asma, allergies, irritable bowel syndrome, hives, insect bite dermatitis, eczema,) prostate cancer, breast cancer, skin cancer (maybe I should just say all cancers excluding those with viral links), bone disease (from bone cancer to scliosis) congenital defects (the list is interminable from club foot to spina bifida), ingrown nails, teeth overlapping in growth after wisdom teeth errupt, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, post partum depression, senile diseases (alzheimers, parkinsons), anemia, peyronies, priaprism,diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, vericose veins, phlebitis, hemrroids, metabolic diseases, Chron's (might actually be a microbe involved, but not yet proven), phobias, hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism, dislexia, heat stroke, photosensitivity.... you can go on, and on, and on.
This is just to point out that there are many, many diseases that are not contagious, cannot be caught and are not caused by a bacteria, mycoplasma, virus, fungus or prion.
Second, and FYI, studies have proven that there is a link between alcoholism and the brain permeability to alcohol. In other words, there is a biological reason for some people to have a different sensibility toward alcohol ( http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_38183.html ).
People don't choose to be sad, when depressed; people do not choose to sneeze when they have hayfever; people do not choose to become alcoholics when they have a drink.
j4bberw0ck
17-Sep-06, 23:20
Dreadnought, you're smart enough to know what ad hominem attacks are, but it doesn't seem to stop you from avoiding every point made in this argument. It's a worry, really. You've completely avoided my point about the NHS and its funding; completely avoided my point about whether smokers should contribute to your treatment, hidden behind an outdated viewpoint on alcoholics (not that you're alone in that), and missed entirely the fact that smokers pay 3 times more to the NHS through tobacco taxes alone than it costs the NHS to treat them..
I really couldn't care less about your opinion of me but I care very much about your Fascist idea of who should and shouldn't receive care under the NHS.
lots of people having rants about illnesses. But it is beyond me when Ju mentions Breast Cancer in one of her posts, what that has to do with the original posting.
Dreadnought
17-Sep-06, 23:42
Dreadnought, you're smart enough to know what ad hominem attacks are, but it doesn't seem to stop you from avoiding every point made in this argument. It's a worry, really. You've completely avoided my point about the NHS and its funding; completely avoided my point about whether smokers should contribute to your treatment, hidden behind an outdated viewpoint on alcoholics (not that you're alone in that), and missed entirely the fact that smokers pay 3 times more to the NHS through tobacco taxes alone than it costs the NHS to treat them..
I really couldn't care less about your opinion of me but I care very much about your Fascist idea of who should and shouldn't receive care under the NHS.
If you have to resort to insult then you have lost the debate. I have made my point quite clearly, several times. I see no point endlessly repeating it, so I'll quote it for you one more time.
People with genetic disorders do not have a choice. Smokers and alcoholics CHOOSE to destroy their health. Therefore they should not be permitted to be a drain on the NHS. There is nothing stopping them paying for private health care. If they can afford to smoke/drink, they can afford to pay for private health care.
Ps. How much of that 7 billion raised from tabacco tax goes to the NHS? Not all of it I'll bet. As for the £1.7 billion spent on smoking related diseases, wouldn't that be better spent elsewhere? rather than on people who deliberately ruined their own health? Maybe on research into genetic disorders, where the money would be better spent.
It is quite simple and straightforward.
As for my viewpoint on alcoholics... well, I refuse to be brainwashed by political correctness.
DPW39......what a greatpost, well said, I wish you all the best.
Does anybody know how to cure a severe case of the well known medical condition of Absolute Certainty brought about by the debilitating mental condition commonly caused by a severe chronic infestation of "Bees in the Bonnet"?
Moira and Katarina - apologies for the late response (been really busy). When I say Care in the Community!!!!???? The exclamation and question marks are placed as I question if Care in the Community has sometimes gone too far - people with real major mental health problems are placed into local authority houses, in total isolation (alot of these people may have real communication problems and find it hard to make relationships with others) and there is no support for them. The authorities only step in when something major happens and some innocent person gets hurt eg nurses. I guess there is no solution to this, as some sufferers moods can change with no notice.
Care in the Community should mean Care - not dump them and let them get on.
j4bberw0ck
18-Sep-06, 07:55
If you have to resort to insult then you have lost the debate. I have made my point quite clearly, several times. I see no point endlessly repeating it, so I'll quote it for you one more time.
Oh no! Not that! Debater's Grizzled Old Gambit no. 43a......
If all else fails, claim to have been insulted. It's very important that you stand as much as possible on your dignity in the hope of further camouflaging the fact that actually, you still haven't provided any arguments as such, just an entrenched position. Remember to keep your nose inclined upwards at a good 45 degrees as you sweep, as majestically as may be, to the door.
Are you a politician? :lol:
Dreadnought
18-Sep-06, 08:04
Oh no! Not that! Debater's Grizzled Old Gambit no. 43a......
If all else fails, claim to have been insulted
No 'claim', the following is an insult.
... your Fascist idea of who should and shouldn't receive care under the NHS.
Ah, Debater's Grizzled Old Gambit no. 1... if you can't win the debate, throw your toys out of the pram and thqweam and thqweam and thqweam, 'FASCIST!!' until you're sick.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to work to earn taxes to fund your lifestyle. I'll leave you to go hug a tree or something.
j4bberw0ck
18-Sep-06, 09:14
Ah, that's where the insult was! You have my apologies if you were insulted - that wasn't my intention. It was simply a statement of fact.
Fascism is a system where (in a nutshell) "the system" is more valuable than the people and the people exist for the good of "the system", or not at all. Communism and far-left socialism are usually excellent examples. In Fascist thinking, certain groups of people are somehow worth less than other groups, perhaps for racial or ethnic reasons, perhaps for lifestyle reasons.
So no insult. Certainly no hysteria. Just pointing out what's evidently an unpalatable truth.
Have a good day - Mr Brown needs the tax revenues ;) . A bientôt, mon ami!
interesting read i must say....so anybody know who the fool was that took a rampage in the hospital?or are we more worried about how a hospital's resources are being used....little of topic[lol] but again very amusing thread to read
Drug addicts and Alcoholics are often amongst the most vulnerable people in our society and we should look after them and try to help and support them where we can. I make no apologies for quoting a case which graphically illustrated how someone can be drawn into a world which ultimately can lead to death by quoting the case of Emma Caldwell. this case often springs to mind when people talk about choice from a viewpoint of a strong and healthy personality.
Emma was beautiful and happy girl until her sister died. Devastated by the death of her sister and struggling to cope with her grief her boyfriend gave her heroin to help her cope. She took it. Quickly into a life of addiction she turned to prostitution to fund her habit and was killed apparently by one of her clients. If you put Emma Caldwell into google you can find more about her.
So is dreadnought right, is this the sort of person that, needing medical help should be turned away from hospitals, refused treatment and left to die. As a compassionate society surely these are the very people that we should help. We need to remember that people are not always strong, not always able to make sensible coherent and logical choices, sometimes people are in pain and cannot find any other way to deal with their pain and anguish but to sink themselves into oblivion, whether that is drink drugs or prescription drugs is immaterial. Health care should not be a morality issue.
It would seem that most of you have missed the point, except for Fran, and others who have shown sensitivity and understand and not being automatically judgemental and the rest seem to be bickering and insulting each-other.
The last posting epitomised by Saxovtr
“nteresting read i must say....so anybody know who the fool was that took a rampage in the hospital?or are we more worried about how a hospital's resources are being used....little of topic but again very amusing thread to read“
and highlights their bigotry and ignorance over Mental Ill Health and attitudes towards people with possible Mental Illness.
Connieb19 is also guilty of outright condemnation without knowing the facts by initially posting the following “That's terrible, whoever this person is, they should be banned from every Hospital in Britain. As if the Hospital staff don't have enough to do!!”
Pultneytown Person has the sensitivity and compassion that one would expect in any normal society when they stated “I heard that it was only 1 female police officer that arrived on the scene. I think (but not absolutely sure) “the person concerned may have had mental health problems therefore they wouldn't need to be banned from hospitals”. I imagine it would be a scary thing to witness if you happened to be a patient but medical staff probably come across this kind of behaviour from time to time.
Of course this kind of behaviour would be totally unacceptable in a patient who was not suffering from any type of mental health illness.”
Well dome Moira for highlighting the issue in a sensitive caring way, as well as Sam who states “personally i think those that knock hospitals for people with mental health problems or the patients, are just so ignorant, in more ways than one.
here's hoping that they or members of their family never find themselves in a position where they may have to be admitted to one.
maybe they should think before giving their opinions after all none of us knows what lie's ahead for us ”
It just gos to show the level of stigmatisation people with Mental health problems have to put with here in Caithness and other small rural communities.
Most of you who have posted on this topic should be ashamed to call yourselves decent caring human-beings if your attitudes are ignorance of others sufferings.
Ann highlights that “For too long Craig Dunain and now New Craigs have been used as derogatory terms instead of people appreciating that fact that there is a specialised place where people who are living with mental problems can go to get help and understanding and where they are safe.
In today's enlightened atmosphere, scorn should not be used for such places. We are supposed to be civilised and we should all know by now that mental illness is like any other; to the person suffering from it and their relatives.
We even have specialised teams who are on call to help those who can no longer cope and need care immediately. In the not too distant past, a police cell was the only "safe" place to house them until they got treatment. Thank goodness for understanding.”
Unfortunately, the enlightened atmosphere is definitely not here in Caithness, with bigots who make statements such as “so anybody know who the fool was that took a rampage in the hospital?, or other derogatory remarks against people who suffer from Mental Ill Health.
As stated in my earlier post, in response to the general stigmatisation against someone who was rumoured to have been suffering from Mental Illness. We are in the 21st century, there is supposed to be care in the community for people less fortunate than yourselves. If I was Gay or was of Ethnic minority, then certain remarks on this topic would be classed as racist or homo-phobic (no disrespect to either group). But it would seem that because it is on Mental Ill Health, then that’s alright.
With certain peoples attitudes on this forum, there is no wonder that certain aspects of “care in the community” are beyond a joke. Hopefully the people who are obviously bigots, never have to experience Mental Ill Health, especially with attitudes which seem to flourish before there is any concrete information to hand.
SeeMe Scotland as well as H.U.G. (Highland Users Group) and other similar organisations and Scottish Executive fund and try to highlight issues concerning peoples attitudes on Mental Ill Health.
After reading the various posts regarding this topic, their efforts have obviously failed in Caithness, especially on the Org website, and it saddens me to think that I share the same community with people who have no concept on the suffering of others less fortunate than themselves.
As stated previously, we are still in the dark ages in Caithness, and instead of slagging each other off, you should be more united in creating a better understanding and more sympathetic community for us all to live in.
dpw39
"hope springs eternal"
in Caithnes - I think not!
and highlights their bigotry and ignorance over Mental Ill Health and attitudes towards people with possible Mental Illness.
are you suggesting that towards me as i said it was an amusing read?as i clear am not laughing at the fact of ill people,its the fact every1 gets there handbags out and starts arguing....
If you make statements such as:
“ interesting read i must say....so anybody know who the fool was that took a rampage in the hospital?or are we more worried about how a hospital's resources are being used....little of topic but again very amusing thread to read”
then yes, obviously you have missed the point completely.
dpw39
Can anyone tell me if the much talked about gentleman has a mental problem or was he under the influence of alcohol or other drugs at the time.
It seems to me that everyone has got their arguing heads on while acting on supposition rather than fact. Can anyone enlighten us.
Dreadnought
18-Sep-06, 15:07
Ah, that's where the insult was! You have my apologies if you were insulted - that wasn't my intention. It was simply a statement of fact.
Fascism is a system where (in a nutshell) "the system" is more valuable than the people and the people exist for the good of "the system", or not at all. Communism and far-left socialism are usually excellent examples. In Fascist thinking, certain groups of people are somehow worth less than other groups, perhaps for racial or ethnic reasons, perhaps for lifestyle reasons.
I see nothing wrong in saying those who deliberately, and knowingly ruin their own health should have to pay for their own health care, rather than expecting the taxpayer to pay for them.
There is no longer the 'I didn't know smoking/drinking/shooting up/snorting was bad for me' excuse. Everyone knows full well the dangers, and if they choose to ignore those facts then they should not expect the taxpayer to stump up when their health fails due to their habit.
The Welfare State should be used as a safety net, not as a hammock.
i think this thread has went way off the topic, someone was just asking who it was and what happened, i dont see why dwp39 has got to be so forcefull.
Poor bloke. Hope he gets the help he needs.
i think this thread has went way off the topic, someone was just asking who it was and what happened, i dont see why dwp39 has got to be so forcefull.
dwp39 is simply pointing out the stigma that individuals, whether they mean to or not, attach to those who suffer from mental illness. It's not clear from your post if you read his first post in this thread, but it illustrates his own experiences of mental health problems, and fully justifies his views on this subject. I have the fullest of respect for dwp39.
As for going off topic, is it really anyone's business what went off at the hospital in the first place? I think the thread has actually touched on an important issue that affects many people. It's become a very interesting discussion.
ASmith5517
18-Sep-06, 21:29
I agree with WeeBurd, is what happens in the hospital any of our business? That is supposed to be a private place where people can go no matter what their illness and not worry about the rest of the county knowing about it.
DPW39, I have read your last posting and agree with you but please don’t make the mistake of thinking that every one in the Caithness thinks the same as what some people have said on these pages.
There are a lot of people up here who care about others and are willing to help others no matter what the/there problem is.
Asmith1577
I wasn't intentionally accusing everyone in Caithnes as being of the same nature,and I apologise unresevedy if it came accross that way. I also appreciate that it is a small minority who seemingly give the rest of the local people a bad name, which is definitely not the case.
There are lots of people here in Caithnes, (which has been my adopted home for the last 10 years), who do have empathy and understanding to others less fortunate than themselves.
But like all things in life, it is always the small minority who ruin it for others.
Thankyou for you kind regards and contiuing support in this matter.
Take care, look after yourself and be lucky in life.
Ciao,
David.
dpw39
riggerboy
19-Sep-06, 02:57
I see nothing wrong in saying those who deliberately, and knowingly ruin their own health should have to pay for their own health care, rather than expecting the taxpayer to pay for them.
There is no longer the 'I didn't know smoking/drinking/shooting up/snorting was bad for me' excuse. Everyone knows full well the dangers, and if they choose to ignore those facts then they should not expect the taxpayer to stump up when their health fails due to their habit.
