The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

What about those that have liver cancer from smoking?
What about those who have cancer from not wearing sun tan lotion/too much sun exposure....

Stupid if you ask me.

Wait lets not treats the bartender for a broken wrist because a month ago he served the drunk guy who came in....

LAME
I ended up in hospital after celebrating my 21st birthday.
Im not a big drinker and had not drunk for a month before my birthday.

I had 3 times as much as i normally would have, and felt drunk, but knew what was happening. I remember walking out of the club then walking halfway up the road and then my mind went blank.
My mates said i was fine and then my legs went.
Maybe its fresh air... recently one of my mates was fine inside the club and once outside she was sick twice within two minutes of getting outside?

When i woke up in hospital i was devastated, i was very apologetic and ashamed that i had wasted the time and bed of the hospital i was in. It was totally my fault and inside i felt like i should have been made to pay for my own mistakes.
I was very grateful for the bed and my friends for staying with me until i woke up, they took me home and i was sick again inside but they didnt mind.

My mates said it happens to everyone which i knew was rubbish and i have never drunk and never will drink that much again.
I think its awful i had to be looked after because i was drunk, i would have paid for my treatment.
Reply 42
Original post by Obadetona

Original post by Obadetona
You should pay if you purposely cause yourself harm and make the government fix it. Why should everybody else pay for it?


how do you judge whether somebody's illness was caused by their chosen lifestyle? how much of a contribution is enough? for example, high consumption of red meat is linked to the risk of getting colorectal cancer (among other cancers). if somebody gets colorectal cancer and eats a lot of red meat - and does so knowing the risks - then it's possible they are at fault. should they therefore have to pay for cancer treatment?
Original post by Erich Hartmann

Drunks, alcoholism is rising in society, in reality high taxes on alcohol won't prevent it either. Making them pay? Well there are some things that they SHOULD pay, I think everyone found on a public highway in a drunken state and causing trouble should be sent to a hospital for alcohol poisoning treatments.... they should pay for the treatments, the ambulance or police vehicle that takes them there and any counselling after that that may be required.

How it should work? Probably on a pay after treatment basis and yes it should be very expensive.


So as I asked, what about those who end up in hospital through no fault of their own? Should they really have to pay just because they have had a drunk?

And yes, sports injuries ARE the same.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
Make people pay an 'excess' I say like on insurance.

I would put being admitted to A&E as a standard fee of £120. Take the money back through peoples taxes and benefits, £10 a month for a year. It won't break the bank but then it will make people who end up in A&E every other weekend start thinking about it when they start accumulating the fees.


And what about those who really do need A&E treatment but need every £ they get from whatever they earn?
Talk about worst idea ever.
Original post by WelshBluebird
And what about those who really do need A&E treatment but need every £ they get from whatever they earn?
Talk about worst idea ever.


They shouldn't be drinking or out drinking if they needed every pence they earned.
Totally stupid.

1) these drunk people pay tax (extra tax if they buy so much alcohol) towards the NHS anyway.

2) the NHS isnt about money grabbing, its about caring for all those in need regardless of their situation. Leaving a drunk person who fell over and cracked their head open to bleed in the street is like leaving someone who overdosed to die. You wouldn't do that would you?

3) By the law of unintended consequences, someone gets drunk and has an accident, their friends tell them to wait to sober up before going to hospital in order to get free treatment, thus leaving the injury to get worse/infected, then when they finally show up to hospital they lie about exactly what happened making it difficult for doctors to treat them.
Original post by WelshBluebird
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12428765

What does everyone else feel about this?

I can see the point they are making, but to me this could be the start of a slippery slope if it happened.
I mean if drunk people have to pay, then why not make overweight people pay, or smokers, or people who injured themselves doing sport etc etc.

Plus, what about drunk people who end up in hospital through no fault of their own? Perhaps someone attacked them or whatever.

And more specifically, how would it be done? I assume they wouldn't make the person pay up before they are treated?


As an Emergency doctor I would like to think of myself as quite knowledgable in this area, so here goes.

I don't think there is a workable solution to getting rid of dunks in the A&E departments. Fining them won't really work (although I have zero tolerance of any abuse from them).
I do however think there should be very aggressive fines for those abusing the ambulance service.
Examples of peopel calling 999 abusively from my last week of working would be
- Couldn't sleep
- Trapped finger in drawer
- Twisted ankle whilst walking in high heels (took taxi home, got changed then called ambulance!!!)
- Toddler not feeling well (which I wouldn't mind if she hadn't sworn at us when told there was a 90minute wait and left to catch a bus home. Some emergency)
- Runny nose (made worse because he was seen by me, discharged, walked 300 yds down the street and called an ambulance to come back again! With the same problem!!!)


