Should the NHS treat this man?

In the United Kingdom ACPO guidelines[31] recommend a tolerance level of the speed limit "+10% +2 mph" (e.g. a tolerance level in a 30 mph (50 km/h) zone of 35 mph). However, each police force or safety camera partnership has the ability to use its discretion when setting the levels at which drivers will be prosecuted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would not withhold medical treatment under ANY circumstances but I would withhold long term care costs and rehabilitation. The cost for this should fall to the family of the man. If people had to personally incur penalty's rather than the government picking up the mess people would think twice before engaging in reckless behaviors.

So based on these two post if the man's speed was greater than 35 MPH, the above would apply.

You have still not selected 1 or 2?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

synthesizer-patel I see you are in Wales but I presume you might originate from Asia. If this is the case what would happen in this situation in your country of origin?

Take India for example the care costs for this man alone would take enough resources away from the health care system to kill many people. It would be morally wrong to treat this man.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Indeed - this is due to assuring a successful prosecution so that the defendant can't cast doubt on the accuracy of any measuring device - it has nothing to do with the law itself.

The fact is that all of us have done something stupid and reckless in our lives -whether its something mundane like speeding or more - and most of us have got away with it.
This poor fucker was one of the unlucky ones and he and his family is going to be living with what happened for the rest of their lives - I think they've got more than enough to deal with as it is.
Aside from that, the NHS has enough to deal with without having to hire thousands of lawyers and consultants to determine some kind of arbirary recklessnes or stupidity scale for every single accident, and the resulting lawsuits that will result from appeals processes etc - you'd be surprised hopw quickly that could eat up your proposed £100m

try and think things through a little better before you try and boil things down to two such simpleminded questions in future

 

Is there an age limit? I'm guessing people who wouldn't want him treated because he did a stupid thing to himself. But kids do things like that all the time.
Would there be an age or IQ limit on deciding treatment?

 

Patel I am not trying to pass a new law here I am asking a Theoretical question. Please answer 1 or 2, its very simple!

Also, what would happen in a country like India?

 

How many times did you say you were dropped on your head?

 

yeah same here, and they are still treating me!

 

Clearly not well enough

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

huh!!!

:spank:

 

How come no one is answering the question of whether they would prefer the NHS to:

1. Spend 100 Million on treating people who have caused their own illness/injury and were CLEARLY warned of the danger they faced?

2. Spend 100 Million on a new cancer treatment?

As a Health Psychologist one of my aims is to help people in the first category (i.e. those whose illness is self-inflicted, perhaps through lifestyle choice). However, I have no difficulty in admitting that if I was confronted with a choice, I would choose option 2.

What is so hard about answering the question? I have.

Nicola

 

Oh, and I should add - I am choosing group 2 assuming that none of them have self-induced cancer (i.e. from smoking or diet) :blbl:

 

Yes, they should pay. Many people have cancer due to smoking, AIDS due to unprotected sex, diabetes due to eating too much.
If you don't pay for this guy, then you shouldn't pay for any of the others.

 

Too much testosterone can be deadly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_drive

"The death drive was defined by Sigmund Freud in (Beyond the Pleasure Principle) as "an urge inherent in all organic life to restore an earlier state of things".

Freud begins the work considering the experience of trauma and traumatic events (particularly the trauma experienced by soldiers returning from World War I). The most curious feature of highly unpleasant experiences for Freud was that subjects often tended to repeat or re-enact them. This appeared to violate the "pleasure principle," the drive of an individual to maximize his or her pleasure. Freud found this repetition of unpleasant events in the most ordinary of circumstances, even in children's play (such as the celebrated Fort/Da ("Gone"/"There") game played by Freud's grandson, who would stage and re-stage the disappearance of his mother, and even himself).

After hypothesizing a number of causes (particularly the idea that we repeat traumatic events in order to master them after the fact), Freud considered the existence of a fundamental death drive that would counterbalance the tendency of beings to do only what they find pleasurable. Organisms, according to this idea, were driven to return to a pre-organic, inanimate state — but they wished to do so in their own way.

In psychoanalytic theory, the death drive opposes Eros. Here Eros is characterised as the tendency towards cohesion and unity, whereas the death drive is the tendency towards destruction."

 

Of course they should be treated.

Are we now going to become selective about who receives the necessary care? I believe that the NHS is there to give emergency care to those who pay their taxes for it. This man obviously got drunk and did something stupid - for which his life must pay the forfeit? I mean, if someone is paralyzed from the neck down, they're not going to last very long without care.

If someone exceeds the speed limit, they should be left moaning in the middle of the road if they crash? Is time going to be wasted by paramedics deciding whether the case is worthy of treatment?

No. Because unlike you, these people have to live in the real world.

Can I ask you all a[nother] question?

A lot of people would not be able to scrape the money together for private care, and be left to die slowly at home, with no NHS to ease their pain or perhaps give them the chance to overcome their affliction.
If your mother/father/sister/brother/spouse/close friend were diagnosed with lung cancer, after a lifetime of smoking, would you applaud a decision to deny them treatment?

The honest answer, again, is no.

 

Agree with the above.

The NHS is there to treat people, not to moralise about who is deserving and who isn't.

 

Wow do none of you people get this? The NHS has to moralise everyday about what treatments it can or cannot afford to give people. It just it is done by accounts and managers and not doctors and nurses.

My point here is that if you self inflict you health problems you should get minimal treatment. So one is saying leave people to die.

 

I do think that if you self inflict your problems it should be you who pays for it, but I don't think you should get 'minimal treatment'.

What exactly do you mean by minimal treatment?

 

For instance in this case it would mean treatment until his life is no longer and he would pass into long term care.

 

I'm guessing that you missed something out of that sentence, because it doesn't make sense.
However, I think you meant that he should be treated until he is well enough to go home, and no further.

Well, isn't that what happens anyway?