The Welfare State should be used as a safety net, not as a hammock.
then maybe we should have 2 NHS one for the non- smokers and the money for that should come from our national insurance they would be in cardboard boxes.
and the other 1 for smokers who pay more than 3 times everyone elsein taxes and we shall see who has the greater NHS we would be in the hilton
as for off to work to pay taxes dreadnought i smoke and drink i also pay £72 a WEEK national insurance and a lot lot more in income tax and you can sit there and tell me i dont deserve treatment, i beg to differ.
Lolabelle
19-Sep-06, 05:12
"If you hang them all you get the guilty,
If you hang them all you cannot miss.
If you hang them all you get the guilty.
There's been a lot of problems solved like this."
Tom T Hall
Dreadnought
19-Sep-06, 08:17
then maybe we should have 2 NHS one for the non- smokers and the money for that should come from our national insurance they would be in cardboard boxes.
and the other 1 for smokers who pay more than 3 times everyone elsein taxes and we shall see who has the greater NHS we would be in the hilton
as for off to work to pay taxes dreadnought i smoke and drink i also pay £72 a WEEK national insurance and a lot lot more in income tax and you can sit there and tell me i dont deserve treatment, i beg to differ.
I did not say you don't deserve treatment, I said you should not get free treatment on the NHS. YOU have chosen to ruin YOUR health. You KNOW tobacco will cause you health problems. Why should the rest of us pick up the tab? As you are paying £72 a week NI, it is pretty obvious you can also afford private health care.
Moira and Katarina - apologies for the late response (been really busy). When I say Care in the Community!!!!???? The exclamation and question marks are placed as I question if Care in the Community has sometimes gone too far - people with real major mental health problems are placed into local authority houses, in total isolation (alot of these people may have real communication problems and find it hard to make relationships with others) and there is no support for them. The authorities only step in when something major happens and some innocent person gets hurt eg nurses. I guess there is no solution to this, as some sufferers moods can change with no notice.
Care in the Community should mean Care - not dump them and let them get on.
I disagree that there is no support for them. The Haven is an excellent drop in centre, there are also outreach carers who spend a lot of time making sure no one who is known to have mental illness is left in isolation.
The main problem now is that it is their right to refuse medication. I think for their own protection, and the protection of others, refusal to take medication should result in hospitalization, especially for schizophrenics.
Being left in the community, not only can they refuse medication, but also they are easy targets for illegal drug and alcohol abuse which accelerates their illness.
The main problem now is that it is their right to refuse medication. I think for their own protection, and the protection of others, refusal to take medication should result in hospitalization, especially for schizophrenics.
.
I dont think its about people excercising their rights as much as this being a symptom of their illness - they take their medication and become "better" so they start to think they dont need their medication and stop taking it.
Not wanting to bang the drum forever -
But on BBC tonight (Tuesday 19th Sept) at 9.00pm Stephen Fry’s The Secret Life of a Manic Depressive hopefully will highlight and give a better understanding of how this insidious illness affects many people. Most suffers avoid being labelled in life, for obvious reasons. Eg. Fear of losing/gaining employment, what others will think of them etc.
You don’t have to be famous to suffer from Mental Ill Health, however, you are in a better position to highlight the issues that concern sufferers the world over. After all, don’t we live in a tolerant society?
Stigmatisation is one of our biggest problems in life and can be seen as;
• We stigmatise ourselves initially, due to isolation, fear and self-blame;
• Friends and family, due to their misunderstanding or fear of the unknown;
• Some professional staff, due to their insensitivity;
• Bureaucratic Stigmatisation;
• Other sufferers of mental illness;
• The general public, due to lack of knowledge and what they read in the press;
• Media & Press organisations due to their standards of reporting of Mental Illness incidents etc.
I can understand and appreciate, the fear of the unknown, but not all people who suffer from Mental Ill Health are “DANGEROUS”, unfortunately, there are a few who will always be at risk to society, but these a few and far between. More tolerance and understanding and better “Care in the Community” is all we ask.
dpw39
"hope springs eternal"
http://www.caithnessdepression.co.uk
rockchick
19-Sep-06, 17:11
You cannot 'catch' diabetes. Type 1 diabetes develops as a result of the pancreas ceasing production of insulin, the cause of this is uncertain; Type 2 diabetes is a result of the insulin producing cells in the pancreas slowing down producion of insulin. This is often age related but lifestyle factors are involved.
You can no more 'catch' diabetes than you can blame spots on eating too much chocolate.
I type corrected. Perhaps a better word would have been "develop"; nevertheless, people who are not born with alcoholism or diabetes can, with lifestyle factors involved, develop both conditions.
Eating chocolate does not cause spots - there have been studies that proved this reasonably conclusively. I would have liked to have been a guinea pig on that study!!! However, the hormonal fluctuations that sometimes accompany a chocolate binge, or stress, can accelerate an attack.
Alice in Blunderland
19-Sep-06, 19:14
I dont think its about people excercising their rights as much as this being a symptom of their illness - they take their medication and become "better" so they start to think they dont need their medication and stop taking it.
Thankyou squidge for pointing this out as this was quite often the case with my uncle he was schizophrenic and when he felt better he would try to cut his medicine as he would think he was 'cured'.As I have said in my last post people with mental illness ,I take my hat off to, as all through life it can be a struggle not just with their illness but with society and the lack of understanding that seems to be portarayed towards them by some people.My uncle died last year at 60 after many years of illness and as many people said at his funeral now he has peace.
riggerboy
19-Sep-06, 23:31
I did not say you don't deserve treatment, I said you should not get free treatment on the NHS. YOU have chosen to ruin YOUR health. You KNOW tobacco will cause you health problems. Why should the rest of us pick up the tab? As you are paying £72 a week NI, it is pretty obvious you can also afford private health care.
where would i be getting free health care with the amount of money i put into the system i think youll find that i have paid upfront for the care i may or may not need
yes you are correct i could have private health care and i will as soon as i can opt out of the NHS, which at this moment i am looking into on a legal side,(taking into account that the NI is still a contibution and no law has been passed as yet to make it Mandatory) i dont see why i should have to pay twice for health care,
i still have to pay for presciptions whislt some pay nothing, it would appear that if you pay nothing into the system you can still have all the care you need, but going along with what you say, we can pay in all we want but if we smoke, drink, or eat the wrong foods then we should get nothing,
put another way you are out on your mountain bike riding along and for any reason you fall of and break your arm and leg then by your way you should get no treatment, for it is proven that mountain biking can be very dangerous and bad for your health, going along that lines any past time that may inflict damage to yourself should then be taken out of the NHS repair manual, as you have said yourself anyone that knows the health risks should not take part.
Believe he was shipped off to New Craigs in the back of an ambulance - Care in the Community!!!!!?????
Moira and Katarina - apologies for the late response (been really busy). When I say Care in the Community!!!!???? The exclamation and question marks are placed as I question if Care in the Community has sometimes gone too far - people with real major mental health problems are placed into local authority houses, in total isolation (alot of these people may have real communication problems and find it hard to make relationships with others) and there is no support for them. The authorities only step in when something major happens and some innocent person gets hurt eg nurses. I guess there is no solution to this, as some sufferers moods can change with no notice.
Care in the Community should mean Care - not dump them and let them get on.
Thanks for your response Rainbow - like you I am busy & not always able to respond immediately to posts I've made here. I work away from home a lot of the time. The original post here has opened up the proverbial can of worms with regard to the Caithness rumour mill, taxation, health services, addictions & attitudes to all of these, etc. etc. ...
Quite frankly, I've no wish to add to the gossip-mongering here. My initial post here was questioning your, to my mind, flippant post, regarding the person involved in the alleged incident. You've explained this now & I accept that I may have misunderstood you. It may have been more helpful if you'd posted that "the person concerned had been transferred to New Craigs for treatment" & left it at that. Your phrase "shipped off etc" grated on my mind & your "Care in the Community" remark enhanced with exclamation/question marks left me with no option but to openly question your post.
I make no apology for taking this thread "off-topic" - I have no interest in local gossip - but there have been many interesting diversifications since the original post. Each & every one deserving enough to start a new topic thread here on the Org.
My own interest here lay with the mental health aspect - dwp39 has more than eloquently laid this on the line for us, Katarina has mentioned the Mental Health Team & The Haven here in Wick. I would also like to draw attention to the work of Birchwood Highland, who maintain an office in Whitechapel road, Wick & I would invite you all to log onto :- www.seemescotland.org (http://www.seemescotland.org/) . If you feel able to add to the current survey, I'm sure your contribution would be appreciated.
I did not say you don't deserve treatment, I said you should not get free treatment on the NHS. YOU have chosen to ruin YOUR health. You KNOW tobacco will cause you health problems. Why should the rest of us pick up the tab? As you are paying £72 a week NI, it is pretty obvious you can also afford private health care.
I have been reading this post and replies with great interest. I agree with most of the replies, so didn't feel the need to repeat my feelings. But Dreadnought I have to say some of your ideas are way off the mark. What is this last statement supposed to imply? Sounds to me as though you have a pretty big chip on your shoulder, could be because of one of many gripes you seem to have. By the way, I am all the things you seem to dislike in a human being, I'm an overweight smoker who likes a drink! what would you suggest the system does with 'the likes of me' ??
I see nothing wrong in saying those who deliberately, and knowingly ruin their own health should have to pay for their own health care, rather than expecting the taxpayer to pay for them.
There is no longer the 'I didn't know smoking/drinking/shooting up/snorting was bad for me' excuse. Everyone knows full well the dangers, and if they choose to ignore those facts then they should not expect the taxpayer to stump up when their health fails due to their habit.
The Welfare State should be used as a safety net, not as a hammock.
I am supposing from the carefully selected wording that you use that it is of your opinion that self inflicted illnesses should not be funded by the NHS. So then all women who decide to become mothers, running the inherent risks of pregnancy and child birth and also both parents facing a future of stress induced diseases from the worry of providing for and protecting their children should also be excluded from the NHS? ( You take an extreme point of view just as ridiculous as what I have just written. The life of any human being is equal to the next. One person is not of less worth because they smoke, drink or do drugs. Another persons life is not worth more because they choose not to do these things).
j4bberw0ck
21-Sep-06, 09:08
How, I wonder, should Richard Hammond be cared for on the NHS? He chose to drive a jet-powered car in pursuit of the Land Speed Record - some might say that's more immediately life-threatening than smoking or drinking. It certainly was in his case. How does that play in a Dreadnought-run NHS?
Dreadnought
21-Sep-06, 09:41
I am supposing from the carefully selected wording that you use that it is of your opinion that self inflicted illnesses should not be funded by the NHS. So then all women who decide to become mothers, running the inherent risks of pregnancy and child birth and also both parents facing a future of stress induced diseases from the worry of providing for and protecting their children should also be excluded from the NHS? ( You take an extreme point of view just as ridiculous as what I have just written. The life of any human being is equal to the next. One person is not of less worth because they smoke, drink or do drugs. Another persons life is not worth more because they choose not to do these things).
You cannot compare a natural condition, pregnancy, to an unnatural condition, setting fire to a narcotic and inhaling it.
'How, I wonder, should Richard Hammond be cared for on the NHS?'
Point of entry care and billed for any further costs upon recovery.
Dreadnought
21-Sep-06, 09:43
I have been reading this post and replies with great interest. I agree with most of the replies, so didn't feel the need to repeat my feelings. But Dreadnought I have to say some of your ideas are way off the mark. What is this last statement supposed to imply? Sounds to me as though you have a pretty big chip on your shoulder, could be because of one of many gripes you seem to have. By the way, I am all the things you seem to dislike in a human being, I'm an overweight smoker who likes a drink! what would you suggest the system does with 'the likes of me' ??
If 'the system' said to you, "You have deliberately ruined your own health, you will no longer receive free care", would you continue to ignore your health?
If 'the system' said to you, "You have deliberately ruined your own health, you will no longer receive free care", would you continue to ignore your health?
Dreadnought, I'm afraid to say, I think you are over simplifying the matter - everyone would fall into this category - can you be 100% certain that you don't over-indulge on anything? alcohol, food, exercise, salt intake - the list is endless! Or do you under-indulge? Can you say that every day you drink 2 litres of water as recommended?
Nobody (IMO) lives the 'perfect' lifestyle, but we should all be treated with respect & care. I wonder if it was your parents or children that were smokers and in need of care that you would insist that the NHS should not treat them. I certainly wouldn't turn my back on anyone that needed care just because they'd chosen a lifestyle that I didn't agree with.
j4bberw0ck
21-Sep-06, 10:52
Point of entry care and billed for any further costs upon recovery.
Ah, more non-clinical staff being employed. Beancounters everywhere. I thought that was a big no-no at the moment? Richard Hammond's case isn't covered by the legislation under which costs are recovered from insurance companies, which defines charges on a per-day basis, and only applies to road traffic accidents. There's no process for pursuing non-payment and no legal framework within which the NHS can charge for emergency services.
Non-payment is a whole other minefield; Jeremy Vine recently interviewed a man in his sixties who'd waited for a heart valve replacement. He was in danger of dying at any time. Told the length of the waiting list, he learned that if he went privately he'd get his op within a few weeks, but at a cost of £10,000. He checked into hospital, gave them the cheque, and had his op. Then his cheque bounced - he had no savings, nothing at all, and no way of paying the £10,000.
How would you see the NHS proceeding against people who'd had treatment and refused / were unable to pay?
If 'the system' said to you, "You have deliberately ruined your own health, you will no longer receive free care", would you continue to ignore your health? I would say fine, but you get no more national insurance contributions from me!, then I could quite happily afford private health
I did not say you don't deserve treatment, I said you should not get free treatment on the NHS. YOU have chosen to ruin YOUR health. You KNOW tobacco will cause you health problems. Why should the rest of us pick up the tab? As you are paying £72 a week NI, it is pretty obvious you can also afford private health care.I know if I cross enough roads I am likely to get knocked down, if I play sport I am likely to suffer an injury, if I engage in certain occupations I am likely to suffer either accidental injury or injury at the hands of others.
And don't think that staying in bed is safe either, you would be surprised at the number of people who are injured by accidentally falling out of bed.
How smug we all are when we can point the finger and say, "It's all your own fault." when something happens to others and not to ourselves.
I was nearly sixty before I was hospitalised as an adult. Perhaps I should smugly walk around boasting how clever I am for not having been in need of Hospital Treatment for all that time.
