TeenHelp
Support Forums Today's Posts

Get Advice Connect with TeenHelp Resources
HelpLINK Facebook     Twitter     Tumblr     Instagram    Hotlines    Safety Zone    Alternatives

You are not registered or have not logged in

Hello guest! (Not a guest? Log in above!)

As a guest on TeenHelp you are only able to use some of our site's features. By registering an account you will be able to enjoy unlimited access to our site, and will be able to:

  • Connect with thousands of teenagers worldwide by actively taking part in our Support Forums and Chat Room.
  • Find others with similar interests in our Social Groups.
  • Express yourself through our Blogs, Picture Albums and User Profiles.
  • And much much more!

Signing up is free, anonymous and will only take a few moments, so click here to register now!


Current Events and Debates For discussions and friendly debates about politics and current events, check out this forum.

View Poll Results: Should some people be refused help?
Yes (Strongly) 7 17.95%
Yes (Weak) 3 7.69%
No (Strongly) 22 56.41%
No (weak) 4 10.26%
Unsure/ 50-50 3 7.69%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  (#1 (permalink)) Old
Jesus Christ. Offline
Führer of the sausage people
I can't get enough
*********
 
Jesus Christ.'s Avatar
 
Gender: Male

Posts: 2,301
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Should some people be refused treatment? - February 2nd 2010, 09:04 PM

Should some people be refused treatment? (I s'pose I'm talking more about by the NHS as I don't know how things work in other countries)
But anyway, by this I mean people who blatantly ignore what the doctor has told them? For example, should a smoker, who has been told he needs stop numerous amounts, get priority treatment if he has an attack of some sort? Even if he knows it's bad for him, and he's been told to stop my medical experts. Because to be entirely truthful I don't think the person should get priority treatment, because he's ignored everything they've been told, so by making that his choice he should sacrifice this privilege, instead of the person being able to just abuse the system?

Or another example, an alcoholic that needs a transplant, should they be allowed one? When there are people who have done nothing to inflict any harm upon themselves that need them as well. I do mean after they have been to rehab and everything, I just think it would be stupid if they're allowed the transplant.

I mean, overall I think they should be denied treatment, or at least priority treatment. Why should someone try to help a person who won't even help themselves? I do realise that this isn't a black and white thing and that some people do actually have problems, but I am on about after several lots of treatment beforehand, after councilling as well, when you can actually prove they're not helping themselves.

And before any body mentions suicide attempts, I don't they should be left to just die, they SHOULD get all the right help, medication, mental help etc, but lets say after 3 attempts perhaps, then I think that they shouldn't get anymore help, in the end I just think 'Why should tax payers money be spent and trying to help people that are harming themselves when it could be spent on people who can't help what they have'

I know some people may think 'but it's ethically wrong to just let someone die' and while that may be the case it is also unethical to treat someone who's harmed themselves over people who haven't, and I guess I don't really mean refuse them all help, just refuse them priority help, or even see them as lesser patiences (not in the duhumanising way) on cases which are just as severe as each other.

And this last paragraph is just to say Please clearly state you opinion first, hopefully using the terminology 'Yes, No or Unsure'. And I would also like to mention that I don't want to be attacked, or called a monster for my opinions.
   
  (#2 (permalink)) Old
Through-Glass Offline
<3
I've been here a while
********
 
Through-Glass's Avatar
 
Name: Jessi
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Posts: 1,323
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 2nd 2010, 09:10 PM

No.

I do not think that anyone should get priority treatment over anyone else. I see where you're coming from, but you're right; it's unethical to let someone die, even if it is their own fault.

I would also like to point out that alcoholism is a poor example, as this is a mental illness and cannot be helped. Relapses happen, even after treatment. It's not as easy as saying, "Oh, I've been to rehab, so I'm better now."


[/url]
"For the first time
in a long time,
I can say that I wanna try.
I feel helpless for the most part,
but I'm learning to open my eyes.
And the sad truth of the matter is,
I'll never get over it,
but I'm gonna try
to get better and overcome each moment
in my own way"

Motion City Soundtrack, "Even If It Kills Me"
  Send a message via Yahoo to Through-Glass  
  (#3 (permalink)) Old
Jesus Christ. Offline
Führer of the sausage people
I can't get enough
*********
 
Jesus Christ.'s Avatar
 
Gender: Male

Posts: 2,301
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 2nd 2010, 09:19 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spazola View Post
No.

I do not think that anyone should get priority treatment over anyone else. I see where you're coming from, but you're right; it's unethical to let someone die, even if it is their own fault.

I would also like to point out that alcoholism is a poor example, as this is a mental illness and cannot be helped. Relapses happen, even after treatment. It's not as easy as saying, "Oh, I've been to rehab, so I'm better now."
I'd just like to point out, mental ILLNESS, and most illnesses are curable, and I assure you this is one of them. I agree, yes they may have slip ups, but a slip up won't cause the complete destruction of an organ will it? Unless it was in one sitting, then they'd most likely die from it, and as I have already stated it isn't a black and white thing, this would have to be put under consideration.
   
  (#4 (permalink)) Old
xxxAJxxx Offline
TEIAM - problem solved.
Average Joe
***
 
xxxAJxxx's Avatar
 
Name: Aj
Age: 24
Gender: Male

Posts: 183
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: December 3rd 2009

February 2nd 2010, 09:24 PM

Addictions can be impossible to get over, even if people know the effects. Ever heard of "withdrawl"?

No one should be moved down on the list, even if its their "fault". Which, in the example you mentioned, its not their fault.


