How to get treatment?

thepurplepixie

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I'm sure most people, if they or their loved ones had a serious condition, and they could get treatment quicker by 'jumping the queue', they wouldn't care much about fairness.

Sharp elbows and to hell with the poor and vulnerable. Why would we expect anything else from someone who supports the current government. You see I can see why someone would do it but I don't see why they wouldn't care. It is disgusting.

thepurplepixie

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Unfortunately, unless we achieve utopia, life will never be fair.

Does that mean we just accept it or do we try to improve things?

seven-day-weekend

thepurplepixie wrote: »

Sharp elbows and to hell with the poor and vulnerable. Why would we expect anything else from someone who supports the current government. You see I can see why someone would do it but I don't see why they wouldn't care. It is disgusting.

Well I suppose people might give it a fleeting thought but I still think they would put themselves/their loved ones first if they were seriously ill. Most people would. It's human nature.

I bet you would do it if it meant your grandchildren got seen/treated sooner, if they were seriously ill. You would put them before other peoples' grandchildren.

POPPYOSCAR

thepurplepixie wrote: »

Does that mean we just accept it or do we try to improve things?

Of course we try to improve things but we have to be realistic and understand that not everything is possible and we have to make the best of things.

Unfortunately, you will not change human nature.

We all know it is wrong to murder/steal/ etc. and most of us do not do such things.

There will always be those that do.

A perfect world is impossible IMO.

POPPYOSCAR

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Well I suppose people might give it a fleeting thought but I still think they would put themselves/their loved ones first if they were seriously ill. Most people would. It's human nature.

I bet you would do it if it meant your grandchildren got seen/treated sooner, if they were seriously ill. You would put them before other peoples' grandchildren.

Yes of course they would.

If it meant one of my family needed life saving treatment and it was only possible if paid for ,I would sell everything I own to pay for it.

I might donate to someone in a similar position but I would not give up everything I owned in those circumstances.

thepurplepixie

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Well I suppose people might give it a fleeting thought but I still think they would put themselves/their loved ones first if they were seriously ill. Most people would. It's human nature.

I bet you would do it if it meant your grandchildren got seen/treated sooner, if they were seriously ill. You would put them before other peoples' grandchildren.

In all things charity? You can spare them a fleeting thought, how kind of you.

How about your grandchild is ill, in pain, needs surgery but not an emergency and you see me pushing in the queue because I have £150 to wave under the Consultant's nose? You still happy with the system?

thepurplepixie

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Yes of course they would.

If it meant one of my family needed life saving treatment and it was only possible if paid for ,I would sell everything I own to pay for it.

I might donate to someone in a similar position but I would not give up everything I owned in those circumstances.

But that isn't what we are talking about, we are talking about you offering the Consultant £150 so that you miss out a chunk of the queue. We have already discussed that emergency treatment (which life saving treatment would presumably be) is different and doesn't require payment. The NHS deals with that.

seven-day-weekend

thepurplepixie wrote: »

In all things charity? You can spare them a fleeting thought, how kind of you.

How about your grandchild is ill, in pain, needs surgery but not an emergency and you see me pushing in the queue because I have £150 to wave under the Consultant's nose? You still happy with the system?

I would not blame you for doing so and it is what I would do.

I never said I was a saint. I do have ideals to live up to, but looking after my family is still more important to me than looking after someone else's. As is the case with most people.

If my family are not in need, then I will help someone else's. I am helping someone at the moment with a housing issue after a marriage breakdown.

POPPYOSCAR

thepurplepixie wrote: »

But that isn't what we are talking about, we are talking about you offering the Consultant £150 so that you miss out a chunk of the queue. We have already discussed that emergency treatment (which life saving treatment would presumably be) is different and doesn't require payment. The NHS deals with that.

No life saving treatment is not always available on the NHS and we are not talking about an emergency.

Many drugs and operations are denied to some and they have to pay for their drugs. People have had to sell their houses to fund life saving treatment.

They also have to go abroad sometimes and pay for treatment that the NHS just will not do here.

thepurplepixie

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I would not blame you for doing so and it is what I would do.

I never said I was a saint. I do have ideals to live up to, but looking after my family is still more important to me than looking after someone else's. As is the case with most people.

If my family are not in need, then I will help someone else's. I am helping someone at the moment with a housing issue.

Someone deciding to pay privately for treatment for their family is great. Someone paying a relatively small amount to jump the queue not great.