But, then again, perhaps being a little humble and accepting that I simple had good luck and fortune would be wiser rather than pontificating at people who have not been so fortunate because none of us knows what might happen to us tomorrow, even those who feel morally superior because of their choice of a particular life-style.
Perhaps those who put their lives at risk to save others are undeserving of the NHS because they are well aware of the risks they are taking, after all, nobody forces them to do such things, it is something they choose to do knowing full well the risks they are taking.
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 09:49
How smug we all are when we can point the finger and say, "It's all your own fault." when something happens to others and not to ourselves.
So drug addicts (smokers, alcoholics, heroin/cocaine/whatever users) are entirely blameless are they? They 'accidentally' got cancer/emphysema/heart disease/whatever?
I stand by my statements. If there were no Government supplied hammock for addicts to rely on there would not be so many addicts.
It is true in all aspects of modern life. The welfare state was created to aid people from the cradle to the grave, instead we now have people who depend on welfare from cradle to grave because once on welfare there is no incentive to get off it and help themselves, they even make lifestyle choices based on what handouts they can get.
The Welfare State needs a long overdue overhaul to get it back to what it was created for. Make it back into a safety net and take down the hammock.
Reading various posts here it is obvious my lack of a brainwashed politically-correct bleeding-heart upsets some.
Reading various posts here it is obvious my lack of a brainwashed politically-correct bleeding-heart upsets some.
It has nothing to do with your lack of brainwashed politically-correct bleeding-heart, its your lack of heart full stop. :roll:
connieb19
24-Sep-06, 10:31
Dreadnought, I agree with what you're saying about welfare being a way of life for some people but I'm not sure what you mean about who should and shouldn't get free NHS treatment.
Most addicts are working people who pay their taxes.
My dad has smoked since he was 12, he's now 65. He has never had a day off work sick.
I know some-one else, who has never worked a day in his life, who dosn't smoke, never away from the doctor because his prescriptions are free.
Are you saying that should my dad ecome ill, then he shouldn't be given the treatment but this other person should.
Why shouldn't every-one be entitled to the same treatment?
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 10:58
Dreadnought, I agree with what you're saying about welfare being a way of life for some people but I'm not sure what you mean about who should and shouldn't get free NHS treatment.
Most addicts are working people who pay their taxes.
My dad has smoked since he was 12, he's now 65. He has never had a day off work sick.
I know some-one else, who has never worked a day in his life, who dosn't smoke, never away from the doctor because his prescriptions are free.
Are you saying that should my dad ecome ill, then he shouldn't be given the treatment but this other person should.
Why shouldn't every-one be entitled to the same treatment?
Because many who had no choice in their ailment are going without treatment, or having to wait years for treatment, because resources are being wasted on addicts: people who choose to ruin their health. An example in point, George Best, a lifelong alcoholic, Doctors tell him if you carry on drinking you WILL die. He stops drinking, gets a liver transplant on the NHS, and then starts drinking again, destroys his second liver and dies.
All that NHS money and rersources, not to mention a donor organ, wasted on someone who was going to kill themselves anyway. Surely (as examples) that would have been better spent on a newborn with heart and lung problems or on an elderly person waiting for hip or knee replacements? Basically on people who won't waste the opportunity free NHS treatment will give them.
That is my point. But hey, feel free to ignore it, I'm 'heartless'. :lol:
connieb19
24-Sep-06, 11:05
Because many who had no choice in their ailment are going without treatment, or having to wait years for treatment, because resources are being wasted on addicts: people who choose to ruin their health. An example in point, George Best, a lifelong alcoholic, Doctors tell him if you carry on drinking you WILL die. He stops drinking, gets a liver transplant on the NHS, and then starts drinking again, destroys his second liver and dies.
All that NHS money wasted on someone who was going to kill themselves anyway. Surely (as examples) that would have been better spent on a newborn with heart and lung problems or on an elderly person waiting for hip or knee replacements? Basically on people who won't waste the opportunity free NHS treatment will give them.
That is my point. Butg hey, feel free to ignore it, I'm 'heartless'. :lol:But who would make the decision?
George Best might have stopped drinking , or what if the baby who had heart and lung rroblems gets to the age of 9 or 10 and starts taking drugs?
How do you decide?
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 11:10
But who would make the decision?
George Best might have stopped drinking , or what if the baby who had heart and lung rroblems gets to the age of 9 or 10 and starts taking drugs?
How do you decide?
I will repeat this one last time. I am NOT saying do not treat those people. I am saying if they choose to damage their own health they should have to pay for private health care, take out private health insurance to cover any health costs they may incur. Therefore relieving the NHS of a massive burden and allowing it to improve its service for everyone else.
This point seems to escape several in this thread who only appear to be taking part so they can type ad hominem attacks.
I will quite happily pay for private healthcare when the goverment stop taking money off of me for my healthcare. It's that simple.
connieb19
24-Sep-06, 11:30
I will repeat this one last time. I am NOT saying do not treat those people. I am saying if they choose to damage their own health they should have to pay for private health care, take out private health insurance to cover any health costs they may incur. Therefore relieving the NHS of a massive burden and allowing it to improve its service for everyone else.
This point seems to escape several in this thread who only appear to be taking part so they can type ad hominem attacks.
Don't people on welfare get enough handouts though?
Who's going to pay for their health insurance?
Won't welfare become even more of a hammock?
Sorry to be stupid, I'm sure it will sink in eventually what you are trying to say lol.
So drug addicts (smokers, alcoholics, heroin/cocaine/whatever users) are entirely blameless are they? They 'accidentally' got cancer/emphysema/heart disease/whatever?
I stand by my statements. If there were no Government supplied hammock for addicts to rely on there would not be so many addicts.
It is true in all aspects of modern life. The welfare state was created to aid people from the cradle to the grave, instead we now have people who depend on welfare from cradle to grave because once on welfare there is no incentive to get off it and help themselves, they even make lifestyle choices based on what handouts they can get.
The Welfare State needs a long overdue overhaul to get it back to what it was created for. Make it back into a safety net and take down the hammock.
Reading various posts here it is obvious my lack of a brainwashed politically-correct bleeding-heart upsets some.We could always go back to dumping unwanted people in Work Houses and and unmarried mothers into Mental Institutions and dumping inconvenient children into Foundlings Homes.
I don't think anybody has ever arrived at the conclusion previously that I have been brainwashed into being Politically Correct, in fact I can think of many posters who would describe me as being one of the least Politically Correct people on the board.
And just to clarify one small error, the NHS was never designed to be a "Safety Net" otherwise the Politicians who created it would have encouraged the use of Private Health Care which they demonstrably did not do. Their intention was to provide Health Care for all, free at the point of delivery. They certainly made no distinction as to who should get treatment and what illnesses were unacceptable for treatment.
You have obviously been brainwashed by this Governments Spin that anybody with poor health is the creator of their own misfortune because of their life style and that people with Mental Health Problems are merely Work-shy.
As for your comment about addicts being a product of the Welfare State I think you will find that there were far more addicts of all kinds in Victorian Times when there very definitely no "Welfare State".
You have been brainwashed, Dreadnaught, not into being Politically Correct but into believing that the things you complain bitterly about are all modern problems never encountered before. The people you complain bitterly about are not the cause of the problems in the NHS, the system is collapsing because of the modern idea that people must be prevented from dying whatever the cost.
The Government bombards us with "Health Warnings" about all manner of things including what we eat in order that people will live longer healthier lives whilst complaining bitterly that they can see no way that the increased numbers of aging people can be provided for.
People who insist on doing everything possible to extend their lifespan are becoming a burden on Society and will need an excessive proportion of the Countries finances to support them by way of Care and Pensions.
To aim to live as long as possible with no thought for the rest of Society is selfish in the extreme.
Live fast, love hard, die young and stop aiming to become a burden on Society by striving to lengthen your life beyond Three Score Years and Ten!
Definition of fallacoius "ad hominem" argument ( NOT ATTACK):
1) A makes claim X.
2) There is something objectionable about A.
3) Therefore claim X is false.
The X would be the treatment of drug addicts, alcoholics and smokers on NHS funds.
The A would be dreadnought.
What is it that everyone finds objectionable with regard to Dreadnought?? I find absolutly nothing at all objectionable about you because I know nothing at all about you. I suppose that most, if not all people who objected to your "X statement" to be in the same boat. So I don't understand why you think you are suffering ad-hominem attacks when what people find objectionable and reeking of discrimination when one element of this type of argument is missing.
Now why do I use a word like discriminatory? Because policies like these tend to extend, grow, gain a life of their own. Look at history and at the compulsory sterilization of handi-capped people enacted by many countries in the XXth century (China, India, Germany and, suprisingly Alberta and British Columbia in Canada and the USA) and Nazi regime in search of the perfect (arian) race (Nuremburg laws). These started as a concern that people carriers of genetic imperfections were at risk of reproducing their defect in offspring. It grew into programmes where sterilization became not only compulsory, but often carried out against the will of the patient or even without their knowledge.
I know that this is going to be thrown back at me as having nothing to do with the original theme of thiks thread, but ( at least to me and I am sure to others) the paralels are evident. You can choose to try understand these paralels or not, Dreadnought, but please do not call it an attack ( especially of the ad hominem type- gosh, I am getting tired of typing latin)
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 11:47
I am NOT saying do not treat those people. I am saying if they choose to damage their own health they should have to pay for private health care, take out private health insurance to cover any health costs they may incur. Therefore relieving the NHS of a massive burden and allowing it to improve its service for everyone else.
Saves me typing it again. :roll:
And don't think that staying in bed is safe either, you would be surprised at the number of people who are injured by accidentally falling out of bed.
Or the ones that die because they spend too much time in bed or on the sofa, now that you mention it.;)
Kaishowing
24-Sep-06, 12:40
Perhaps in a perfect world, people who do have what some would term as 'self-inflicted health issues' and have the means to do so, should pay for their treatment.....but certainly not forced to.
The NHS is for everyone regardless of status...that was the idea when it was set up.
If people have the means for private treatment either through insurance schemes, or paying directly, then they're lucky enough to have that option that a majority of the population do not.
I seem to remember the outcry when a politician used private health to treat a member of his family to get her off the NHS waiting list...(and another occasion when some children of politicians went to a private school rather than state schools,)
Despite the politician having a six figure salary, he was accused of not having faith in the NHS.
(Personally if I had the cash and a loved one needed an op and I could get her instant treatment, I wouldn't hesitate)
The waiting lists are a scandal.....but thats what happens when the need far outstips the resources, either in donor organs or staff and beds etc.
By people buying into private health schemes and stopping their contributions, the NHS would suffer even more than it is now.
In no time at all we would be in the same mess that the USA have at the moment, where the poor can't affoard to get ill!
(IMHO)The only answer that seems to be in the original spirit of the NHS is what they're doing now...trying to get people more aware of their health...offering help to quit smoking, being aware of the hazards of drink and drug use, and give support when needed etc.
It's far from perfect, but our NHS is the envy of the world...and it's an imperfect world anyway!
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 13:15
The average smoker spends about £130 a month on their habit. Private health insuranced can be had for as little as £19.00 a month.
Kaishowing
24-Sep-06, 13:26
I may be wrong....but I thought most Health Insurance Schemes need proof of a 100% clean bill of health before you join....otherwise anything found in the medical is termed as a 'pre-existing condition' and isn't covered.
Plus I think any health issue can only be claimed for once or twice before the insurance is invalidated. So if there was an on-going health condition, at best you'd get help twice, then have to pay full whack!
So people with congentital illnesses would still be forced to rely on the NHS or pay thousands for private care.
Back to square one.
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 13:36
Drug related diseases are not congenital.
changilass
24-Sep-06, 13:42
The average smoker spends about £130 a month on their habit. Private health insuranced can be had for as little as £19.00 a month.
About £100 of your original estimated £130 is taxes (don't know the right figures, this is just a guess), so I think I have more than paid for any treatment I may need.
I then buy fuel for the car and pay a hefty amount in taxes for this as well.
Hubby pays approximately £220 in NI contributions on a monthly salary of £2700.
I think between us we are entitled to any treatment we may need.
Having said that I can't believe you are nothing more than a wind up merchant who has managed to get us all going, after all - no one could really be that blinkered:D
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 14:13
Not blinkered, not wearing rose tinted specs either.
You have three patients in front of you. One is an alcoholic in need of a liver transplant, the next is a chronic* smoker in need of long term chemo and possibly a lung transplant, the third is a 3 year old in need of a heart-lung transplant.
You only have money enough to treat ONE of them. No ifs or buts, which one do you treat?
*Doctors refer to anyone who smokes on a regular basis, ie every day, as 'chronic'.
changilass
24-Sep-06, 14:19
Very simple answer to this one, whoever is the best match for the organs available.
The same organs that you would use for the adults would probably be of little use to the young child.
With regards to the liver, they would be able to treat all 3 if it was required.
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 14:25
I said you only have the MONEY to treat one of them. No ifs or buts. Which ONE do you treat.
Having said that I can't believe you are nothing more than a wind up merchant who has managed to get us all going, after all - no one could really be that blinkered
Changilass, I always thought you were quicker than that, you have only now sussed he is a wind up merchant[disgust]
And Changi, you keep smoking and drinking and driving your car, my HMC&E pension is running low, and I need your payments to keep Mrs G in the manner she wishes[lol]
rockchick
24-Sep-06, 14:51
Not blinkered, not wearing rose tinted specs either.
You have three patients in front of you. One is an alcoholic in need of a liver transplant, the next is a chronic* smoker in need of long term chemo and possibly a lung transplant, the third is a 3 year old in need of a heart-lung transplant.
You only have money enough to treat ONE of them. No ifs or buts, which one do you treat?
*Doctors refer to anyone who smokes on a regular basis, ie every day, as 'chronic'.
You treat the one that has the best chance of benefitting from the operation. As Changilas pointed out, this is usually the one with the best donor/recipient match. It may be the 3 year old, but if the smoker is the only one who matches the blood type (oversimplification of matching process I know) then that patient is the one who gets the chance.
I see where you're coming from - there's only so much cash to go around and choices for treatment need to be made. The problem I have with your argument is where do you draw the line? If doctors/hospitals are given the choice to withhold care based on non-medical reasons such as societal or religious reasons, then a dangerous precedence is set. If two people have AIDS, and one got it by naughty sexual practices, whereas the other got it by sharing needles, who do you treat? Do you exclude one group, but not the other?? It's just not right to exclude someone from treatment because of how they got that way.