And not all mental illnesses are so easily cured. In the mean time, while the cure hasn't come, what do you think is bound to happen? The illness won't just go away just because they know help is on the way. I tried that with my depression, and quickly figured out it doesn't work like that.

AND WHOA!!! People can not help hurting themselves. THAT is plain ignorant.


"Now at the end of everyday I lie awake at night and wait
To feel the wires of my brain get cut and quietly rearranged, and
Hear my beaten heart exclaim, 'Still, I refuse to let her go.'"

So we escape to our mistakes for they wait patiently for us.
Oh, how they always wait for me.

If my fear has kept me here only my fear can set me free."

Last edited by Lizzie; February 2nd 2010 at 10:18 PM. Reason: Merge
   
  (#5 (permalink)) Old
Jesus Christ. Offline
Führer of the sausage people
I can't get enough
*********
 
Jesus Christ.'s Avatar
 
Gender: Male

Posts: 2,301
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 2nd 2010, 09:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyawayninjacow123 View Post
AND WHOA!!! People can not help hurting themselves. THAT is plain ignorant.
To be honest, I'm not being ignorant at all, if you'd read my original post I clearly stated that after a few times, not after one time. And if of course harm will be omitted from this, because they aren't doing to themselves on purpose.
And about your comment about there not being a cure for everything, while that may be the case there are good preventative techniques readily available to help people. It just sounds like you believe it good and healthy for people to blame things on a mental illness
   
  (#6 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,724
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 2nd 2010, 10:15 PM

I know on medical shows, they seem to talk about the idea of someone who has been an alcoholic being less likely to get an emergency organ transplant (as seen on "House"), but I'm not sure how it works in real life.

I DO agree that if you're an alcoholic, and you refuse things like rehab despite all efforts, and your liver gets damage as a direct result of alcoholism, you should be less of a priority than someone who gets diagnosed within the same day/couple days with a liver disease that can be cured with a transplant. Because really, it's a waste of an organ if the drinker is just gonna go back to drinking and killing the new liver.

However, if someone causes themselves damage due to mental illness, and they're working on getting help, such as suicide attempts while trying to get the right medications (because some medications can cause someone to get worse, some don't work, etc.), they should not be any less of a priority.

So I mean, you really can't help those who won't help themselves, and thats no exception to the alcoholic who refuses treatment and the liver transplant. The only exception I see to this is if the alcoholic is literally FORCED into Rehab after the transplant, and made to go to check-ups, get blood tests and breathalizers every so often, to MAKE SURE they're staying clean.

It's not about "Believing its good and healthy for people to blame things on a mental illness" at all. Its about mental illness being more complicated than just throwing some pills at it. There has to be a proper diagnosis, the right pills, the right therapy/councelling, etc. And along the way, there will most likely be rough patches.
   
  (#7 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 2nd 2010, 10:57 PM

Morally, treat everyone you can. But that's generally not possible, especially with organ transplants. So, you give the organs to people who need them to survive first, and of them you treat the most likely to survive. That's basic triage. All else equal, you treat a patient with a history of attempted suicide after you treat a patient with no such history. Not because that person is more deserving, but because it's more likely to do them good.


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#8 (permalink)) Old
Casey. Offline
Dance with me
I can't get enough
*********
 
Casey.'s Avatar
 
Name: Casey
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Location: Somewhere in my mind

Posts: 2,343
Blog Entries: 337
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 2nd 2010, 11:34 PM

No one should be refused for treatment. I know that organ transplants, at least in the U.S, priority goes to those who will die without them, and I'm pretty sure alcoholics are pushed a bit down the list.

As for mental illnesses, not all are curable, and everyone who has ever attempted has done it for a reason. You shouldn't deny someone help because they attempted more than a certain number of times. You need to help them more, not less. No one is untreatable, some people you just have to work harder at treating.


She whispered to her own reflection "I will be strong."

"I am not what has happened to me.I am what I have chosen to become."- Carl Jung

"If ye harm none, do as ye wish."

Sometimes things just happen.


Smile through the tears.


PM me

  Send a message via Yahoo to Casey.  
  (#9 (permalink)) Old
Marvin Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Name: Marvin
Gender: Male
Location: USA

Posts: 1,576
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 12:36 AM

The purpose of a national health system is to ensure everyone has access to medical treatment, even if they can't afford it. I don't think you can really make a claim about who should get treatment based on their history.

With alcoholism, if you need a liver transplant, you have had to be clean for a set amount of time, which is fair enough, but if you at the present time of treatment fufill the criteria for living in a way that most likely will mean you give less damage to your transplanted organ, then fair enough.

I don't think it's right to hold someone's past against them. We all make mistakes, and sometimes things are hard to get out of. I started smoking when I was 18, a stupid kid, and I've not been able to quit yet. But if I got ill, and someone quit, and was smoke free again, or if I quit and in 2 years time I develop an illness due to the smoking, I would seriously hope you look at me at that point. If I was still smoking, fair enough.

As for suicide... or infact mental illness in general... there often isnt really ever an easy cure. Some things can't be cured. It's obscene to suggest limiting aid to them.

And in general, a lot of health problems in some way or another can be caused by bad living. Either bad diet, (even if you arent fat), lack of exercise, vices, sex, etc, etc. It's a road you dont want to go down to determine who should get treatment. Life is life, you should try perserve it.
   
  (#10 (permalink)) Old
Member
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
CompassionateSoul's Avatar
 
Gender: Male

Posts: 346
Blog Entries: 7
Join Date: November 26th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 12:37 AM

I agree with Tegan.
Resfusing treatment to anyone, no matter how urgent, or not, undermines the purpose of a health system. I see your point though, those people who aren't prepared to help themselves after many treatments should be made low-priority, not denied help completely.

