Message boards :
Politics :
UK: National Health Service to Deny Treatment for ‘Racist or Sexist Language, Gestures, Behaviour’
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2
Author | Message |
---|---|
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 34744 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
Still trying to defend the indefensible there Clyde? |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 34744 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
Well then Clyde I can clearly see that you have no respect or support for those that have to try and deal with these idiots. |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 34744 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of |
Mr. Kevvy Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 3776 Credit: 1,114,826,392 RAC: 3,319 |
Physicians are deservedly well-compensated for many reasons and this is one of them. No one should have to endure verbal abuse or discrimination in performing their jobs, but making on-the-spot judgement calls of whether someone is or is not mentally ill and then deciding whether to treat them or not based on this would certainly result very soon in some very large malpractice lawsuits against the caregivers and hospitals. Besides, this is all moot as the proposal is that "treatment would be 'withdrawn as soon as is safe'." Er... shouldn't this be the goal anyway in a public health system? If they won't stop being insulting or calm down, Haldol to the rescue as always. :^p |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of Why even respond to the talking points of m jercer and Clyde? BBC: "We of course made sure he was clinically safe, patient safety is paramount, and once I established that, he was removed from the ward." Translation: their needs were handled! Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30639 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
When people self privilege, they will scream and carry on, hurl insults and racial epithets because they don't think they are being treated as specially as they believe they are entitled to. They claim to be better than others, frequently because their skin is fill in a color. Also applies to those who are self persecuted. How would you expect a self privileged individual to act? Like a normal? How would you expect a medical professional to react to such abuse? Should they be forced to endure such abuse? |
j mercer Send message Joined: 3 Jun 99 Posts: 2422 Credit: 12,323,733 RAC: 1 |
fish on... wink wink ... |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19048 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
After the medical condition is successfully treated. I agree that the medical profession does not need to endure any future abuse. Why should the medical profession, or anyone else who devotes themselves to helping others, be expected to endure any abuse at all. In you previous occupation, what was your reaction to all the abuse aimed at you when going about your duty. Did you treat them the same as those who didn't abuse you? |
Mr. Kevvy Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 3776 Credit: 1,114,826,392 RAC: 3,319 |
Why should the medical profession, or anyone else who devotes themselves to helping others, be expected to endure any abuse at all. Because, as noted, the alternative is to let the patient die and then being sued for millions of dollars/pounds. Ironically, the U.S. has a much stronger history of institutionalized/systemic racism, so one would expect doctors there to endure more abuse, yet this is not being mentioned as an issue. This tells me that the U.S. doctors are either better/properly compensated or accept it as the necessity of dealing with traumatized, mentally ill and/or intoxicated people. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30639 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Why should the medical profession, or anyone else who devotes themselves to helping others, be expected to endure any abuse at all. No. In the USA "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Jim Crow. Still has force. Oh, and since the docs aren't working for the government they don't have to see any patient at all. Now fire department paramedics don't have a choice. And we have a thread on cops who don't have a choice. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
No. In the USA "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Jim Crow. Still has force.Was wondering if anyone would pick up on that. So many US centric posts that many forget the thread title "UK". Again, no wonder tRump wants his hands on our NHS. |
Mr. Kevvy Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 3776 Credit: 1,114,826,392 RAC: 3,319 |
|
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of Translation: end of discussion. Move on, goal post movers. Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30639 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
No. In the USA "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." There are for-profit hospitals and not-for-profit hospitals in the USA. VA and prison hospitals are about the only government operated hospitals in the USA. They both have an option not generally available elsewhere to have armed police attached to a disruptive patient. |
Mr. Kevvy Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 3776 Credit: 1,114,826,392 RAC: 3,319 |
There are for-profit hospitals and not-for-profit hospitals in the USA. 58% of community hospitals in the United States are non-profit, 21% are government owned, and 21% are for-profit. 21%, not rare at all. And of the 58% community, if they take even a dollar of government money, they can't turn patients away. The only guaranteed ones that can are the 21% for-profits. (Ironically, wouldn't you consider this a good thing as a self-identified Libertarian voter? Privatizing all health care is a central Libertarian tenet...) |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30639 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
if they take even a dollar of government money, they can't turn patients away.They can and do. Amazing how quickly they can be full. (Ironically, wouldn't you consider this a good thing as a self-identified Libertarian voter? Privatizing all health care is a central Libertarian tenet...) https://www.lp.org/issues/healthcare/ wrote: 1 Government regulates where, when, and who may open new healthcare facilities. 1 It is called building codes. Of course you make more profit if you build Grenfell Towers. 2 Problem is charlatans. Yes care cost will go down, but police costs will skyrocket. But perhaps best addressed with an anti-libertarian idea, no more contingency fee lawyers. I also have a bone to pick with the AHA survey the Wiki is based upon. When you have a malpractice claim against the "government hospital" you don't sue the government because they don't run the hospital, you sue the hospital because it is independent of the government. It may just get most of its funding from the government, but the taxpayer isn't on the hook for malpractice at the hospital. Not the case for VA or prison hospitals, there taxpayers are on the hook. Of course going to the VA you essentially sign away your right to sue for malpractice and the government doesn't owe prisoners care. |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 34744 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
AHA here means Australian Hoteliers Association, but thank christ we don't have a heath system here that rips everyone off like the U.S. system does and also why U.S. Big Pharmaceuticals will not be let into this country otherwise we'd be paying 700% more for it as well. Cheers. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.