The average smoker spends about £130 a month on their habit. Private health insuranced can be had for as little as £19.00 a month.That being the case then why should the people you mention contribute to the NHS?
Work out just how much of that £130 goes to the Government? Smokers contribute in excess of 8 billion pounds to the exchequer in addition to paying the same National Insurance as everybody else. Alcohol similarly produces almost 14 billion.
I love the argument that by excluding people I don’t agree with will leave more for those who live by my rules.
Thank heavens that people with that sort of selfish, self-centred attitude are few and far between.
Using that type of argument then people who choose not to have children could complain that those who wish to have families should pay for their own Maternity costs instead of burdening the NHS, after all, it’s their own choice so why should the rest of us pay?
People who sustain injuries playing sport or during recreational pursuits could fall into the same category.
Why draw the line there, people who injure themselves in the home usually do so because of some action they perform of their own free will.
People who take up dangerous occupations should pay for their own Healthcare because they have a choice in the job they choose.
What about people who do not take the recommended amount of exercise? Take too much salt? Eat the wrong sort of food? Those who are considered to be over-weight? Those who have high cholesterol?
All the above cause unnecessary illnesses according to the Health Gestapo so where do you decide to draw the line?
There is always somebody somewhere who thinks that there are others who are less deserving because of their actions.
There are even those who believe that spending money on Health Care for the elderly is a waste on the grounds that that you are only staving off the inevitable and the money could be better spent elsewhere.
Of course, the people you choose to exclude from NHS care should not have to pay one penny piece towards a service they cannot use.
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 15:40
'Thank heavens that people with that sort of selfish, self-centred attitude are few and far between.'
You don't think it is selfish to smoke/drink/shoot up/snort all your life knowing it will cause cancer/heart disease/liver disease and then expect the NHS to cough up to save your life? To hog resources that could save lives where people had no choice in their ailment?
Addicts should stand up and take responsibility for their own actions (in this case their blatant disregard for their own health) and should stop expecting 'the Government' or the NHS to nanny them.
changilass
24-Sep-06, 15:49
Hope you realise you have talked yourself into not getting nhs treatment along with the rest of us who wontonly risk our own health.
One of these days you may just fall of your high horse and injure yourself. You should have thought more carefully before getting on it:lol:
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 15:55
Hope you realise you have talked yourself into not getting nhs treatment along with the rest of us who wontonly risk our own health.
How so?
I would answer the rest of your post but it is irrelevant to the discussion.
And you have yet to answer my earlier question. Which ONE do you treat. No ifs or buts.
changilass
24-Sep-06, 15:57
I didn't put any ifs or buts, I answered your question fully. Not everything comes down to money.
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 16:11
I didn't put any ifs or buts, I answered your question fully. Not everything comes down to money.
This is true. But my question was specific. You blethered in your answer and have avoided answering the question.
You have three patients in front of you. One is an alcoholic in need of a liver transplant, the next is a chronic* smoker in need of long term chemo and possibly a lung transplant, the third is a 3 year old in need of a heart-lung transplant.
You only have money enough to treat ONE of them.
No ifs or buts, which one do you treat?
rockchick
24-Sep-06, 16:35
This is true. But my question was specific. You blethered in your answer and have avoided answering the question.
She did answer your question, by pointing out (correctly, IMHO) the criteria she, as a doctor, would use to choose who to treat. You may not LIKE the answer, because you can't see past the blinkers that you've put on...that people need to be treated according to how they got the condition. Doctors can't do that, nor should they be put into a position of having to.
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 16:40
I asked a question. People have avoided answering that question.
I asked 'You only have money enough to treat one of them. No ifs or buts. Which one do you treat?'
rockchick
24-Sep-06, 16:46
I asked a question. People have avoided answering that question.
I asked 'You only have money enough to treat one of them. No ifs or buts. Which one do you treat?'
Right...I'll try again...
Money is not the criteria for choosing treatment in the scenario you described. Suitability for the treatment is the criteria.
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 16:50
Right...I'll try again...
Money is not the criteria for choosing treatment in the scenario you described. Suitability for the treatment is the criteria.
I'll type this slowly so YOU understand.
MONEY is the criteria in the question. Answer the question that was asked.
rockchick
24-Sep-06, 16:58
I'll type this slowly so YOU understand.
MONEY is the criteria in the question. Answer it.
Well, if money is the criteria, I guess it's whoever can bribe the doctor the biggest, or donate the most to the hospital fund.
Reminds me of a little johnny joke:
An elementary school math teacher asked her class one day, "If there are three birds on a wire, and a farmer shot one, how many are left?"
One little boy said two, but little Sally, realizing it was a trick question, said, "None, 'cause everyone knows that if you shoot at birds they all fly away." The teacher congratulates her on her correct answer.
Little Johnny, however, disagreed. He said, "No, there would be one -- the one that the farmer shot."
The teacher replied, "No, Johnny, you're wrong, but I like the way you think."
"OK, teacher, I have a riddle for you," boasted Johnny. "Let's say three women are at a bar and they each order a single scoop ice cream cone. The first one eats it by gently licking it around the edges, the second slowly sucks the ice cream off the cone from the top, and the third gobbles the top and then sucks the rest out of the cone. Which one is married?"
After a few seconds of contemplation, the teacher replied, "Well, I think it must be the third, the one that gobbles the top and sucks out the inside."
Johnny responded, "No, teacher, you're wrong -- it's the one with the wedding ring. But I like the way you think."
j4bberw0ck
24-Sep-06, 17:04
This is entertaining.... I quit this thread because Dreadnought wouldn't answer simple questions; now I see him accusing others of doing the same :lol: despite the fact that his questions are over-simplistic and completely unrealistic, and moreover designed to confuse the issue. He likes his Latin, does Dreadnought, so here's another bit for him: reductio ad absurdum.
By wanting to exclude certain groups from NHS treatment, he's advocating the complete dissolution of the NHS, because he's introduced risk into the equation. It's central to the thinking behind the whole organisation that everyone gets treatment, regardless of reason for illness, free at the point of use. The GMC guiding principles are that no one is refused treatment by reason of lifestyle or for any other reason.
He also misses completely the point of what the NHS is intended to be - the National HEALTH Service. So, if there's a problem with smokers, drinkers, overweight people, people who indulge in high risk sexual practices, people's diet, or other aspects of a healthy lifestyle, the solution to the problem is not to refuse NHS treatment, but for the NHS to spend resources on Health Education - which is a central plank of its strategy. There's a Health Promotion Service in Wick, I believe; there's certainly one here in Kirkwall. Their job is to talk to people and show them how they can manage their lives along healthier lines. You'll never convince everyone, of course, but rather that than a world run along Dreadnought's lines.
You will wake up NOW
You will do 20 pressups
You will clean your teeth for 3 minutes
Careful with that razor - we don't want to be barred from NHS treatment because of carelessness
NO! You can't have a bacon butty for breakfast on a Sunday morning, It has high levels of salt and fat. Eat your Weetabix. It's all for your own good.
Leave the car at home today, please. You had a glass of wine last night. Did you mark it down on your list of units consumed?
Walk on the inside edge of the pavement, please, it's less risky.
Just do as I say and you'll be OK.................... can you imagine that, all day, every day? :lol:
Well, if money is the criteria, I guess it's whoever can bribe the doctor the biggest, or donate the most to the hospital fund.
"
Or who has the best connections: Politicians don’t wait in line and neither did George Best. It's not who you know .....or is it?
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 17:12
I do not answer your questions jabberwock, because you persistently try to put words in my mouth and claim I said things which I clearly did not. Seems to be a common theme among the org's drug addicts: don't like whatis being said? Then dismiss the discussion and attack the messenger.
[quote=Dreadnought;138092]Not blinkered, not wearing rose tinted specs either.
You have three patients in front of you. One is an alcoholic in need of a liver transplant, the next is a chronic* smoker in need of long term chemo and possibly a lung transplant,
So if one or two of the quote received the treatment they required, and still indulged in their 'habit', should they receive treatment again and again?
Let us never forget, that anything is excess in dangerous, and lets be fair, most if not all of us, do something to excess. - posting on these boards may be just that excess
rockchick
24-Sep-06, 17:28
[quote=Dreadnought;138092]Not blinkered, not wearing rose tinted specs either.
You have three patients in front of you. One is an alcoholic in need of a liver transplant, the next is a chronic* smoker in need of long term chemo and possibly a lung transplant,
So if one or two of the quote received the treatment they required, and still indulged in their 'habit', should they receive treatment again and again?
Let us never forget, that anything is excess in dangerous, and lets be fair, most if not all of us, do something to excess. - posting on these boards may be just that excess
Laff..so none of us should expect treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome!!!
rockchick
24-Sep-06, 17:30
Dreadnought, you never answered my question...which AIDS patient would you treat, assuming you have facilities for only one? The drug addict or the sexual deviant?
No ifs, ands or buts now...
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 17:36
What about the person who got HIV from an infected blood transfusion, or the wife who got infected by her unfaithful husband (or vice versa), there are many ways to become HIV infected...
I'm curious as to what is a 'sexual deviant'?
And you still assume I would not treat people. I have clearly stated: I am NOT saying people should NOT be treated, I am saying that those who deliberately and knowingly make themselves grievously ill should not expect FREE treatment on the NHS, but instead should pay for their treatment.
changilass
24-Sep-06, 17:41
I have clearly stated: I am NOT saying people should NOT be treated, I am saying that those who deliberately and knowingly make themselves grievously ill should not expect FREE treatment on the NHS, but instead should pay for their treatment.
I think it is you that is missing the point, I already do pay for treatment in hte form off NI contributions and taxes.
[QUOTE=
I have clearly stated: I am NOT saying people should NOT be treated, I am saying that those who deliberately and knowingly make themselves grievously ill should not expect FREE treatment on the NHS, but instead should pay for their treatment.[/QUOTE]
It is an interesting point but the difficulty is where do you draw the line. If poeple eat prepackaged food? have a glass of wine or two on the weekends? dont exercise as much as they should? drive? scuba dive? sail?
I am being extreme but these all carry an element of risk that could make them ill, grievously or otherwise, should they be treated?
I see your point but I would not want to be the one to draw the line.
rockchick
24-Sep-06, 17:44
What about the person who got HIV from an infected blood transfusion, or the wife who got infected by her unfaithful husband (or vice versa), there are many ways to become HIV infected...
I'm curious as to what is a 'sexual deviant'?
And you still assume I would not treat people. I have clearly stated: I am NOT saying people should NOT be treated, I am saying that those who deliberately and knowingly make themselves grievously ill should not expect FREE treatment on the NHS, but instead should pay for their treatment.
The sexual deviant is a rephrasing of the initial question. I'll reiterate: The choice is someone who got AIDS through "non-christian" sexual practices, or by sharing needles for drug addiction purposes. You, the doctor, have medication or facilities for only ONE patient. These are the only patients and you must choose between them.
SO, answer the question...who do YOU treat?
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 17:47
The sexual deviant is a rephrasing of the initial question. I'll reiterate: The choice is someone who got AIDS through "non-christian" sexual practices, or by sharing needles for drug addiction purposes. You, the doctor, have medication or facilities for only ONE patient. These are the only patients and you must choose between them.
SO, answer the question...who do YOU treat?
I don't know, I would probably refrain from offering the addict free treatment. But that is only because I think it extremely discriminatory to refuse treatment to 'non-Christians'.
rockchick
24-Sep-06, 17:50
I don't know, I would probably refrain from offering the addict free treatment. But that is only because I think it extremely discriminatory to refuse treatment to 'non-Christians'.
Ah haaaaa..couldn't answer without a "but" in there, could you!
It's extremely discriminatory to refuse treatment to ANYONE for anything other than medical grounds, ie. cuz the treatment won't work, or it'll make the situation worse.
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 17:52
I still don't know what you mean by 'deviant or non-christian sexual practices'. Perhaps then I could answer your question.
'Non-Christian sexual practices' could mean anything... is it doing it with the light on? Or maybe doing it for fun rather than procreation? Or maybe doing it with no clothes on? Or outside of 'wedlock'?
rockchick
24-Sep-06, 17:59
I still don't know what you mean by 'deviant or non-christian sexual practices'. Perhaps then I could answer your question.
You already answered my question, even if you included a "but"! next time, use "because"...
In case you are woefully ignorant of the main methods of transferring the AIDS virus, I was trying to rephrase anal sex in a way that would be palatable to any under-16's that are perusing these forums.
Anyways, you already made my point. It's discrimination to pick and choose who receives treatment for outside criteria; we all pay taxes (whether through income tax, VAT, poll or other taxes) and we are all entitled to the services of the NHS. Period.
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 18:10
In case you are woefully ignorant of the main methods of transferring the AIDS virus, I was trying to rephrase anal sex in a way that would be palatable to any under-16's that are perusing these forums.
Actually the infection rate is highest through straightforward unprotected heterosexual sex.
Anyways, you already made my point. It's discrimination to pick and choose who receives treatment for outside criteria; we all pay taxes (whether through income tax, VAT, poll or other taxes) and we are all entitled to the services of the NHS. Period.
In the modern world, with an NHS struggling to provide a coherent service, I am saying that has to change. People should take responsibility for their own actions and stop expecting to be nannied and breast fed by the state their whole lives.
rockchick
24-Sep-06, 18:22
Actually the infection rate is highest through straightforward unprotected heterosexual sex.
note that heterosexuals have anal sex too...but I'd love to know where you got your statistics for this one.
In the modern world, with an NHS struggling to provide a coherent service, I am saying that has to change. People should take responsibility for their own actions and stop expecting to be nannied and breast fed by the state their whole lives.
People should take responsibility for their own actions, true, but your initial proposition, that drug addicts should pay for their own treatment because they caused their condition, is discriminatory and isn't right in my opinion.
All of us have habits that may lead to some medical condition or another...where do you draw the line? What constitutes fault? If you're the driver in a car that was involved in an accident, do you have to pay for your treatment, but your passengers get it for free?
You may not like drug addiction, it's not my favourite part of society either, but that doesn't mean I want to treat addicts as pariahs. Equal access to available treatment, IMHO.
riggerboy
24-Sep-06, 18:30
I asked a question. People have avoided answering that question.
I asked 'You only have money enough to treat one of them. No ifs or buts. Which one do you treat?'
the one with the greates chance of a complete recovery, does that answer you question,
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 18:30
note that heterosexuals have anal sex too...but I'd love to know where you got your statistics for this one.