Also, I'm fairly sure they don't give valuable organs to people who aren't prepared to stop damaging themselves with smoking, drinking, drugs, etc. Donors are hard to find, they aren't about to waste them on someone who will abuse it and 5 years down the line be in the same situation. Trust me, the NHS isn't that stupid.


What doesn't kill you makes you stronger and wiser, that in itself, is worth the fight.

The best way to predict the future is to create it - Peter F. Drucker

The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. - Nelson Mandela


   
  (#11 (permalink)) Old
.:Bibliophile:. Online
PM me anytime!

TeenHelp Veteran
*************
 
.:Bibliophile:.'s Avatar
 
Gender: Just me

Posts: 16,718
Blog Entries: 1770
Join Date: January 18th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 02:45 AM

I do not agree with this at all. I think everyone should be treated fairly. Yes, it is lame that people can drink and get transplants and possibly cause the same damage but in all reality there are probably better solutions to these problems than just cutting people off completely.

For example; people who are alcoholics should be required to go to therapy before and after their transplant for a certain amount of time. Lets say a year.

I don't know, I am sure there are other ways around this. Ways that will be more fair and more productive.


|Lead Moderator|Newsletter Officer|
   
  (#12 (permalink)) Old
Jack Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Jack's Avatar
 
Name: Jack
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Kingston upon Hull/ Brighton, UK

Posts: 1,494
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 03:43 AM

No.

You use the example of a smoker, who smokes even though he knows it's bad and gets medical issues from this. Well lets suppose this man did not smoke. And now lets think of how much government revenue comes from the taxation of cigarettes, the figure was 8219 million pounds in direct revenue from tobacco in 08-09, not to mention the extra in VAT (1.2 billion). Now let us consider that the amount the NHS spends on smoking realted disease is 1.5 billion. Therefore smoking raises 8.5 billion more than it costs. If these people didn't smoke the NHS would not be able to treat as many people who don't smoke. Smokers inadvertantly contribute more to the national health service then people who do not, so I certainly believe they should be treated. Not to mention the amount these people pay in taxes unrelated to smoking each year. The same is true of alcohol. Without people who smoke and drink the economy, and by extension the NHS, would be crippled.

Now, I can only see one place that there should be a difference in treatment and this is in organ transplants. These should be given to whomever will have the highest benefit from it. This should be from a purely practical and medical sense rather from disapproval of their previous life-style. An alcoholic or smoker should be given mandatory councelling after the transplant to make them kick the habit. However, if organ donation was opt-out rather than opt-in this wouldn't be such an issue, but that's a gripe for another day.
   
  (#13 (permalink)) Old
Marvin Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Name: Marvin
Gender: Male
Location: USA

Posts: 1,576
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 03:44 AM

To get a liver transplant in the UK, you have to be clean from drinking I believe for like 6 months, as it is?
   
  (#14 (permalink)) Old
Member
Average Joe
***
 
Brighter.than.sun's Avatar
 
Name: Ivan"Chandler" Brown
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: california

Posts: 196
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: February 1st 2010

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 03:53 AM

i think that everybody should get fair and equal treatment no matter what they have done. Because in my opinion it is so unfair that some people get treatment and others don't so yeah i do think that everybody deserves fair and equal treatment.
  Send a message via AIM to Brighter.than.sun Send a message via MSN to Brighter.than.sun Send a message via Yahoo to Brighter.than.sun Send a message via Skype™ to Brighter.than.sun 
  (#15 (permalink)) Old
Zyzz Offline
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Zyzz's Avatar
 
Gender: Male

Posts: 960
Blog Entries: 29
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 03:59 AM

No.

I dont think people should not get treatment just because its their fault. like with the organ transplant thing. you have to be clean for a certain about of time before you can have the transplant.
and using addictions as an example to not give medical treatment to someone is just plain wrong. I strongly think that everyone is to be treated fairly when it comes to medicine. and saying you cant have treatment cos you drink or smoke is just wrong. if i go back to the medical field i wouldnt let that happen.
Plus i live in the US where there is no national health care. only the people that are poor get free health care. or if you can afford to go get health care. with someone like me i dont go get health care cos i cant afford it. but i make to much to get free health care.

but to a point i can see where you are coming from cos where you live you guys got a national health care system.
   
  (#16 (permalink)) Old
Stupidity Kills
Outside, huh?
**********
 
OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!'s Avatar
 

Posts: 4,500
Blog Entries: 10
Join Date: December 19th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 05:40 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3.1415926535897 View Post

I'd just like to point out, mental ILLNESS, and most illnesses are curable, and I assure you this is one of them. I agree, yes they may have slip ups, but a slip up won't cause the complete destruction of an organ will it? Unless it was in one sitting, then they'd most likely die from it, and as I have already stated it isn't a black and white thing, this would have to be put under consideration.
Mental illnesses are for the most part not curable. The common regime involves treating the symptoms so they are either still present but minimized, or ideally, they're not noticable. The reason for it being uncurable is that when there is a cure, it involves addressing the very thing that caused the illness. For most other fields of medicine this tends to be easier and do-able but in psychiatry it's not because in other fields, the symptoms one has can help a doctor figure out which area of the body is the cause but in psychiatry, doctors may be able to point to the brain but that isn't helpful. The precise areas need to be figured out and the agent that started it needs to be figured out. In most cases, this isn't possible.