In many countries you get a fine or written warning for misuse of emergency services. It is workable. Obviously you give most people the benefit of the doubt, the real abuse cases the people don't give a crap. No guilt, no curtosy, nothing.
Original post by Jamie
As an Emergency doctor I would like to think of myself as quite knowledgable in this area, so here goes.

I don't think there is a workable solution to getting rid of dunks in the A&E departments. Fining them won't really work (although I have zero tolerance of any abuse from them).
I do however think there should be very aggressive fines for those abusing the ambulance service.
Examples of peopel calling 999 abusively from my last week of working would be
- Couldn't sleep
- Trapped finger in drawer
- Twisted ankle whilst walking in high heels (took taxi home, got changed then called ambulance!!!)
- Toddler not feeling well (which I wouldn't mind if she hadn't sworn at us when told there was a 90minute wait and left to catch a bus home. Some emergency)
- Runny nose (made worse because he was seen by me, discharged, walked 300 yds down the street and called an ambulance to come back again! With the same problem!!!)


In many countries you get a fine or written warning for misuse of emergency services. It is workable. Obviously you give most people the benefit of the doubt, the real abuse cases the people don't give a crap. No guilt, no curtosy, nothing.


If fining wouldn't be a deterrent ,wouldn't you think that money would be useful to put back in the NHS ? I don't think fining or any single step would stop drunks filling up A and E departments, I favour for instance the use of drunk tanks in police stations, like in the US, a room with a grate in the middle of the floor so it is easy to hose down in the morning. I think being drunk in a public place should get you an overnight stay in one of those tanks, and if the police have to take you to hospital for an injury then you would have to pay the hospital a contribution towards your treatment . Licencing laws need to go back to how they used to be as well.

I wouldn't call it a fine per se,but I feel the NHS in it's present form will not last for ever and one cost saving measure is for those in certain treatment groups to pay a certain amount to the hospital concerned.I wouldn't just pick on drunks, but also sports injuries, obesity and fighting. For instance. The amount would depend on a persons income level and would be a percentage of the cost of their indvidual treatment ,and what would happen,is the person would get a letter to their address from the hospital after the treatment, asking for that amount. I wouldn't be charging people on the spot that would create chaos, and stress for hospital workers, as obviously asking drunks for money might not be a great outcome. If the person is on benefits, a small amount will be taken for it, even if it's only a few pounds a week for a period of time, everyone should contribute something.These amounts would be enforceable through the courts and if an individual didn't think it was fair or there were extenuating circumstances they could tell it to a magistrate.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Erich Hartmann
They shouldn't be drinking or out drinking if they needed every pence they earned.


So people are not allowed to relax and have fun?
All charging £120 per visit to A&E would do is deter those who really do need treatment.
Original post by WelshBluebird
So people are not allowed to relax and have fun?
All charging £120 per visit to A&E would do is deter those who really do need treatment.


You just said it that they need every penny.
Reply 51
Enforcement would be very difficult, it would have to be judged on a case by case basis, which would take time, effort and justification. Are we talking repeat offenders, like alcoholics too? Does this mean an alcoholic having a seizure would be charged? As said before would this include assaults, injuries, etc or just members of the public deemed "intoxicated". Its a minefield and just wouldn't work! Although the alcohol tax rise with a proportion going to the ambulance service/accident and emergency departments would be a great idea.

Now with ambulances being called out unnecessarily, surely ambulance control should be more on the ball about this too! Its up to ambulance staff, the paramedics ,technicians etc to also teach people who call 999 for non emergency reasons that its not acceptable and to make sure they are firm with the patients.

It's also up to A&E staff to take a firm stance on patients that are brought in only because of intoxication, to make sure they know its not acceptable - but because of the state they are often in I m unsure how this could be better achieved. I m not sure why people think its alright to get in that state, abuse hospital staff who are trying to treat them and have no consequences because they were "just drunk". Also, only just read Jamie's comment about other countries - maybe if not a fine, a written warning would be better.

Please dont think this problem is just a generational thing either, its not just younger people who abuse our services. I hate to think a member of my family ever has a serious problem on a Friday or Saturday night and needs to go to hospital.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by L i b

The silly ***** who suggested this should also keep in mind that many of the people who end up in hospital, paralytically drunk, are some of the most vulnerable and least able to pay: the homeless, alcoholics and young people.


This.
Reply 53
Original post by thunder_chunky
This.


See, us Tories aren't all arse-wits.
Original post by L i b
See, us Tories aren't all arse-wits.


Oh I don't know, it's pretty borderline sometimes :cool:

Latest