The Department of Health (http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/HealthAndSocialCareTopics/HIV/HIVFAQ/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4039431&chk=lDUbeh#4383744). HIV spreads just as easily through vaginal sex as it does through anal sex.
In fact most medical authorities will tell you the same (http://www.medic8.com/healthguide/articles/hivprevention.html).
http://www.avert.org/uksummary.htm
'The number of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK has risen hugely over the last 15 years. In 1999, for the first time, the rate of heterosexually acquired HIV diagnoses overtook the rate of diagnoses in men who have sex with men. During 2005, there were 3,839 reports of heterosexually acquired HIV, and a total of 32,361 had been reported by the end of June 2006.
Many of the new diagnoses are in people who probably acquired HIV in other countries. However, the number of infections probably acquired from heterosexual sex within the UK has soared from 180 in 1998 to 521 in 2005.'
riggerboy
24-Sep-06, 18:34
I asked a question. People have avoided answering that question.
I asked 'You only have money enough to treat one of them. No ifs or buts. Which one do you treat?'
or you could do the math and make a decision on who has paid in the most to the NHS, given the fact that the childs parents contribution should also be a factor.
rockchick
24-Sep-06, 18:47
The Department of Health (http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/HealthAndSocialCareTopics/HIV/HIVFAQ/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4039431&chk=lDUbeh#4383744). HIV spreads just as easily through vaginal sex as it does through anal sex.
In fact most medical authorities will tell you the same (http://www.medic8.com/healthguide/articles/hivprevention.html).
Do you even read these before you reference them?
The Department of Health: "Sex between men remains the major transmission route for HIV in the UK i.e. gay/bisexual men remain at highest risk of acquiring HIV infection within the UK."
HIV Prevention Site: "Unprotected anal intercourse and sharing needles and syringes carry a very high risk of spreading HIV. Oral sex and even protected anal sex may carry a higher risk than has been previously thought. "
This site does go on to say that "However, recent evidence raises the possibility that perceived low-risk sexual activities may carry a higher risk than previously thought."
but that doesn't justify your statement.
Where you may have been led astray is that statement that the RATE of new cases in heterosexuals is rising faster than among other groups, but that's not the same as saying it has the same risk. It does not. HIV requires a pathway, either through a break in the skin, or an ulcer, possibly through tissue changes that can occur during menstruation.
Dreadnought
24-Sep-06, 18:50
Where you may have been led astray is that statement that the RATE of new cases in heterosexuals is rising faster than among other groups, but that's not the same as saying it has the same risk. It does not. HIV requires a pathway, either through a break in the skin, or an ulcer, possibly through tissue changes that can occur during menstruation.
http://www.avert.org/uksummary.htm
'The number of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK has risen hugely over the last 15 years. In 1999, for the first time, the rate of heterosexually acquired HIV diagnoses overtook the rate of diagnoses in men who have sex with men. During 2005, there were 3,839 reports of heterosexually acquired HIV, and a total of 32,361 had been reported by the end of June 2006.
Many of the new diagnoses are in people who probably acquired HIV in other countries. However, the number of infections probably acquired from heterosexual sex within the UK has soared from 180 in 1998 to 521 in 2005.'
Anyone who believes that you 'only get HIV through anal sex' is dicing with death.
Just use the Essex girls method of safe sex keep the car doors locked
Alice in Blunderland
24-Sep-06, 19:05
Not blinkered, not wearing rose tinted specs either.
You have three patients in front of you. One is an alcoholic in need of a liver transplant, the next is a chronic* smoker in need of long term chemo and possibly a lung transplant, the third is a 3 year old in need of a heart-lung transplant.
You only have money enough to treat ONE of them. No ifs or buts, which one do you treat?
*Doctors refer to anyone who smokes on a regular basis, ie every day, as 'chronic'.
According to my other half the child would be looked at first to receive the treatment without a doubt!
j4bberw0ck
24-Sep-06, 19:30
I do not answer your questions jabberwock, because you persistently try to put words in my mouth and claim I said things which I clearly did not. Seems to be a common theme among the org's drug addicts: don't like whatis being said? Then dismiss the discussion and attack the messenger.
Dearie me........ no, Dready, I just tried to get you to answer some questions about where you'd draw the line. Your reductio ad absurdum techniques here are a device to get people to agree to one point, and then use that agreement to try to demolish their arguments in turn; if that isn't putting words in people's mouths, then I don't know what is.
I'd also point out that the very fact you've been drawn into debating with rockchick about whether this person or that person should receive treatment has exposed the weakness of your argument; that if things were done the way you want them done, we'd be into a never-ending round of "should Patient A pay whereas Patient B with the same condition gets care for free". And of course, amongst the questions you didn't answer was one where I asked how the NHS should proceed in the event of non-payment, for those forced to pay.
If you want the NHS to become a money generator for the lawyers, that's one way of making it happen. I suggested before (lightheartedly) that you are, perhaps, a politician. I realise now I may have been wrong. Perhaps you're a lawyer :lol: .
j4bberw0ck
24-Sep-06, 19:37
People should take responsibility for their own actions and stop expecting to be nannied and breast fed by the state their whole lives.
And it's in no way paradoxical that this is a point we can agree on. But first you have to get The State to stop wanting to nanny people. And even though I agree with you on this point, it still does not follow that the NHS should provide differential levels of service.
If you were arguing that that people should have the freedom to choose whether they want private health care or to rely on the NHS - and conceivably receive tax breaks on their insurance - but still be able to rely on the NHS for emergency treatment, treatment for extremely severe illness or perhaps care in extreme old age - then we'd be somewhat closer to agreeing..
rockchick
24-Sep-06, 19:41
http://www.avert.org/uksummary.htm
'The number of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK has risen hugely over the last 15 years. In 1999, for the first time, the rate of heterosexually acquired HIV diagnoses overtook the rate of diagnoses in men who have sex with men. During 2005, there were 3,839 reports of heterosexually acquired HIV, and a total of 32,361 had been reported by the end of June 2006.
Many of the new diagnoses are in people who probably acquired HIV in other countries. However, the number of infections probably acquired from heterosexual sex within the UK has soared from 180 in 1998 to 521 in 2005.'
Anyone who believes that you 'only get HIV through anal sex' is dicing with death.
I did not say nor imply that anal sex was the ONLY method for contracting AIDS. It is, however the most likely sexual transmission route.
Hate to point out the blatantly obvious to you, but HIV transmission between men to women can still take place through anal sex.
However any type of sexual activity with an infected partner that causes a tear or break in the membranes, through which bodily fluids can pass, provides an easier pathway (hence greater risk of transmission) for the AIDS virus.
rockchick
24-Sep-06, 19:44
And it's in no way paradoxical that this is a point we can agree on. But first you have to get The State to stop wanting to nanny people. And even though I agree with you on this point, it still does not follow that the NHS should provide differential levels of service.
If you were arguing that that people should have the freedom to choose whether they want private health care or to rely on the NHS - and conceivably receive tax breaks on their insurance - but still be able to rely on the NHS for emergency treatment, treatment for extremely severe illness or perhaps care in extreme old age - then we'd be somewhat closer to agreeing..
Maybe the health care system we had in Ontario is the answer...Residents who carried OHIP cards (i.e. everyone who lived there longer than 3 months) were entitled to free, basic treatment. Emphasis however was on BASIC. If you wanted any frills, such as a semi-private room instead of a ward, your private insurance had to pick up the difference. Luckily most good companies offer a health plan to their employees.
j4bberw0ck
24-Sep-06, 19:54
I'm an admirer of the French healthcare system, I must admit, and the German. The system you describe in Ontario sounds similar in some ways.
Niall Fernie
25-Sep-06, 08:16
Can I ask, how much use of the forum would get you banned from being treated by the NHS? Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/carpal_tunnel.html) anyone?
I'm assuming under Dreadnoughts NHS rules, my husband would not be treated either as he works in a job requiring a lot of heavy lifting and is therefore putting himself at risk of getting back problems.
Where do you draw the line? You try to eat healthy so you are entitled to 'free' care, but in your determination to stay trim, you end up with an eating disorder - knowing you are risking your life if you continue, but to eat normally, you risk becoming a bit tubby - risking your health. :lol:
I pay my contributions every week/month and have done since the age of 16 - having held both a full-time and part-time job for the majority of the time, I've never taken 'drugs', have been a casual smoker in the past, do drink - although on average less than the recommended number of units (although usually a months worth in an evening :) ). I think I live a relatively sensible life and hope I don't have much need for NHS treatment, but I have also seen people on their death beds and would hope that a humane death wasn't dependant on the balance in their bank account.
Dreadnought
25-Sep-06, 09:10
I'm assuming under Dreadnoughts NHS rules, my husband would not be treated either as he works in a job requiring a lot of heavy lifting and is therefore putting himself at risk of getting back problems.
Where do you draw the line? You try to eat healthy so you are entitled to 'free' care, but in your determination to stay trim, you end up with an eating disorder - knowing you are risking your life if you continue, but to eat normally, you risk becoming a bit tubby - risking your health. :lol:
I pay my contributions every week/month and have done since the age of 16 - having held both a full-time and part-time job for the majority of the time, I've never taken 'drugs', have been a casual smoker in the past, do drink - although on average less than the recommended number of units (although usually a months worth in an evening :) ). I think I live a relatively sensible life and hope I don't have much need for NHS treatment, but I have also seen people on their death beds and would hope that a humane death wasn't dependant on the balance in their bank account.
Nicotine and alcohol are drugs. They may be legal, but they are drugs. Your husband would qualify for NHS care because any injury would be work related, and not the result of a deliberate choice to ruin his own health.
Can I ask, how much use of the forum would get you banned from being treated by the NHS? Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/carpal_tunnel.html) anyone?
What about RSI Niall, can I get NHS treatment for that, or is that self inflicted?
Dreadnought....where do you draw the line?
connieb19
25-Sep-06, 09:15
Nicotine and alcohol are drugs. They may be legal, but they are drugs. Your husband would qualify for NHS care because any injury would be work related, and not the result of a deliberate choice to ruin his own health.
:lol: No NHS for you then Henry20 lol. :eek:
I asked a question. People have avoided answering that question.
I asked 'You only have money enough to treat one of them. No ifs or buts. Which one do you treat?'
This is an easy answer actually dreadnought.The one that clinically benefits from the treatment the most. That is the only criteria that counts and the only criteria that actually offers value for money. Treating someone who clinically doesnt benefit is a waste of money becasue there will be more problems with the treatment than benefits. Morality should not and MUST not ever come into these sorts of decisions.
One life is not worth more than another, one patient isnt more deserving than another. Holier than thou attitudes cannot be allowed to impinge on clinical decision making.
Can I ask, how much use of the forum would get you banned from being treated by the NHS? Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/carpal_tunnel.html) anyone?
I would get mine treated niall [lol] I got it when pregnant and it is related to my underactive thyroid too. So all yous lot would have to wait cos i would get tot he frint of the queue;)
Nicotine and alcohol are drugs. They may be legal, but they are drugs. Your husband would qualify for NHS care because any injury would be work related, and not the result of a deliberate choice to ruin his own health.
Aspirin, paracetamol ........ they are all drugs.
As I said, I was a smoker in the PAST, does this mean that I should or shouldn't get 'free' NHS treatment that I have been contributing to for the last 10 years? or does it only apply if I get lung cancer?
If I was a 'chronic' smoker (which I never was) or an alcoholic and was in a car accident, do I get treatment???? neither the smoking or the drinking would have put my health at risk on this occassion (assuming I wasn't a drink-driver)
So are you proposing, that, if you ran the NHS, ANYONE that drank at all would not be entitled to treatment? As you say it is a drug - surely the fact that it is legal to drink means that you are comitting no crimes. No doctor I have ever seen has said that I am not to drink as it is bad for my health.
Dreadnought has fallen into the trap set for people by the Government and the people at the top of the Health Service. It is one that has been used many times before.
Find a scapegoat and invent a reason to accuse them of being responsible for some particular problem which it is your job to solve. That way you absolve yourself of any responsibility and can let the problem fester because you have distanced yourself from the problem. Having convinced people that the blame lies elsewhere you can then ignore the problem and do absolutely nothing about it.
Were smokers and drinkers the cause of all the problems with the NHS then the current problems would have arisen decades ago when there were a far greater proportion of the population who were smokers.
To blame smokers and drinkers for the fact that Hospitals are not kept clean is the frailest argument I have heard of late.
Dreadnought, you obviously have a bee in your bonnet about certain sections of society.
Be assured of one thing though, I have no wish to see bee-stings abolished from the list of "acceptable" Medical Conditions.
As for your comment earlier about not being Politically Correct, your suggestions are probably amongst the most PC around.
"You must conform the norms I find acceptable or you should be made to suffer until you do!"
What you are suggesting is to have a Health Service which treats only those who you find to be behaving in an acceptable manner.
"I don't like it so you should be stopped from doing it!" We haven't quite arrived at that dictatorial level yet as a Nation but don't worry Dreadnaught, there are those in power who wish to control us from the Cradle to the Grave. There are even those who believe that treating the elderly is a waste of NHS spending.
Perhaps we should stop taking the elderly into Hospital causing Bed Blocking problems just to artificially prolong their lives. Once you start down the path you suggest you must accept that others have different ideas of who should or should no receive treatment.
You would be surprised how much money the NHS could save if they refused treatment to those I considered should be providing for their own Health Care. The Budget could be cut by 90% and still leave enough to treat all the "Drug Addicts" and for the Wards to be kept clean.
The Government and the NHS Trusts are just trying to hide their own incompetence by finger wagging at others.
“Government by Gimmick”, and you swallowed it Hook, Line and Sinker. Unfortunately that is something the NHS does not treat because there is no known cure. I do so hope the affliction wears off eventually, it must be terribly debilitating.
Dreadnought
25-Sep-06, 15:42
To blame smokers and drinkers for the fact that Hospitals are not kept clean is the frailest argument I have heard of late.
Nowhere did I say anything about drug addicts being to blame for poor hospital hygeine.
Dreadnought, you obviously have a bee in your bonnet about certain sections of society.
Be assured of one thing though, I have no wish to see bee-stings abolished from the list of "acceptable" Medical Conditions.
As for your comment earlier about not being Politically Correct, your suggestions are probably amongst the most PC around.
It seems to me that all those arguing in favour of the 'poor hard done by drug addicts' are the politically correct in this thread. My personal opinion is all drug addicts should be refused all help and should be left to their own devices. Its called natural selection.