I don't think there should be a limit as to if you do x amount of suicide attempts, then you're not given treatment. Unlike smoking or alcoholism, the person didn't willingly take a bottle of "bottled schizophrenia". It seems ridiculous to deny someone treatment for something they struggle to have control over. When it comes to a patient who hasn't done suicide attempts and one who has done 10, you want to treat them both but the one who has done none has a better chance of being treated successfully.

The only time I think one should be given a certain treatment procedure before someone else is when the procedure involves scarce medical resources, such as organs. It'd be great if everyone who needed transplants can get them but that's not the case, and so unfortunately, people are assessed as to how much they can benefit from the transplant.
   
  (#17 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,724
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 05:55 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3.1415926535897 View Post

I'd just like to point out, mental ILLNESS, and most illnesses are curable, and I assure you this is one of them. I agree, yes they may have slip ups, but a slip up won't cause the complete destruction of an organ will it? Unless it was in one sitting, then they'd most likely die from it, and as I have already stated it isn't a black and white thing, this would have to be put under consideration.
No, MANAGEABLE and CURABLE are two different things. When you have Depression, Bipolar, Schizophrenia, or whatever else, it's there. I think with some medications, it causes side effects like Depression, but it's not a mental illness in that case.

Mental Illness can be MANAGED, not CURED, with medications and/or therapy, but it'll always be there. You can't CURE how your brain processes things, and Mental Illnesses are caused by your brain processes things, the chemical imbalances, etc. So no, you can't cure the way somebody's brain works.
   
1 user(s) liked this post or found it helpful.
  (#18 (permalink)) Old
Penguin Queen Offline
Penguin queen!!
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
Penguin Queen's Avatar
 
Name: Annie
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Location: UK

Posts: 509
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 09:16 AM

The only time I think someone should be refused treatment for reasons like this is if someone is an alcoholic who is highly likely to relapse, then they should be low priority for a transplant, and thats not about money, thats because of the lack of organs available and the liklihood of them damaging a new one. Mental illness should be treated exactly the same as physical illness, would you refuse to treat someones 4th asthma attack, because they obviosuly aren't getting better? no. In my eyes illness is illness.




fait
h is a bluebird that you see from afar
it is real and as sure as the first evening star
can't touch it, or buy it, or lock it up tight
but its there just the same
making things turn out right



LE PE
NGUIN QUEEN


   
  (#19 (permalink)) Old
BabyIndia Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
BabyIndia's Avatar
 
Name: India
Gender: Female

Posts: 915
Blog Entries: 24
Join Date: December 8th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 10:16 AM

No -Strongly (for the vote)

It is in EVERYONE'S basic human rights, to have the right to health care.

I Understand what your saying, My grandma was a smoker, and lost her leg due to smoking. She gave up smoking, but had to wait ages for more treatment, she was made to wait ages, the doctors ended up giving her the wrong medication and she passed away.

Tbh they need more doctors, that way EVERYONE gets priotry.

Recently I was in the walk in centre with suspected stroke whilst driving, and there was a baby with suspected meningitis, now which do you think should have been frist, bearing in mind we both came in at the same time?

The baby right?

Well the baby with the really bad temp, her cheeks were really red, and she was just laying there.

I was sat unable to feel my arm or my leg.

I was shocked when they said I was a higer piorty than a baby!

It's outragous NHS has there piroty's fucked up!!





   
  (#20 (permalink)) Old
Nightblood. Offline
jus drein jus daun
I've been here a while
********
 
Nightblood.'s Avatar
 
Gender: She/Her
Location: United States

Posts: 1,829
Blog Entries: 37
Join Date: January 11th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 12:03 PM

Well, I didn't have time to read through all the responses so I aplogize if someone mentioned this, but (at least in the US) I'm pretty sure alcoholics don't get transplants ahead of someone who isn't. They have really strict rules about that.



"We all have battle scars, Finn. Suck it up and build a brace for yours."
   
  (#21 (permalink)) Old
Penguin Queen Offline
Penguin queen!!
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
Penguin Queen's Avatar
 
Name: Annie
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Location: UK

Posts: 509
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyIndia View Post
Recently I was in the walk in centre with suspected stroke whilst driving, and there was a baby with suspected meningitis, now which do you think should have been frist, bearing in mind we both came in at the same time?

The baby right?

Well the baby with the really bad temp, her cheeks were really red, and she was just laying there.

I was sat unable to feel my arm or my leg.

I was shocked when they said I was a higer piorty than a baby!

It's outragous NHS has there piroty's fucked up!!
Who gets priority is nothing to do with the NHS, the decision is made entirely on medical grounds. The longer a stroke is left the more damage it does- its highly time critical. Meningitus is also very dangerous but it depends, if it was just the parents who suspected it and the nurses didn't think so, then it will be lower priority.




fait
h is a bluebird that you see from afar
it is real and as sure as the first evening star
can't touch it, or buy it, or lock it up tight
but its there just the same
making things turn out right



LE PE
NGUIN QUEEN


   
  (#22 (permalink)) Old
FriendZoneMayor Offline
My lovelife is the Hokey-Pokey
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
FriendZoneMayor's Avatar
 
Name: Summer/Shawn
Age: 26
Gender: My PGP is female OR male
Location: Iraw

Posts: 548
Blog Entries: 28
Join Date: February 12th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 01:17 PM

If someone needs help, they should be able to get help, hands down.


