New Year, NHS rationing, should drunks be charged for admissions?

StevieJ

lostinrates wrote: »

Sure, I agree, an extreme asymetry is going to be ''important''. However its worth noting that IIRC 95% of women are asymetrically endowed. If IIRC I think that 50% of women have a larger right boob, 45% a larger left. Deciding what is ''normal'' asymetry and what is extreme may be subjective? I think something that made a difference in cup size would be ''extreme''.

Nothing to do with your hubby/partner being left or right handed

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

More than two cup sizes difference... AIUI they also looked at making them smaller, but its cheaper to make one bigger than make the other smaller. Anyone who needs just one implant is going to be pretty lopsided.

Interesting though to sit back nd examine my own bias on this....as stated, I think any size breast can be attractive, and wouldn't impact on my confidence at all, but other than ''normal'' degree of lopsided I'm pretty sure would. That said, it would not impact on my abilty to work, to pay taxes, more my personal life, I think...so perhaps is something to be saved for and paid for by self or by charity?

vivatifosi

lostinrates wrote: »

Interesting though to sit back nd examine my own bias on this....as stated, I think any size breast can be attractive, and wouldn't impact on my confidence at all, but other than ''normal'' degree of lopsided I'm pretty sure would. That said, it would not impact on my abilty to work, to pay taxes, more my personal life, I think...so perhaps is something to be saved for and paid for by self or by charity?

I see Jomo's viewpoint on this too... Where do you draw the line? From the other side of the coin, my mother, who is a pensioner, did not qualify for reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy as she was considered too old and there wasn't a budget.

None of this is easy to decide, which is what makes it so interesting. Over the coming months it might be cuts in free school meals, to the provision for the elderly at home, all kinds of things. I do think, as Kabayiri I think said, that we need to start considering the value of things and what is important, and where should charges be considered. Still, goes to show that we have plenty of things other than house prices that can rouse an interesting debate.

captainhaggis

vivatifosi wrote: »

my concern is people could die if not treated.

People who are repeatedly in hospital using valuable resources because of their inability to enjoy alcohol responsibly don't deserve to be treated.

I love a drink and I enjoy a good get-together with mates. I've been so wasted before that I've forgotten the first 20 years of my life. But I've never been in hospital because of it.

We've got people in this country being denied life saving medication by NICE because of budget cuts.....

[Deleted User]

The big drain on the NHS is going to be old people.

I've recently lost both my parents and my mum-in-law. I loved them all dearly and would have given anything to keep them alive if they had any quality of life. But as it is, I spent the last months of each of their lives willing them to die. They had no quality of life. They couldn't be cared for at home so were in hospital. In their younger years they had all commented from time to time that that was no way to live and they'd rather be 'put out of their misery'. I know that having witnessed this I am a firm believer in euthenasia for myself.

All to often the doctors kept them alive when they were nothing more than vegetables. We'd made it clear that all we wanted was for them to be kept comfortable so they could pass away quickly and painlessly.

It's not legal, and even if it were I don't know that I could have asked for it. But in all honestly what I wanted for them (and my husband and myself if we're ever in the same situation) is something that would send them off peacefully to sleep thus avoiding endless suffering. And of course, the benefit of this would be billions upon billions of pounds that the health service could put to use on people who COULD be saved and COULD be given a good quality of life.

You know, one thing that horrified me is that there's a drug that can delay the onset of symptoms of dementia. However, the health service won't give it to people that still have good quality of life as it's too expensive. However, when they've deteriorated to the point where they're vegetables wasting away in a bed desperately wanting to die they insist on spending thousands of pounds keeping them alive!

I think this is something that has to come. We would all condemn someone if they left it to late to put a dog to sleep. I suspect that a big percentage of the population don't have religious beliefs that require them to hang on to the last. Soon there will be so many old people that the young won't be able to afford to support them all. Some 'sensitive' topics will need to be addressed soon.

StevieJ

That slippery slope again :eek:

milliemonster

I am a nurse with many years experience, I have worked a busy A&E on nights and left mainly because I was fed up with patching up drunks who had fallen/got into fights through alcohol intoxication.

I have also worked in a senior position in a large city intensive care unit where at one time, ALL the patients we had were in there due to alcohol poisoning through one form or another (either acute intoxication or longer term alcohol related pancreatitis or liver disease)

I have also worked in a cardiothoracic unit where I have nursed patients who 2 days after having a lung removed due to cancer, have been outside smoking again.

I don't know what the answer is but refusing to treat goes against all the ethics of the health professions, charging for admissions in these instances is also difficult, I don't like stereotyping but a vast proportion of patients these 'illnesses' affect would not have the money to pay the charges anyway so this would be pointless.

The NHS is moving away from being a free service, we will all at some point have to pay in one form or another, I can see medical insurance being necessary for certain conditions that the NHS would otherwise be entitled to charge for at some point in the future.

What is for certain, we cannot carry on abusing our bodies the way we do and expect patching up for free

baby_boomer

Why not require all drunks admitted to NHS casualty to have to declare that on future car and household insurance applications?

That could create some savings for the rest of us as insurers discriminate accordingly.

And also relieve some of the pressure on A&E departments as friends and family treat less serious incidents at home.

While reintroducing the outmoded concept that we should in some way be responsible for our actions :rolleyes: . How bizarre is that?

Keeley_p_2

I agree to a certain extent, but it is the problem of where to draw the line.

This time last year, for example, I fell over and broke my wrist in two places. And yes, I'd had a couple of drinks. But, I was also wearing high heels. So, chances are I'd have fallen over at some point in the evening anyway.

I think that the real issue is drunks using ambulances when genuine cases need them, (for the record - I went to A&E in a cab!) alongside the fact that far too much money is spent on administration and 'consultants' in the NHS.

baby_boomer

Keeley_p wrote: »

the problem of where to draw the line.

This time last year, for example, I fell over and broke my wrist in two places. And yes, I'd had a couple of drinks. But, I was also wearing high heels.

Why not go for x2 the current drink driving limit? That would allow for people having a good time but not binge drinking (which excludes your case).

I think that the real issue is drunks using ambulances when genuine cases need them, (for the record - I went to A&E in a cab!)

I disagree to some extent.

Ambulance crews cost the taxpayer less than £100K pa doctors wasting their time on Saturday nights.

But I'd like to save money on both, so that the NHS can afford to treat cases where binge drinking is not the prime causal factor.