"You must conform the norms I find acceptable or you should be made to suffer until you do!"
Again, nowhere did I say this.
What you are suggesting is to have a Health Service which treats only those who you find to be behaving in an acceptable manner.
No. I am saying that those who choose to ruin their own health should finance their own healthcare rather than use up resources which could be used for those who had no choice in needing healthcare.
"I don't like it so you should be stopped from doing it!" We haven't quite arrived at that dictatorial level yet as a Nation but don't worry Dreadnaught, there are those in power who wish to control us from the Cradle to the Grave.
Yet again,I did not say this. Is this the best you can do? LIE about what others have said?
Perhaps we should stop taking the elderly into Hospital causing Bed Blocking problems just to artificially prolong their lives. Once you start down the path you suggest you must accept that others have different ideas of who should or should no receive treatment.
You would be surprised how much money the NHS could save if they refused treatment to those I considered should be providing for their own Health Care. The Budget could be cut by 90% and still leave enough to treat all the "Drug Addicts" and for the Wards to be kept clean.
And yet you criticise me?
The Government and the NHS Trusts are just trying to hide their own incompetence by finger wagging at others.
“Government by Gimmick”, and you swallowed it Hook, Line and Sinker. Unfortunately that is something the NHS does not treat because there is no known cure. I do so hope the affliction wears off eventually, it must be terribly debilitating.
Not at all. I have no 'afflictions'. I am free to think and say as I please, unrestricted by political correctness.
Yes, you are free to say and think as you please, as are the rest of us.
I personally feel that it is difficult to differentiate between 1 person who has ruined their own health & another.
If I drink 1 glass of wine, have I chosen to ruin my own health?
If I was a smoker, but am involved in a car crash, do I get NHS care?
I'm just intrigued as to what is or isn't risking your own health in your eyes dreadnought.
Do you have to be T-total? never smoked in your life?
Or is it acceptable to have a couple of drinks and have seen the error of your ways & given up smoking?
I have never condemned you for having views in my posts, just trying to point out that its difficult to say who should or shouldn't get treatment.
Surely everyone that pays tax is entitled to healthcare? What about those unable to work? or unemployed?
It seems to me that all those arguing in favour of the 'poor hard done by drug addicts' are the politically correct in this thread. My personal opinion is all drug addicts should be refused all help and should be left to their own devices. Its called natural selection.
I havent seen anyone arguing in favour of the "poor hard done by drug addict" as you put it. The arguments against the point that you put forward are around equality and fairness. People should be treated in a fair and objective manner. Everyone should be seen as equal in a national health system and decisions about treatment should be objective and based on clinical benefits not financial savings or on morality issues. According to your philosophy the hippocratic oath or the World Medical Association International Code of Medical Ethics should include the words "but only if i agree with their lifestyle".
Those people expressing disbelief in your posts appear to be expressing disbelief at your lack of compassion and judgmental attitude and your absolute inability to see that "there but for the grace of God go I". Compassion and understanding are not political correctness dreadnought they are desireable traits. I hope you never have to face the fact that someone you love has fallen into an alcohol or drug addiction and deal with the fall out of that.
Dreadnought
25-Sep-06, 16:33
Where have I been 'judgemental'? I do not lack compassion, I just have no sympathy at all for drug addicts, they have made their choice, it is up to them to live with the consequences of that choice.
I have plenty of compassion for those who deserve help.
Have you never questioned why people turn to drugs? It is not always just for fun, (may I just point out I have never touched drugs of the illegal variety)
Some of these people have deep-rooted problems that haven't been treated properly in the first place and turn to drugs in an attempt to escape these problems.
Also, do you also condemn these people if they have turned to cannibas as a pain relief? I have NEVER taken cannibas or harder drugs, nor do I intend to. But if I was suffering in an illness and thought this was the only way to relieve my suffering, I think I'd have to give it a go.
The tone of all your posts has been judgmental and lacking on compassion. You would not offer free treatment to drug addicts, smokers, alcoholics because it is their own fault - this implies quite clearly that you do not understand that many of these people have underlying issues which make them more susceptible to addictions. Can i make it clear here that i am not talking about the genetic issue because i am undecided about that. I am talking about psychological issues and mental health issues which can lead to drug and alcohol dependency. You talk about choice as though people wake up one morning and think "I am going to be an addict from today" You mention that if they dont pay for their treatment then you would not treat them and that would be that. Inferring that you would just let them die - "removes the stupid fromt he gene pool" i think you said. You talk about people relying on welfare all their lives but never answer the questions about those people that have smoked for forty years and paid into the system all their lives.
To summarise your views and take them to their logical conclusion - those people who become addicted to substances which damage their health should not receive free treatment and if they wont or cant pay for their treatment then they should be left to die.
Please correct me if i am wrong - if you dont mean that these people should be left to die then what would you expect to happen to them?
Dreadnought
25-Sep-06, 17:03
Ah, here we go. The answer to all today's problems and the big politically correct cop out for those who refuse to be responsible for themselves... underlying causes. "It wasn't his fault he murdered the old lady for 50p, he had a bad upbringing..." or "It isn't their fault they shove needles in their arms and drink five bottles of scotch a day, they had a hard time at work..." That's Tony Blair's way of thinking. "We don't need more police, we need more understanding for criminals..."
:roll:
Dreadnought, how I wish I lived in your shoes and had never had to meet people who have suffered badly in their lives. Not everyone has the strength to stop themselves from falling into the 'trap' of drink or drugs.
I DO NOT approve of drug addiction, but I am aslo aware that some of these drug users do want to stop - be it a 'chronic' smoker or a heroin addict.
I had a good upbringing and good family & friends around me. I like to drink, but I am no alcoholic. I am lucky in life, but I know a lot that are worse off than me. Some are strong and get through it. Some aren't so lucky.
Some have had good upbringings and just choose drugs recreationally and become addicted. Once again, I hope this never happens to any of your family.
If someone collapsed in a nightclub of suspected drug use, I am assuming you wouldn't want them treated. How can you tell if these drugs were taken willingly or if the persons drink was spiked. Unfortunately, it does happen.
Dont be so facetious
its not about having a "bad upbringing" or "having a bad time at work" Look around you there are far worse things - children who are abused, sexually, physically and emotionally, a case i knew about where a child's parents kept her in a shed - yes thats right - in a shed with a bucket to pee into and a bowl in which she got her COLD food. The papers last week talked about the failure of our system for dealing with young people who need looking after because for a variety of reasons they cant stay at home with their parents. We fail those most vulnerable time after time after time - can we be surprised when a boy whos father beat him beats up someone else? Can we be surprised when a child who's mother is a drug addict turns to drugs herself? When a man who was sexually abused as a child uses alcohol to deal with that? Can we really say these people could see choices and were equipped to make the right ones?
These are not having a bad time these are appalling and devastating things that people experience and which may leave them shattered and unable to deal with life.
Some people are weaker and some stronger, some manage their lives and drag themselves through and overcome adversities like this but some never do. Their lives are scarred and they turn to drugs alcohol etc to block out or replace something in their lives. How can you say that this is their choice and that they are stupid and shoudl be left to die?
Dreadnought
25-Sep-06, 17:37
As I said...
Ah, here we go. The answer to all today's problems and the big politically correct cop out for those who refuse to be responsible for themselves... underlying causes. "It wasn't his fault he murdered the old lady for 50p, he had a bad upbringing..." or "It isn't their fault they shove needles in their arms and drink five bottles of scotch a day, they had a hard time at work..." That's Tony Blair's way of thinking. "We don't need more police, we need more understanding for criminals..."
:roll:
You said nothing at all once again - you might as well leave your posts empty for all the sense that made!!!!
Seems to me that there might be a couple of things going on here. One, you might actually believe the things you say but havent thought them through. this would indicate you belong to the stupid group you talk about in your signature. The other alternative is that you are just playing devil's advocate which is fine but you have to say something - just repeating yourself is dull and unimaginative. Might help if you actually answer some of the questions i and others put to you but of course that would mean you would have to put some meat on the bones of the argument you make and you dont seem to be able to do that.
You make a big thing about people being politically correct and taking responsibility but you dont seem to be able to differentiate between political correctness and social responsibility. The comments people have made are talking about a collective responsibility for each other rather than simply being politically correct. Maybe thats the issue here - maybe you dont understand about collective responsibility and can only see individual responsibility. I dunno because you dont say very much = you simply repeat your thing over and over again. It seems that in your world only the strong survive and the IM alright jack so why would i care about you attitude would be the main one. Fall over in the street Dreadnought, and when in your world everyone thinks you are an alcoholic waster and steps over you see how you like it then
Dreadnought
25-Sep-06, 18:57
What is going on here is I see no point in continuously repeating myself.
You think drug addicts are poor misunderstood 'socially responsible' unfortunates who should have millions of pounds of taxpayers money thrown at them to 'help' them.
I think drug addicts should take responsibility for their own actions. Sink or swim.
Guess you have no answers then - i was right - simply ill thought out nonsense.
Phew i thought you REALLY might have had an point worth making and i would have had to work hard to challenge it;)
Guess not which is fortunate really cos singing calls
rockchick
25-Sep-06, 20:38
Hope you don't sprain your wrist polishing the rust off your halo, cuz the NHS wouldn't pay for your self-inflicted injury under your scheme Dreadnought!
You think drug addicts are poor misunderstood 'socially responsible' unfortunates who should have millions of pounds of taxpayers money thrown at them to 'help' them.
I think drug addicts should take responsibility for their own actions. Sink or swim.
Ok back from singing (flow gently sweet Afton among thy green braes) to find an edited post - lets see.
It appears that you didnt understand my post. I beleive that people should be treated with compassion and where they need help to live a productive life they should be able to get that help, whether that be rehab or nhs treatment for a hip replacement. I also beleive that resolving some of the social ills that pervade our society would improve a whole range of problems we have - not simply drug addiction. As an example there was a recent discussion on children leaving care and the issues from that are shocking - improve the care system so that instead of the majority leaving care with no qualifications children leave well educated and qualified and you will reduce those sinking into crime unemployment and drug addiction. I beleive that as a society WE have a responsibility to these children - if we fail our responsibilities as we are doing at the moment how can we expect them to learn to take responsibility for themselves?
I beleive that reducing poverty, improving housing, increasing opportunities, supporting people who are excluded through mental illness or unemployment or other problems will all improve the health of people in society and will reduce people's drift into drug and alcohol abuse.
Where this isnt possible then people should be offered treatment to deal with their illnesses based on their clinical need not on whether they as people are worth anything. Your system would create a group of people who are excluded from NHS treatment because they inflict it on themselves and who cannot afford to pay. They would be left to rot because a load of little dreadnoughts think that somehow they are morally superior and can decide who has the right to life or death.
Dreadnought
25-Sep-06, 23:05
They would be left to rot because a load of little dreadnoughts think that somehow they are morally superior and can decide who has the right to life or death.
Where have I claimed moral superiority? I also did not say anything about people dying.
What I said was if people want to deliberately ruin their own health, then they should bear the responsibility for that and pay for their healthcare.
I don't expect you to comprehend that, lets face it, I have said it plainly enough umpteen times now and you haven't understood it yet. So lets agree to differ, I'll carry on being a free thinker, unconstrained by political correctness, and you carry on being a politically correct, wishy-washy liberal.
j4bberw0ck
26-Sep-06, 00:19
If you have to resort to insult then you have lost the debate.
Ooooohhhhh! An opportunity for more Latin! Quod erat demonstrandum, I think.
Nice one, Dready...... :lol: How's the foot? I imagine shooting oneself in it is painful; if self-inflicted it may even bar one from NHS treatment. Shall we have a whip-round for a stick for Dready?
Here's my 2p....... :lol:
Can give you two sticks, provided free from NHS - Raigmore Hospital:lol:
Shall we have a whip-round for a stick for Dready?
I'll give you 1p - just incase I give myself a severe paper cut at work and have to pay for treatment. I knowingly go to work, work with paper, knowing I always get paper cuts.
Oh to have a risk free job :roll:
Dreadnought
26-Sep-06, 08:32
Ooooohhhhh! An opportunity for more Latin! Quod erat demonstrandum, I think.
Nice one, Dready...... :lol: How's the foot? I imagine shooting oneself in it is painful; if self-inflicted it may even bar one from NHS treatment. Shall we have a whip-round for a stick for Dready?
Here's my 2p.......
Read through the thread. I have been goaded and attacked all the way through. I have continued to debate without getting personal and now I make one slight retaliatory remark and you jump on it? How old are you? :roll:
Dreadnought
26-Sep-06, 08:43
I'll give you 1p - just incase I give myself a severe paper cut at work and have to pay for treatment. I knowingly go to work, work with paper, knowing I always get paper cuts.
Oh to have a risk free job :roll:
I am the manager of a frozen food warehouse. It is a very dangerous environment, with temperatures as low as -25 celsius, I have to drive forklifts and do a lot of heavy lifting within that environment. Yes there is risk, but that is why employers have employers liability insurance. If yours does not have insurance maybe you should reconsider your position with them.
Dreadnought, you seem to miss the point that people on this thread are making, whether 'clean living' or not, they pay their contributions towards health care. Why on earth should they get any treatment different to you or I??
You know nothing of their lifestyles and nor would the hospital.
How do you decide what is acceptable living or not? How does anyone? I'm not talking about drug-addicts, I'm talking in general.
Or for that matter, what constitutes drug-addiction in your eyes? You have said to me that cigarettes and alcohol are drugs. I have asked what level of alcohol costitutes a drug-addict in your eyes? Do you have to be T-total? Does the fact I had a drink (just one) last night mean I would not be deemed fit to be treated in your eyes?
Also, my drink was a sweetheart stout - high in iron and my reason for drinking it was because I have been extremely tired and have in the past been aneamic (sorry, not sure of spelling) and wanted to give my iron levels a boost.
connieb19
26-Sep-06, 09:04
Dreadnought, you seem to miss the point that people on this thread are making, whether 'clean living' or not, they pay their contributions towards health care. Why on earth should they get any treatment different to you or I??
You know nothing of their lifestyles and nor would the hospital.
How do you decide what is acceptable living or not? How does anyone? I'm not talking about drug-addicts, I'm talking in general.
Or for that matter, what constitutes drug-addiction in your eyes? You have said to me that cigarettes and alcohol are drugs. I have asked what level of alcohol costitutes a drug-addict in your eyes? Do you have to be T-total? Does the fact I had a drink (just one) last night mean I would not be deemed fit to be treated in your eyes?