“I can only hope that they’ll turn that anger and frustration and madness into something positive, so that two, three, four, five hundred will step forward, so the gay doctors will come out, the gay lawyers, the gay judges, gay bankers, gay architects … I hope that every professional gay will say ‘enough’, come forward and tell everybody, wear a sign, let the world know. Maybe that will help.” Harvey Milk, 1978

http://amanoutofyou.tumblr.com
   
  (#23 (permalink)) Old
ThrashAttack Offline
Banned
I've been here a while
********
 
ThrashAttack's Avatar
 
Name: Will
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Edge of Oblivion

Posts: 1,375
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: January 10th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 01:27 PM

I only have a problem with it if an alcoholic gets a liver transplant, a second chance at life and then goes and drinks themself silly damaging that new liver.
  Send a message via MSN to ThrashAttack  
  (#24 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,724
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 05:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyIndia View Post
Recently I was in the walk in centre with suspected stroke whilst driving, and there was a baby with suspected meningitis, now which do you think should have been frist, bearing in mind we both came in at the same time?

The baby right?

Well the baby with the really bad temp, her cheeks were really red, and she was just laying there.

I was sat unable to feel my arm or my leg.

I was shocked when they said I was a higer piorty than a baby!

It's outragous NHS has there piroty's fucked up!!
Wow, we have the complete opposite here! I've gone to the ER before with bronchitus, and had to wait almost 7 hours! Why? Well, lets see, who got in ahead of me? A toddler with a scratch on their forehead (literally, A SCRATCH, not bleeding or anything!), some old people with a cough, and then the people who were there ahead of me. The ones I listed came in AFTER me. At one point, I was having difficulty breathing, yet was still pushed off for admittance.

More recently, I was in the ER with this horrible virus. I was burning up and getting chills, couldn't sleep because it felt like I had people sitting on top of me (I had gone like, 60 hours straight without sleeping), sore throat, all sorts of fun. I waited 5 hours in the ER, even though I had a fever and it was 0.1 degrees away from being VERY BAD. There was a girl in there who had waited an hour longer than me, and her family ended up giving up and going out-of-area to a walk-in clinic, since they weren't treating her possibly broken wrist. And why didn't either of us get treatment this time? A toddler came in with a tummy ache or something minor (since the kid was acting normal, obviously wasn't something too painful), a few old people with coughs, but also a couple people brought in by ambulance.

Here, they seem to prioritize based on AGE, and not actual CONDITION.
   
  (#25 (permalink)) Old
Stupidity Kills
Outside, huh?
**********
 
OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!'s Avatar
 

Posts: 4,500
Blog Entries: 10
Join Date: December 19th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 05:42 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyIndia
Recently I was in the walk in centre with suspected stroke whilst driving, and there was a baby with suspected meningitis, now which do you think should have been frist, bearing in mind we both came in at the same time?

The baby right?

Well the baby with the really bad temp, her cheeks were really red, and she was just laying there.

I was sat unable to feel my arm or my leg.

I was shocked when they said I was a higer piorty than a baby!

It's outragous NHS has there piroty's fucked up!!
Not really, it makes sense why you would get treated first. It's not based only on age, it's also based on condition. If you have a stroke or any other brain injury and you cannot feel your limbs, then that's an indication that you don't have time to wait, you need to be treated ASAP as the results can be long-term and possibly affect other areas of your body.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ☣ ArcAngel ☣ View Post
Wow, we have the complete opposite here! I've gone to the ER before with bronchitus, and had to wait almost 7 hours! Why? Well, lets see, who got in ahead of me? A toddler with a scratch on their forehead (literally, A SCRATCH, not bleeding or anything!), some old people with a cough, and then the people who were there ahead of me. The ones I listed came in AFTER me. At one point, I was having difficulty breathing, yet was still pushed off for admittance.

More recently, I was in the ER with this horrible virus. I was burning up and getting chills, couldn't sleep because it felt like I had people sitting on top of me (I had gone like, 60 hours straight without sleeping), sore throat, all sorts of fun. I waited 5 hours in the ER, even though I had a fever and it was 0.1 degrees away from being VERY BAD. There was a girl in there who had waited an hour longer than me, and her family ended up giving up and going out-of-area to a walk-in clinic, since they weren't treating her possibly broken wrist. And why didn't either of us get treatment this time? A toddler came in with a tummy ache or something minor (since the kid was acting normal, obviously wasn't something too painful), a few old people with coughs, but also a couple people brought in by ambulance.

Here, they seem to prioritize based on AGE, and not actual CONDITION.
The hospital in the city where I live usually has the emergency having a long wait, although they do go by condition (and possibly age). For example, if someone comes in with a minor scratch, they'll treat them fairly quickly, not because of their age but because it's easy and you don't really need to be signed in. On the other hand, if you have a broken wrist or finger, you may have to wait a while because it's a minor injury but would need more investigation than a mere scratch.

They go by age also and generally, old people and very young kids are more likely to suffer more because their immune system and bodies are weakened, so as a result you get pushed off to the side. However, if you walk in and take a seat in the emergency room, it's usually viewed as something that isn't lethal to your health so I think the notion is you can wait a bit longer. It's a pain in the ass for you, especially when the symptoms worsen but that's where it does (or should) get based on condition.
   
  (#26 (permalink)) Old
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
her_beautiful_mistake's Avatar
 
Name: Rachel
Gender: Female
Location: Britland

Posts: 2,262
Blog Entries: 29
Join Date: January 18th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 06:45 PM

I was actually asked this question at a medical school interview.

I'm a very strong no.

Most diseases are self-inflicted to some extented, it's just that the link is more obvious in some cases (lung cancer from smoking, liver failure from alcohol). Bar a small number of genetic dieseases, a lot - most - of our health problems can be linked to our lifestyle. If we were to start refusing people treatment, how would be determine who should and should not get treatment? Refusing treatment of self-inflicted diseases, through lifestyle choices, would only allow the vast minority of problems to be treated.

