Still trying to defend the indefensible there Clyde?

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.

“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the a few.”

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Besides, this is all moot as the proposal is that "treatment would be 'withdrawn as soon as is safe'."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

---

“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the a few.”

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.

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?

fish on... wink wink

---

...

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?

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

No. In the USA "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

This is only true for private hospitals.

---

“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the a few.”

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!

Translation: end of discussion. Move on, goal post movers.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

No. In the USA "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

This is only true for private hospitals.

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.

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.

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...)

---

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.
2 Tort reform would also greatly reduce the cost of health care. The current tort system raises the cost of care by encouraging unnecessary testing and procedures which increase the cost of medical care by forcing medical teams to devote significant time and resources to preventing or defending against unwarranted legal actions.

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.

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.