Also, my drink was a sweetheart stout - high in iron and my reason for drinking it was because I have been extremely tired and have in the past been aneamic (sorry, not sure of spelling) and wanted to give my iron levels a boost.
These are exactly the same questions I would like answered too?????
j4bberw0ck
26-Sep-06, 09:07
I have continued to debate without getting personal and now I make one slight retaliatory remark and you jump on it?
Well, I'm sorry, but we must disagree again. You haven't debated very much as far as I can see; just stuck to your entrenched position and avoided any question which would be difficult or contradictory to answer. As for "slight retaliatory remarks", I'd have to remind you that it was, after all, you who first played the "oh I'm being insulted" card, when in fact, you weren't. And what's sauce for the goose..........
How old are you? :roll:
Old enough to know the difference between a bit of fun and your emotionally-charged adherence to an unworkable scheme.
Now, away with you. You have money to earn to pay your taxes so layabouts, drug addicts and immigrants can benefit from your largesse.
Where have I claimed moral superiority? ....So lets agree to differ, I'll carry on being a free thinker, unconstrained by political correctness, and you carry on being a politically correct, wishy-washy liberal.
Your whole asrgument is about moral superiority - your decision that people with addictions do not deserve free health care - that is a decision based upon YOUR values about their lifestyles and basing your system on the fact that your lifestyle is better than theirs and therefore you should get free healthcare and they shouldnt. Is that not about moral superiority?
As as for a free thinker:eek:
you havent said anything to suggest you have thought about ANYTHING. I am amazed how little thinking you actually appear to do. You cannot answer any questions about your proposed system, you ignore the questions that challenge your proposal, you have NO IDEA about making things workable and NO IDEA about equality and fairness. You dont think dreadnought, you just switch on your computer and reply by rote
"people who are addicted to something should not be entitled to free health care"
"people who are addicted to something should not be entitled to free health care"
"people who are addicted to something should not be entitled to free health care"
"people who are addicted to something should not be entitled to free health care"
"people who are addicted to something should not be entitled to free health care"
Where is the free thinking there? If i didnt know better i would think you were actually a robotic reply service - there is no evidence of compassion, humanity, ability to reason things out or any sign of intellgent debate there is just the repetition over and over again of your half baked idea.
Dreadnought
26-Sep-06, 09:30
Dreadnought, you seem to miss the point that people on this thread are making, whether 'clean living' or not, they pay their contributions towards health care. Why on earth should they get any treatment different to you or I??
I did not say they should get a different level of treatment, I said they should have to pay for treatment or have private insurance that will pay for treatment.
You know nothing of their lifestyles and nor would the hospital.
How do you decide what is acceptable living or not? How does anyone? I'm not talking about drug-addicts, I'm talking in general.
I am not talking in general, I am talking about drug addicts: smokers, alcoholics, heroin users, cocaine users etc.
Or for that matter, what constitutes drug-addiction in your eyes? You have said to me that cigarettes and alcohol are drugs. I have asked what level of alcohol costitutes a drug-addict in your eyes? Do you have to be T-total? Does the fact I had a drink (just one) last night mean I would not be deemed fit to be treated in your eyes?
Smokers, alcoholics, heroin users, cocaine users, etc. And again, I did not say they should not be treated, I said they should pay for their treatment or have private insurance that will pay for their treatment.
Dreadnought
26-Sep-06, 09:34
... and immigrants...
I have no problem at all with immigrants. They bring skills and labour which this country needs, and they help to bolster the economy. I live in an area where there are many immigrants. I don't know of a single one who is not working. There are many of the indiginous population, however, who sit around all day lazy and unemployed, complaining about 'immigrants on benefits'.
Smokers, alcoholics, heroin users, cocaine users, etc. And again, I did not say they should not be treated, I said they should pay for their treatment or have private insurance that will pay for their treatment.
What happens when they cant afford to pay for treatment or private insurance that will pay for their treatment?
Dreadnought
26-Sep-06, 09:38
Your whole asrgument is about moral superiority - your decision that people with addictions do not deserve free health care - that is a decision based upon YOUR values about their lifestyles and basing your system on the fact that your lifestyle is better than theirs and therefore you should get free healthcare and they shouldnt. Is that not about moral superiority?
I have not said anywhere that my lifestyle is better than theirs. I have said that if people deliberately choose to ruin their health with drugs then they should not expect to be a burden on the NHS. You on the other hand would put drug addicts before the baby in need of life saving surgery or the elderly person in need of joint replacements.
Dreadnought
26-Sep-06, 09:41
What happens when they cant afford to pay for treatment or private insurance that will pay for their treatment?
They can afford the drugs. They can afford the healthcare. They have a choice, drugs or healthcare.
j4bberw0ck
26-Sep-06, 09:43
I have no problem at all with immigrants. They bring skills and labour which this country needs, and they help to bolster the economy.
I apologise. :)
You on the other hand would put drug addicts before the baby in need of life saving surgery or the elderly person in need of joint replacements.
Naughty naughty dreadnought
This actually what i said in the answer to your question about the baby, the elderly person and the drug addict
This is an easy answer actually dreadnought.The one that clinically benefits from the treatment the most. That is the only criteria that counts and the only criteria that actually offers value for money. Treating someone who clinically doesnt benefit is a waste of money becasue there will be more problems with the treatment than benefits. Morality should not and MUST not ever come into these sorts of decisions.
One life is not worth more than another, one patient isnt more deserving than another. Holier than thou attitudes cannot be allowed to impinge on clinical decision making.
You have complained about misrepresentation and here you are doing it yourself. Tut tut
They can afford the drugs. They can afford the healthcare. They have a choice, drugs or healthcare.
More choices!!!!
But what happens when they cant afford it? when they need help to stop? When they cant get insurance bcause they once smoked, drank to excess or took drugs? What happens when they cant afford it?
j4bberw0ck
26-Sep-06, 09:54
They can afford the drugs. They can afford the healthcare. They have a choice, drugs or healthcare.
And on that marvellous piece of quasi-deductive reasoning based on absolutely no information at all so far as I can see, I think I'm out of here again before my sense of awe entirely overcomes me......... :lol:
Dreadnought
26-Sep-06, 10:01
Naughty naughty dreadnought
This actually what i said in the answer to your question about the baby, the elderly person and the drug addict
You have complained about misrepresentation and here you are doing it yourself. Tut tut
You have defended drug addicts right through this thread. What other assumption can I make other than you care more about addicts getting free care than the examples I mention getting free care? I state a truth. The elderly, the young, in fact people from all age groups are not getting care because resources are being taken up to treat people who will waste the opportunity that treatment gives them. An addict rushed in for treatment because they have overdosed, will undoubtedly be back again for the exact same treatment. That is a waste of NHS resources. Better to that addicts pay for their care or take out private insurance.
Dreadnought
26-Sep-06, 10:04
And on that marvellous piece of quasi-deductive reasoning based on absolutely no information at all so far as I can see, I think I'm out of here again before my sense of awe entirely overcomes me......... :lol:
The average smoker will spend about £140 a month feeding their habit. An alcoholic will spend what? £200 or so? Private health insurance is a lot cheaper than that. They can afford the drugs they can afford the healthcare.
You have defended drug addicts right through this thread. What other assumption can I make other than you care more about addicts getting free care than the examples I mention getting free care? I state a truth.
You didnt need to make any assumption the answer was clear there right under your nose at post #159. I care about each individual getting the best most appropriate care they need in their particular circumstances. I have defended an individuals right to free health care whatever their circumstances and lifestyle and not being judged against a ticklist created by sanctimonious individuals who have no insight into life outside their own wee narrow experience. I care about equality and fairness. I care about decisions being made on the basis of clinical benefit not moral opinion.
The elderly, the young, in fact people from all age groups are not getting care because resources are being taken up to treat people who will waste the opportunity that treatment gives them. An addict rushed in for treatment because they have overdosed, will undoubtedly be back again for the exact same treatment. That is a waste of NHS resources. Better to that addicts pay for their care or take out private insurance.
what happens when they cant afford it.
isnt that the third time i have asked this question
They can afford the drugs they can afford the healthcare.
What happens when they cant?
I did not say they should get a different level of treatment, I said they should have to pay for treatment or have private insurance that will pay for treatment.
Ahem, I think you'll find that I quite clearly said that they make contributions. If I 'choose' to become an alcoholic, can I kindly be repaid the money I have contributed over the last 10 years and not used on my 'free' healthcare up to date. Then I can put it towards my healthcare in the future.
Smokers, alcoholics, heroin users, cocaine users, etc. And again, I did not say they should not be treated, I said they should pay for their treatment or have private insurance that will pay for their treatment.
And I have asked how you interpret a drug addict - is it from the first sip of alcohol? from taking too many paracetamols in a day? is it from the first puff of a drug? or is it someone that has 1 drink a day? takes an aspirin a day (some believe its good for the heart)? someone that puffs on drugs each day?
j4bberw0ck
26-Sep-06, 11:28
The average smoker will spend about £140 a month feeding their habit. An alcoholic will spend what? £200 or so? Private health insurance is a lot cheaper than that. They can afford the drugs they can afford the healthcare.
Aaaaarrghhhh........ I have to respond to that one, and I'm sorry, it'll be a long post.
Risk-based medical care is yet another group of points you wouldn't respond to, quite early on in this thread. Your reasoning is over-simplistic again.
If an alcoholic or heavy smoker (any smoker, come to that) went to a Health Insurance company their premiums would be so heavily loaded that £140 or £200 a month would look like chicken feed; if they could get cover at all.
I know, I know...... on your planet that just validates all you're saying. But if you go risk-based for one group, then my point is that you should go risk-based for all, because as has been endlessly pointed out, there are a million or more shades of grey between reality and your black / white, yes / no, 0 / 1 oversimplification. Scottish health generally is pretty poor - read the stats and weep - but if smokers are penalised, then how do you deal with the deep-fried pizza / deep-fried Mars Bar brigade? The 30% of adults who are overweight to the point of obesity?
There'd be a considerable upside to going risk-based in terms of the nation's health, because people really would have to have one eye on their lifestyle to keep the premiums down, but you've consistently failed to describe how you'd account for those who can't pay, or won't pay, or who receive treatment and won't pay subsequently.
Ironically, and just going back to the opening point about loaded insurance premiums, if you, say, had a government that required insurance companies to provide cover for smokers and drinkers, then that cover would have to be affordable, right?
So firstly, since smoking in particular can be proved to be an activity predominantly of the lower-paid in society, you're proposing to tax the lower paid at a higher marginal rate than those on higher incomes. I don't want to steer this off into tax policy, but we already have a situation in this country where the lowest paid pay the highest marginal rates of tax - and that after ten years of a Labour government, under whom the position has worsened dramatically. If you need me to explain marginal tax rates, just let me know.
Secondly, the insurance companies would have to balance the lower-than-necessary premiums for smokers / drinkers / drug abusers on low incomes by charging everyone more and subsidising the lower premiums. So how have we moved on from tax and NI, exactly? All that's happened is you've put in 15 layers of expensive bureaucracy which has absorbed money which could have been used for treating people.
Cross-subsidy is the way the world works. Your car insurance premium, for instance, is about 20% higher than it needs to be because the insurers have to pay out for claims where one driver wasn't covered, so you and I subsidise them. Prices in shops are higher because they have to cover the cost of shoplifting toerags. It's clear to me that you haven't even begun to think through the realities of what you propose. You're just venting hot air.
So, I ask again. The 16 year old, life-threateningly drunk for the first time. Condition brought about by not having learned / been told that if you gulp spirits, you're in trouble. What treatment does he receive, and what does it cost?
The former smoker. Quit some years ago, led a blameless life since, now diagnosed with lung cancer. Charge him or treat him free?
Someone with debts running out of control because of redundancy, job loss, or illness. The debts might have been seen as manageable while in a job. Pressure from creditors results in non-payment of health insurance premiums. Diagnosed with an illness possibly related to smoking. Solution? Let them die? Bankrupt them? Force everyone to take vastly overpriced sickness and accident insurance on their credit commitments?
The extremes of the black / white spectrum are easy to manage, and that's where you're hiding yourself while you do your King Solomon act. The million shades of grey in the middle are the bits you're avoiding like the plague. That's the bit that takes thinking about. I suggest you try it.
I think Dreadnought has a wonderful idea, it would save them having to wait to go into Hospital, they would be able to get first class treatment before everybody else. Of course the Government would have no excuse to put punitive taxes on tobacco and alcohol. the only tax should then be VAT, like every other product. That would mean that alcohol and tobacco would be reduced by the 80% Excise Duty that would leave smokers about £80 in pocket after they had paid the amount Dreadnought suggests for Medical Insurance and Alcoholics with an even greater saving.
Dreadnought, in view of your deep understanding of addictions and the ease of curing them why don't you submit a paper to one of the Medical Journals, I'm sure they would publish it to save all the expense of the studies carried out Worldwide by highly educated medical researchers. I'm certain they will be relieved that you have solved all their problems.
A short Memo to the Department of Health might also prove fruitful. Such a simple solution to overspend in Health Trusts would be most welcome and a certain Election Winner, they might even invite you to join the Government as Minister of Health. I really can't understand why they didn't think of it before.
Personally I would solve the problem of the overspend and also bed blocking by putting an upper age limit of 80 on operations for degenerative diseases due to age. That way the NHS would be able to calculate it's needs well into the future because it would have a better idea of how many patients it would have in future instead of having to guess people's life expectancy.
It would also leave more resources to give improved treatment to younger people who have a greater life expectancy. Wasting large amounts of money to extend people lives by a handful of years makes no sense whatsoever especially when there are medical conditions suffered by children which causes them an early death. Better to put resources into them than cluttering the NHS up with geriatrics dragging an extra year or two out of life.
It would also mean that MRSA would be less of a problem because younger healthier people are more likely to have less problem with it because of their stronger immune systems.
I simply don't understand the fascination with constantly trying to extend life expactancy ad infinitum, it seems totally selfish and self-centred to me. Mind you, I suppose they have to do it to keep their relatives happy and stop them complaining that not enough was wasted keeping them alive.
I have usually found that the elderly are usually quite reasonable about their fate, it's the relatives who are completely unable to cope with the inevitable and try to find a scapegoat to vent their spleen on.
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 10:04
There is a discussion elsewhere on the Org at the moment concerning someone who leapt into Wick harbour. A few say they wasted vital resources by their foolish actions.