Most of us will at some point need to see a doctor for a problem related to our lifestyle. It's not exactly going to do a lot for public image if we could not get help for some of the most common diseases.

It would be near impossible to determine the extent to which a disease is self-inflicted and so whether it should be treated. For example, a woman has unprotexted sex with her long-term husband, but the husband has HIV from a one night stand. Is the woman's HIV self inflicted? Should she receive treatment? It's a very very slipperly slope. You'd also see most people starting to lie.

For public health it's necesary to treat any transmissble diseases such as sexual transmitted diseases to control them and prevent them spreading. Getting an STI after unprotected sex is surely just as self-inflicted as cancer from smoking. Creating a just way to determine who gets treatment would not be possible.

Some self-inflicted diseases (alcoholisim, smoking) may reveal or be caused by underlying issues such as mental ill health, which would require identification and treatment. Not allowing patients to visit doctors for these illnesses - or the patient not wanting to visit the doctor as they know they will be judged - will prevent the treatment of those causes.

This would create an unfair class divide that completely undermines the governements equal opportunities policy. People of higher incomes would then be able to pay for their treatment privately. People of lower incomes would not. Would patients still receive social care treatments in care homes? Or would that also be withdrawn, leaving the patients homeless, yet those able to afford it still able to pay. We may then be drawn into a society were doctors simply refuse patients treatment because they know they can afford to pay it for themselves. Essentially, such a policy would result in those who can afford to pay, paying, and those who can't, dying. That is in no way or shape the way I want to see my country go.

We live in a society where invidiual choice is a fundamental part of life. We pride ourselves for being a free country. The NHS should not work against a free society.

Finally - as a doctor, your job is not to judge. A doctor is not morally superior to a patient. No doctor should be allow to decide who lives and who dies in this manner.
   
  (#27 (permalink)) Old
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
her_beautiful_mistake's Avatar
 
Name: Rachel
Gender: Female
Location: Britland

Posts: 2,262
Blog Entries: 29
Join Date: January 18th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 06:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyIndia View Post
No -Strongly (for the vote)

It is in EVERYONE'S basic human rights, to have the right to health care.

I Understand what your saying, My grandma was a smoker, and lost her leg due to smoking. She gave up smoking, but had to wait ages for more treatment, she was made to wait ages, the doctors ended up giving her the wrong medication and she passed away.

Tbh they need more doctors, that way EVERYONE gets priotry.

Recently I was in the walk in centre with suspected stroke whilst driving, and there was a baby with suspected meningitis, now which do you think should have been frist, bearing in mind we both came in at the same time?

The baby right?

Well the baby with the really bad temp, her cheeks were really red, and she was just laying there.

I was sat unable to feel my arm or my leg.

I was shocked when they said I was a higer piorty than a baby!

It's outragous NHS has there piroty's fucked up!!
A&E works on a triage system. This triage system for the most part works well.

I'm just going to point out here that you know nothing about the baby's condition. You don't know whether she had been referred from a GP who had already assessed her or if she had been triaged already.

I actually would have expected them to put you through first. If you had a stroke they would have had a maximum of a three hour limit in which they could reverse the stroke. That makes you a very high priority. The baby would not have waited long.

Also more doctors? What? You do know that there are already doctors out of work because there aren't enough jobs for them... We do not need more doctors.
   
  (#28 (permalink)) Old
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
her_beautiful_mistake's Avatar
 
Name: Rachel
Gender: Female
Location: Britland

Posts: 2,262
Blog Entries: 29
Join Date: January 18th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 06:58 PM

I also wanted to point out about smoking. In all the time I've spent in hospitals, the majority of the complications in particuarly men over the age of 65 has been contributed to by smoking. But these men started smoking 30,40,50 years ago, when it was not discouraged by the government nor the health service - in fact actively encouraged at times! So how is it fair to punish people for something they did not know was wrong until really not so long ago? And I found it hard to quit smoking after 2 years. I can't imagine what it would be to quit after 20. Such people do not need our judgement. They need education and they need support.
   
  (#29 (permalink)) Old
xxxAJxxx Offline
TEIAM - problem solved.
Average Joe
***
 
xxxAJxxx's Avatar
 
Name: Aj
Age: 24
Gender: Male

Posts: 183
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: December 3rd 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 07:33 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3.1415926535897 View Post

To be honest, I'm not being ignorant at all, if you'd read my original post I clearly stated that after a few times, not after one time. And if of course harm will be omitted from this, because they aren't doing to themselves on purpose.
And about your comment about there not being a cure for everything, while that may be the case there are good preventative techniques readily available to help people. It just sounds like you believe it good and healthy for people to blame things on a mental illness
not quite to blame, but to be diagnosed.


and i did see many times. you still need to save them.


"Now at the end of everyday I lie awake at night and wait
To feel the wires of my brain get cut and quietly rearranged, and
Hear my beaten heart exclaim, 'Still, I refuse to let her go.'"

So we escape to our mistakes for they wait patiently for us.
Oh, how they always wait for me.

If my fear has kept me here only my fear can set me free."
   
  (#30 (permalink)) Old
losing touch. Offline
oh, really?..
Jeez, get a life!
***********
 
losing touch.'s Avatar
 
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: UK

Posts: 5,996
Blog Entries: 537
Join Date: January 8th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 3rd 2010, 07:54 PM

well, what i personally think and what i think is fair are two different things.. but that's very heavily influenced by my personal experiences so i'm more than a little bias. firstly, i DO think that everyone deserves the right to treatment initially, but.. if they then refuse treatment or blatantly ignore medical advice one has to wonder if other people should be given priority.

