As already pointed out in the “Smoking bans” debate, the NHS looks set to begin to tell us how to live our life, or no medical care for you sonny boy. On the one hand; it makes perfect sense. “If you’re going to harm yourself, then go ahead – but don’t come running to me when both your gangrenous legs need amputating. Sorry mate, you took that risk”
Yet on the other, where is the line drawn?
Extreme sports? Those who break a leg skiing – why should I pay for their healthcare? If they can afford skiing holidays; they can afford to pay for the recovery treatment. If they can’t; sorry mate, you took that risk.
Unwanted pregnancies? (except in rape cases) Should have used a condom. Sorry mate, you took that risk.
Drug induced psychosis? Sorry mate, you took that risk.
Stress? From an overworked executive – Sorry mate, you took that risk.
PTSD for veterans? Sorry mate, you took that risk.
Car crash victims – Sorry mate, you took that risk.
We know/believe so many causative factors to many ailments; so at what point will this “sorry mate, you took that risk” ethos stop?
Also in the article:
— It offers 120 different operations for bunions, a surprisingly complicated operation with a long and sometimes difficult recovery time
Sorry mate, should have worn better fitting shoes.
On being healthy, I read once:
Won’t healthy living people feel silly when they’re in hospital dying of “nothing”?
Thankfully, psychoses does not have a truly known aetiology, therefore, we cannot blame the individual for it (yet). So I guess mental health should get all the money?
Meh, psychoses involve vulnerability factors that, with drugs or psychosocial stressors, then tip over in to psychosis. The only area that’s not clearly influenced by our activities and lifestyle choices and is essentially a neurological illness is dementia.
Give all the cash to mental health services for older adults!
I do cryptic crosswords and smoke fags because I saw research that these prevent dementia, Shrink.
(Please don’t tell me the research is flawed! This is my excuse for maintaining my addictions)
PTSD? Sorry mate, you married the bitch.
Chest injury caused by angry patient’s relative repeatedly jabbing finger in sternum in an attempt to reinforce the point they’re trying to make? Sorry mate, you became a nurse.
Custard-cream induced lethargy? Sorry mate, you became a nurse.
I lol’d at this….and Mo’s comment!
The NHS is there to treat people, not judge them. This “constitution” seems to muddle up using NHS resources responsibly (i.e. turning up on time for appointments) and lifestyle choices (smoking, eating unhealthily etc)
Indeed beakie.
But the govt is there to direct us how and who to treat. This edict would smack in the face of ‘social care’ by applying a judgement principle on the recipients of care. Fortunately, those left with the decisions of provisions (or the ‘doers’ of this principle) will be primarily those at lower levels (junior doctors, ward & community nurses) and are unlikely to really compromise their ethical practice standards, which at no point indicates ‘to be careful how much money your care is costing and not treat people you think don’t deserve it’.
I just read that some elderly care homes in the south of England are effectively rationing incontinence pads by limiting residents consumption of fluids to 1.5 litre/day. Had an extra drink from the tap? Sorry, mate…………..
WHAAA…?!?!!!!
That is outrageous! What are the nurses in the home doing about that?
Don’t know Beakie, a letter from a relative published in the Grauniad drew my attention to it. West Sussex PCT are being cited as the Big Nasties, though it’s not clear whether the PCT or the care homes have decided to achieve the required reduction in pad use by the specific method of fluid-rationing.
Of course, besides being an utterly disgusting breach of basic human rights, it’s completely anti-scientific. As I understand it, reducing fluids actually increases incontinence as bladder irritability is increased by concentrated urine.
Indeed. One could also assume that the people in these homes are on complex medication regimes and would benefit from the flushing effects of ample fluids. I’m appalled.
The letter in question is here:
To celebrate the 60th anniversary of the NHS in homes for the elderly throughout West Sussex, staff are now required by the PCT to ration incontinence pads. To achieve this, residents are going to be restricted to 1.5 litres of fluid a day. Denying the elderly – some of whom, including my dad, built the NHS – a drink when they want is a cruel way to celebrate.
Anne Jennings
Reigate, Surrey
If that claim is accurate, I’d consider that to be a form of institutional abuse.
Update – the Grauniad published a vehement denial of any such rationing by Chief Exec of W Sussex PCT.
To paraphrase Christine Keeler, he would say that wouldn’t he? You have to wonder where Anne Jennings got this idea from then.