So, deliberately jump into a harbour and tie up the police, coastguard, ambulance service, and people agree that this fool should have to pay for the time wasted by those services.
Abuse drugs and waste resources and people don't think the drug abusers should have to pay for time wasted by the emergency services?
It is the same issue, only the time scale is different.
j4bberw0ck
27-Sep-06, 10:06
Different argument, Dreadnought.
Are you going to respond to the questions asked, for a change, or describe how insurance might work in such a way that you don't have to subsidise the people you're railing against?
Dreadnought, you came back to answer my questions ............................
oh ........
wait........
you didn't :(
Anyhow, on this note:
How can you be sure this 'jumper' was not a manic depressive?? From the other thread/newspaper, it would not appear that this person jumped for fun (although, I do not know the real reasons and possibly never will - nor will anyone else for that matter).
My question with your views on the NHS and its treatment of people is where do you draw the line?
For example, someone with severe depression goes to the doctor, doesn't get the treatment to help them (maybe the medication/counselling didn't help) they then go on to attempt suicide - an aambulance is called, a hospital stay is involved etc. etc. WHO is at fault? The NHS in the first place for not recognising the problem? Or the person for suffering from depression?
Depression is not a choice - IMO everyone suffers depression to a degree, not always life threatening or needing treatment.
I agree that a lot of resources went into saving this chap who ended up in the water, but hopefully he will get the help he deserves if it was a suicide attempt
So, deliberately jump into a harbour and tie up the police, coastguard, ambulance service, and people agree that this fool should have to pay for the time wasted by those services.
Abuse drugs and waste resources and people don't think the drug abusers should have to pay for time wasted by the emergency services?
What happens when they cant
A few say they wasted vital resources by their foolish actions.
He was unconscious - how is rescuing an unconscious man a waste of resoources
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 15:41
Different argument, Dreadnought.
It is the same argument. Whether a fool jumps into a harbour, or someone ruins their health with drugs, the end result is the same. NHS resources taken away from people with genuine illnesses and wasted on people who made a conscious choice to damage themselves.
What happens when they cant
Then its tough luck. I certainly won't lose any sleep over them.
Then its tough luck. I certainly won't lose any sleep over them.
So what happens to them?
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 15:45
So what happens to them?
I really don't care.
Let me get this right then
You dont care what happens to those people who are either
drug addicts
smokers
alcoholics
mentally ill so that they attempt suicide
if they cant afford to pay for their treatment or emergency rescue.
Are you saying you dont care if they die? Is this what you are really saying? Or is the fact that you are saying you dont care an inidcation that you can see your suggestion is unworkable
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 16:21
I said nothing about the mentally ill.
As for the rest, yes, I DON'T CARE. They have made their choices, they can live (or die) with them.
It is the same argument. Whether a fool jumps into a harbour, or someone ruins their health with drugs, the end result is the same.
How do you know this person wasn't mentally ill?
Whether a fool jumps into a harbour, or someone ruins their health with drugs, the end result is the same. NHS resources taken away from people with genuine illnesses and wasted on people who made a conscious choice to damage themselves.
does this not refer to those people who are mentally ill and attempt suicide?
j4bberw0ck
27-Sep-06, 16:24
Got any children, Dreadnought?
If yes, I hope you never end up having to reflect bitterly on your charming and informed viewpoint.
If not, it's probably just as well.
And BTW, any chance of you answering the practical questions about how your scheme of things would actually work?
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 16:32
does this not refer to those people who are mentally ill and attempt suicide?
So now you are trying to excuse drug addicts by claiming they are mentally ill? Puh-leeze! :roll:
lets paint a picture
You have a daughter, a beautiful charming and loving daughter. She goes away to college and she struggles with a new place , the pressures and the stress she feels, she begins to smoke a little, then someone offers her heroin and she bows to their pressure and takes some - she is hooked, her appearance deteriorates, you are worried, you try to talk to her, she doesnt listen she doesnt stop, she becomes desperate, you lock her in your house to get her to go cold turkey but she cant - she begs you to help her - you cant get her in a rehab programme because there are no NHS places and the private ones start from £10 000. She takes an overdose and is critically ill, you find her she has no insurance, you are on a pension and cant afford the cost of treatment, her income support has stopped because she hasnt been in to register - she forgot in her drug induced haze. You turn up at the hospital and the man on the door employed to make sure people can pay says - sorry mate - no chance - no insurance no treatment. YYOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TAKE HER HOME AND WATCH HER DIE.
Are you really that heartless? Do you rteally think this is RIGHT? Can you really not see that this is WRONG? Morally, socially and from a humane pont of view?
So now you are trying to excuse drug addicts by claiming they are mentally ill? Puh-leeze! :roll:
Dont be deliberately obtuse i was talking about this bit "Whether a fool jumps into a harbour"
It is the same argument. Whether a fool jumps into a harbour, ......, the end result is the same.
Then its tough luck. I certainly won't lose any sleep over them.
I think this is the part of the quote squidge was referring to - nobody has implied that drug addicts=mental health
'words' 'in' 'mouth' springs to mind
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 16:44
lets paint another picture
You have a daughter, a beautiful charming and loving daughter. She has a deteriorating congenital heart condition, without a transplant she will die. There are no NHS places because someone took an overdose and is taking up time, resources and money. You turn up at the hospital and the Doctors say, Sorry mate YOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TAKE HER HOME AND WATCH HER DIE.
Are you really that heartless? Do you really think this is RIGHT? Can you really not see that this is WRONG? Morally, socially and from a humane pont of view?
Dreadnought, I'm pretty sure Squidge will answer your scenario. Why are you unable to do the same???
lets paint another picture
You have a daughter, a beautiful charming and loving daughter. She has a deteriorating congenital heart condition, without a transplant she will die. There are no NHS places because someone took an overdose and is taking up time, resources and money. You turn up at the hospital and the Doctors say, Sorry mate YOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TAKE HER HOME AND WATCH HER DIE.
Are you really that heartless? Do you really think this is RIGHT? Can you really not see that this is WRONG? Morally, socially and from a humane pont of view?
In fact, I'm pretty sure that in this scenario, you would be called when a transplant was available. Unfortunately, this may never happen and you would still have no choice but to watch your child deteriorate - something no parent would want to witness, no matter what the scenario :(
And the person who took the overdose is also someones beautiful daughter or son are you so blinkered and bitter that you cannot see that other people also love their children desperately and want their children to have a chance of survival also.
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 16:59
And the person who took the overdose is also someones beautiful daughter or son are you so blinkered and bitter that you cannot see that other people also love their children desperately and want their children to have a chance of survival also.
So I should put someone else's drug addict waste of air before my own flesh and blood?
Alice in Blunderland
27-Sep-06, 17:00
lets paint another picture
You have a daughter, a beautiful charming and loving daughter. She has a deteriorating congenital heart condition, without a transplant she will die. There are no NHS places because someone took an overdose and is taking up time, resources and money. You turn up at the hospital and the Doctors say, Sorry mate YOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TAKE HER HOME AND WATCH HER DIE.
Are you really that heartless? Do you really think this is RIGHT? Can you really not see that this is WRONG? Morally, socially and from a humane pont of view?
Lack of donors is the issue here.If a donor heart becomes available this child will have her operation.Most staff in the NHS give their all to patient care whether there is, or is not enough money in the pot, whether the patient has led a good life or not, they have a duty of care towards the person in need in front of them not to the person who has the best morals.Who are we to sit in judgement of others?
So I should put someone else's drug addict waste of air before my own flesh and blood?
I am sure that they would not look at your child as a waste of air, no living breathing human being is a waste of air, there are those who disgust me but that is another matter. The point is everyone is someone's flesh and blood and what you say is absolutely selfish. Nobody is more important than anyone else when it comes to choosing life and death. It is not our choice to make.
Dreadnought, where do you put the non drinking, non drug taking, non smoking paedophile/pervert/rapist/murderer etc etc ??
Are they before or after drug-addicts in your line of treatment? How can you be sure that they do/don't fall into this category?
lets paint another picture
You have a daughter, a beautiful charming and loving daughter. She has a deteriorating congenital heart condition, without a transplant she will die. There are no NHS places because someone took an overdose and is taking up time, resources and money. You turn up at the hospital and the Doctors say, Sorry mate YOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TAKE HER HOME AND WATCH HER DIE.
Are you really that heartless? Do you really think this is RIGHT? Can you really not see that this is WRONG? Morally, socially and from a humane pont of view?
Yes, and imagine Santa has a heart attack on Christmas eve.... get real.
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 17:25
Yes, and imagine Santa has a heart attack on Christmas eve.... get real.
Ah. Squidge uses this argument and it is ok. I use it and I'm supposed to 'get real'?
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 17:28
Dreadnought, where do you put the non drinking, non drug taking, non smoking paedophile/pervert/rapist/murderer etc etc ??
I would put them at the end of a noose.
I would put them at the end of a noose.
So you then become a murderer? :roll:
2 wrongs = right??? Not in my world
So I should put someone else's drug addict waste of air before my own flesh and blood?
I reckon you should try walking in another souls shoes before being so judgemental, there are drug addicts out there that I know of who have walked that path and go on to help others, their lifes mission! Who are you to make judgement .......there for the grace of GOD go I and all that. You bring to my mind Mother Theresa when she said "When you help the afflicted you afflict the comfortable"! :roll:
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 17:33
So you then become a murderer? :roll:
2 wrongs = right??? Not in my world
So now you are defending paedophiles, rapists and murderers?
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 17:38
I reckon you should try walking in another souls shoes before being so judgemental, there are drug addicts out there that I know of who have walked that path and go on to help others, their lifes mission! Who are you to make judgement .......there for the grace of GOD go I and all that. You bring to my mind Mother Theresa when she said "When you help the afflicted you afflict the comfortable"! :roll:
Are you seriously saying you would put someone else's drug addicted waste of space before your own child?
be glad of it as they are defending you because by the time you decide not to treat all these poor people you will effectively be signing their death warrants.
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 17:41
be glad of it as they are defending you because by the time you decide not to treat all these poor people you will effectively be signing their death warrants.
Drug addicts sign their own death warrants. Why should I care?
Are you seriously saying you would put someone else's drug addicted waste of space before your own child?
what if it is your own child that has become the addict??
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 17:45
what if it is your own child that has become the addict??
I would spend as much as it takes to have them treated PRIVATELY, and not have them using up NHS resources.
So now you are defending paedophiles, rapists and murderers?
Not in a million years - where did I say that? (WRONG - where is that in defense??)
I think they should be locked away for life - not half their jail term and let off for good behaviour!!
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 17:53
I think they should be locked away for life - not half their jail term and let off for good behaviour!!
And that would cost how much? 30, 40, 50, 60, years room and board at the taxpayer's expense?
A noose is a lot cheaper, and no chance of re-offending.
martin macdonald
27-Sep-06, 17:54
I would spend as much as it takes to have them treated PRIVATELY, and not have them using up NHS resources. we are not all in your fortunate position of having the money to go private:~(
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 17:56
we are not all in your fortunate position of having the money to go private:~(
If people can afford the drugs, they can afford the private healthcare.
And that would cost how much? 30, 40, 50, 60, years room and board at the taxpayer's expense?
A noose is a lot cheaper, and no chance of re-offending.
Fair point, but I wouldn't want their blood on my hands!!
I also think that that lets them off scot free - no chance whatsoever to feel remorse for what they have done
If people can afford the drugs, they can afford the private healthcare.
Did you not say that YOU would pay what it took to treat them privately - not that YOUR CHILD would pay what it took!!??
martin macdonald
27-Sep-06, 18:03
If people can afford the drugs, they can afford the private healthcare.why not give them some of yours? go on you know you want to. :Razz
Are you seriously saying you would put someone else's drug addicted waste of space before your own child?
Someone elses drug addicted waste of space as you put it is just as important as anyone elses child............Maybe even more so! But you in your narrow-mindedness would need to take the blinkers of first to realise that and see the BIGGER picture! :D Who are you to say whether one persons needs is more important than another.........and I did not say I would put someone elses Quote "waste of space drug addict" before my own child, I would like to think that I have a bit more savvy than that and I would certainly not be as judgemental as you are, I would leave such decisions to those who are in a position to make them! I would hate to think that there are Doctors out there who make such decisions based on your kind of principles! :eek:
lets paint another picture
You have a daughter, a beautiful charming and loving daughter. She has a deteriorating congenital heart condition, without a transplant she will die. There are no NHS places because someone took an overdose and is taking up time, resources and money. You turn up at the hospital and the Doctors say, Sorry mate YOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TAKE HER HOME AND WATCH HER DIE.
Are you really that heartless? Do you really think this is RIGHT? Can you really not see that this is WRONG? Morally, socially and from a humane pont of view?
That is a terrible scenario and one that is played out every day in various degrees of seriousness. The difference is that as soon as resources are available this daughter will get her treatment. i can only assume the reason that the girl doesnt get her treatment is because there would not be a bed in intensive care because in dreadnoughts world they wouold all be full with drug addicts smokers and alcoholics which actually isnt the case.
In the drug addict scenario the daughter will never get her treatment not because resources arent available but because she cant pay for it and neither can her parents.
The real question seems to be why the NHS resources are limited and whether it is as dreadnought suspects because of drug addicts, alcoholics, smokers and suicide attempts taking up all the beds and using upall the available resources. That is a similar argument to the one we had recently about immigrants claiming social security to such a degree that money isnt available for pensioners. That argument was not true and this one isnt.
The fundamental principle shoudl be that decisions about treatment in our society shouldbe based on clinical need and not on ability to pay. Equal treatment without morality decisions and thats my belief.
Dreadnought
27-Sep-06, 18:43
Someone elses drug addicted waste of space as you put it is just as important as anyone elses child............Maybe even more so! But you in your narrow-mindedness would need to take the blinkers of first to realise that and see the BIGGER picture! :D Who are you to say whether one persons needs is more important than another.........and I did not say I would put someone elses Quote "waste of space drug addict" before my own child, I would like to think that I have a bit more savvy than that and I would certainly not be as judgemental as you are, I would leave such decisions to those who are in a position to make them! I would hate to think that there are Doctors out there who make such decisions based on your kind of principles! :eek:
And when you find out your child is to die because priority went to a drug addict, you would be just as philosophical I suppose?
And when you find out your child is to die because priority went to a drug addict, you would be just as philosophical I suppose?
Unlike you I try and accept most things as being as they are meant to be! :roll:
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.