NHS funding and budgets is something that in some cases is seriously flawed, but i'm not even going to say what i think about that because it makes me far too angry.

so.. no i don't think anyone should be refused initial treatment and referral but if they ignore all medical advice [perhaps with the exception of mental illness] then i wouldn't be against putting them to the bottom of the list.


..and our dreams will break the boundaries of our fears..




Last edited by losing touch.; February 3rd 2010 at 08:37 PM.
   
  (#31 (permalink)) Old
BabyIndia Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
BabyIndia's Avatar
 
Name: India
Gender: Female

Posts: 915
Blog Entries: 24
Join Date: December 8th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 4th 2010, 06:14 PM

I Always thought the young should of been treated first. And she came in after me, and i heard her say they'd just rushed her in....

Mind you they should of rung an ambulence for suspected meningtis in a baby.

I Also didn't know about the doctors not having jobs.

Anyway the doctors they have some of them need training up, the doctor i saw said I'd banged my left hip on the car door, when i was driving and it should have been my right hip that i had banged not the left, this is in my own personal experiance, but he couldnt wait to get rid of me lol.





   
  (#32 (permalink)) Old
losing touch. Offline
oh, really?..
Jeez, get a life!
***********
 
losing touch.'s Avatar
 
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: UK

Posts: 5,996
Blog Entries: 537
Join Date: January 8th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 4th 2010, 07:59 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyIndia View Post
I Always thought the young should of been treated first. And she came in after me, and i heard her say they'd just rushed her in....

Mind you they should of rung an ambulence for suspected meningtis in a baby.

I Also didn't know about the doctors not having jobs.

Anyway the doctors they have some of them need training up, the doctor i saw said I'd banged my left hip on the car door, when i was driving and it should have been my right hip that i had banged not the left, this is in my own personal experiance, but he couldnt wait to get rid of me lol.
what do you mean they need training up? if they weren't trained and qualified then they wouldn't be working as doctors in the NHS. sure, some doctors make mistakes.. but they're all qualified for the job.


..and our dreams will break the boundaries of our fears..



   
  (#33 (permalink)) Old
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
her_beautiful_mistake's Avatar
 
Name: Rachel
Gender: Female
Location: Britland

Posts: 2,262
Blog Entries: 29
Join Date: January 18th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 4th 2010, 09:44 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyIndia View Post
I Always thought the young should of been treated first. And she came in after me, and i heard her say they'd just rushed her in....

Mind you they should of rung an ambulence for suspected meningtis in a baby.

I Also didn't know about the doctors not having jobs.

Anyway the doctors they have some of them need training up, the doctor i saw said I'd banged my left hip on the car door, when i was driving and it should have been my right hip that i had banged not the left, this is in my own personal experiance, but he couldnt wait to get rid of me lol.
The young should not get priority just because they're young. It works on a triage system.

And also what? There is very rigorous medical training and monitoring and constant assessments. Sure there are a very very few bad doctors out there but I know from personal experience, as I am going into the medical profession, that there are very clear monitoring processes at every stage of a doctors career.

Last edited by her_beautiful_mistake; February 4th 2010 at 09:55 PM.
   
  (#34 (permalink)) Old
BabyIndia Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
BabyIndia's Avatar
 
Name: India
Gender: Female

Posts: 915
Blog Entries: 24
Join Date: December 8th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 4th 2010, 09:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by her_beautiful_mistake View Post
A&E for a bruised hip. You were wasting their time.

Actully if you read the post's properly you'd find out that I'd actully had a stroke whilst driving, and blacked out, NOT having a bruised hip.

The doctor asked if i was in any other pain and i mentioned my hip, I've always had bad hips, as my spine is out of line with everything.

It was then him saying I'd obv banged it off the door, but I was driving it should of been my right hip I'd banged on the door, Not my left hip.

The doctor didn't even look at my medical records, he asked me to walk in a straight line, I can't walk in a straight line, drunk or sober. If he'd have checked he would of known that, He also asked me to do a peak flow meter, being asthmatic I literlly can't do that, i can't even blow a balloon up, he should of known that. He also tryed to give me drugs that i'm allergic to.

The doctor I went to yesterday had my records up, and he told me what had happend before i even opend my mouth, Some doctors are crap, not all of them.

Jesus, people before you post read the other post's first and find out the crack!!

I'd have felt much better if the baby went before me.





   
  (#35 (permalink)) Old
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
her_beautiful_mistake's Avatar
 
Name: Rachel
Gender: Female
Location: Britland

Posts: 2,262
Blog Entries: 29
Join Date: January 18th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 4th 2010, 10:16 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyIndia View Post
Actully if you read the post's properly you'd find out that I'd actully had a stroke whilst driving, and blacked out, NOT having a bruised hip.

The doctor asked if i was in any other pain and i mentioned my hip, I've always had bad hips, as my spine is out of line with everything.

It was then him saying I'd obv banged it off the door, but I was driving it should of been my right hip I'd banged on the door, Not my left hip.

The doctor didn't even look at my medical records, he asked me to walk in a straight line, I can't walk in a straight line, drunk or sober. If he'd have checked he would of known that, He also asked me to do a peak flow meter, being asthmatic I literlly can't do that, i can't even blow a balloon up, he should of known that. He also tryed to give me drugs that i'm allergic to.

The doctor I went to yesterday had my records up, and he told me what had happend before i even opend my mouth, Some doctors are crap, not all of them.

Jesus, people before you post read the other post's first and find out the crack!!

I'd have felt much better if the baby went before me.
As you can clearly see, I editted my post before you posted as I realised this must have been the situation.

Triage system, jesus how many times, they clearly assessed you as more urgent than the baby.

A&E don't get your notes that quickly. At least none of the A&E departments I work in have ever got a patients notes that quickly. This is why the PATIENT tells the doctor their history.
   
  (#36 (permalink)) Old
BabyIndia Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
BabyIndia's Avatar
 
Name: India
Gender: Female

Posts: 915
Blog Entries: 24
Join Date: December 8th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 4th 2010, 10:27 PM

It was a walk in centre, and I did tell the doctor that, but he obv thought I was lying. I was his last patient, he obv wanted to get home. Not all doctors are like him.

And it wasnt edited when I read it, hence why i got so pissed off, i wouldnt dream of going to a and e for a brusied hip.

It's my own opinion if I think that baby shoul of gone first, it's just the way I am, others thing it depends on the situtation and whats wrong, I don't tbh, Older people and babies should get seen first.





   
  (#37 (permalink)) Old
Gixxers rock Offline
should now be "VFRs rock"
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
Gixxers rock's Avatar
 
Age: 31
Location: Calgary

Posts: 392
Join Date: January 10th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 5th 2010, 04:29 AM

I'm unsure.
If the suicide attempts are due to mental illness, on the one hand it's right to try to help them but on the other, like you've said, you can't burden everyone else to do so, especially if the person doesn't want treatment or does not attend treatment like they have been recommended/ordered to.

I think special treatments should be given to accidents, where a liver transplant due to alcoholism is no accident, and other similar scenarios.

In a public funded system, I really don't know.


I am the Stig's brother in law.


Race me on Gran Turismo 5 Prologue! My nickname is patrakoffman-64
   
  (#38 (permalink)) Old
losing touch. Offline
oh, really?..
Jeez, get a life!
***********
 
losing touch.'s Avatar
 
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: UK

Posts: 5,996
Blog Entries: 537
Join Date: January 8th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 5th 2010, 01:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyIndia View Post
It was a walk in centre, and I did tell the doctor that, but he obv thought I was lying. I was his last patient, he obv wanted to get home. Not all doctors are like him.

And it wasnt edited when I read it, hence why i got so pissed off, i wouldnt dream of going to a and e for a brusied hip.

It's my own opinion if I think that baby shoul of gone first, it's just the way I am, others thing it depends on the situtation and whats wrong, I don't tbh, Older people and babies should get seen first.
i kind of see your logic.. but really, it's done on severity of injury/illness and how quickly they need to be treated. so, head injuries generally get put to the top of the list, and usually babies.. unless they are not in serious danger, like you were - hence why you were seen first. strokes are very serious, obviously more serious than whatever that baby had.

and as for the notes thing - i totally know where you're coming from. from time to time i literally have to explain my whole medical history to certain doctors because they're too lazy/incompetent to look at my freaking notes before seeing me. yes, some doctors are just rubbish.. that's true. i've been the victim of two serious drug errors because of a doctors mistake.. she was since sacked and isn't allowed to practise anymore but yeah, some doctors aren't up to standard.. it's definitely the minority though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gixxers rock View Post
I'm unsure.
If the suicide attempts are due to mental illness, on the one hand it's right to try to help them but on the other, like you've said, you can't burden everyone else to do so, especially if the person doesn't want treatment or does not attend treatment like they have been recommended/ordered to.

I think special treatments should be given to accidents, where a liver transplant due to alcoholism is no accident, and other similar scenarios.

In a public funded system, I really don't know.
what do you mean by 'special' treatment?.. i think everyone should be treated the same, unless they blatantly ignore medical advice. doctors are not there to judge the patient, they are there to treat them.


..and our dreams will break the boundaries of our fears..



   
  (#39 (permalink)) Old
Penguin Queen Offline
Penguin queen!!
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
Penguin Queen's Avatar
 
Name: Annie
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Location: UK

Posts: 509
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 5th 2010, 10:22 PM

Another point I wanted to make is that its quite often not as simple as- self inflicted, not self inflicted. For example, my grandad used to have miners lung (which eventually killed him), this was not his fault as he was conscripted into the mines and then had to continue to work there due to lack of training. However his condition was exacerbated by the fact he used to smoke. If doctors start to judge patients, patients lie about what's happened to cause there current condition. This results in a less accurate medical history, and therefore less chance of a accurate diagnosis and treatment. Basically it opens a whole new can of worms.




fait
h is a bluebird that you see from afar
it is real and as sure as the first evening star
can't touch it, or buy it, or lock it up tight
but its there just the same
making things turn out right



LE PE
NGUIN QUEEN


   
  (#40 (permalink)) Old
Whisperer Offline
Find yourself and be that
I've been here a while
********
 
Whisperer's Avatar
 
Name: Alessa
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Location: USA

Posts: 1,937
Blog Entries: 118
Join Date: May 17th 2009

Re: Should some people be refused treatment? - February 5th 2010, 10:29 PM

I believe everybody deserves treatment.
No matter what they have done, they shouldn't be denied living a longer life.
Even if they have smoked or been an alcoholic, it would also punish their family by not having them around that long.
Just my opinion


Whatever it is, chances are I've been there.
If I can make it out, you can too.
   
1 user(s) liked this post or found it helpful.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
people, refused, treatment

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All material copyright ©1998-2019, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
Theme developed in association with vBStyles.