Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think the NHS can't charge for drunk treatment without charging for other self inflicted

132 replies

suziepra · 12/08/2014 11:33

There is huge support for charging drunk people for a and e. I think this is being launched in Ireland.

I'm tee total but I don't agree with this as it is unfair just to pick on people that drink. Stats have been showing that young people drink less than ever these days.

Why should someone that has chosen to play a contact sport like rugby get free treatment if the drunks have to pay? What about someone who has chosen to live on junk for decades that has obesity treatment?

OP posts:
7Days · 12/08/2014 14:01

just tax the fuck out of drink, cigs, sugar, ski gear.

The fun stuff

A & E is grim on a saturday night though I do judge, personally, but I'm glad the professionals don't. At least, not openly.

Thebodyloveschocolateandwine · 12/08/2014 14:02

I Love high heelsGrin and wine.

RedToothBrush · 12/08/2014 14:14

I'd also prefer them to take action against licensed premises who serve individuals who are clearly very drunk as is the case in several other countries.

7Days · 12/08/2014 14:27

How would you police that though RedToothBrush? It's too much to expect of a barman on a busy night on min wage

RedToothBrush · 12/08/2014 14:31

Well it does seem to work in other places, and the expectation that comes from it, is one where you have to 'behave' more whilst out drinking. The emphasis is on the side of caution - and its the bouncers on the door rather than the barmen - who tend to take the lead. (Especially true now, where pre-drinks has become more common). I was very dubious about the idea, until I saw it in practice. It meant that if you wanted a night out, getting smashed beforehand was a stupid idea in general as you wouldn't get in anywhere.

Sirzy · 12/08/2014 14:45

It is illegal for places to serve people who are obviously drunk. Just like most things needs to actually be enforced

dreamingbohemian · 12/08/2014 15:05

I used to work in bars in the US and absolutely we were expected not to serve people who were really drunk already. People got around it of course, either getting their friends to order or going to bars where they didn't care so much, but generally we did try not to serve people who were smashed -- it was in our own interest not to, as they would just puke and start fights and whatever else.

Also in the US if you serve somebody really drunk and they go out and kill someone driving or really injure themselves, you can get sued.

I have to say, even though I worked in the bar scene for years in the US, I was quite shocked at the extent of public drunkenness when I moved to London. It is really shocking if you're not used to it. It's not like that everywhere, surely they could come up with some things to do about it.

DialsMavis · 12/08/2014 17:01

I work in a pub and we don't serve people who are unsteady on their feet, aggressive or obviously really, really pissed. If someone is borderline... I.e pretty pissed but happy, coherent and upright I probably wouldn't serve the jaeger bombs or double measure spirits.

redshifter · 12/08/2014 17:26

Yanbu

A disgusting idea.

minipie · 12/08/2014 17:40

I agree that it's very hard to draw the line. So YANBU

There has to be some sort of solution though. The drinking culture is way out of hand. Red, Sirzy and dreaming maybe that's it, more enforcement against bars who regularly allow their punters to get wasted. The police probably know which these bars are already, why are they not prosecuted?

ADHDNoodles · 12/08/2014 17:47

Just do what the US does. Make public intoxication illegal, and hold the bars liable. Get drunk people off the streets and put them in a cell until they sober up, and fine them for causing a disturbance. That should at least make people stay in the bar until they're sober, or be restrained so they don't get picked up. But we also have a policy where EMTs don't contact the police about drugs or alcohol in your system if you've only hurt yourself.

I think penalizing individuals for being injured is only going to either make them not go in and jeopardize their safety further, or they'll just come in the next morning sober if they're still hurt and make up an excuse. We have a strict drug policy in the US, and it stops people from calling emergency numbers for friends that are ODing on drugs because they don't want to get in trouble. Penalizing someone for making a mistake when they need help only causes further issues.

Osmiornica · 12/08/2014 17:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DamonAllbran · 12/08/2014 17:51

OK, so I'm down the pub with a few mates. Merriily squiffed.

Someone glasses me for no reason. (it happens).

Nee Naa to A&E, breathalysed & liable for all my treatment. Nice!!

Or Sunday afternoon at home & while I'm washing up I cut myself on the same knife I did 2 years ago & have to go to A&E again. But this time I'm charged because I've had enough glasses of wine to take me over the drink drive limit. (OH drives me there).

What are the criteria & how are they going to manage this? Because to be honest, I like a pint or two. If I'm not going to be eligible for free treatment from Thursday to Sunday (for example) then I'd like some sort of tax rebate.

And as a keen kayaker, climber, caver etc. I think this is the thin end of the wedge. Once it's in what will be next? Smokers, Fatties, Sporties?

Don't turn us into America....

Andrewofgg · 12/08/2014 17:58

WorraLiberty you have got me thinking:

‘Twas Saturday night in the drunk-tank
The happiest night of them all
Most of the drunks were happy
But one had had a bad fall
In came the boss from the prison
And shouted loud and clear:
What do you scumbags want now?
And the drunkards answered: A nice cup of tea, please!

Best I could do in the time.

vladthedisorganised · 12/08/2014 18:09

Exactly Damon.

Equally, how will the records be kept? In Damon's examples, will this show up as two alcohol-related injuries which need to be chargeable - even though the severity of the injury had little to do with the amount of alcohol consumed?

I was quite surprised when I got a visit from SS after DD fell off her bike and sprained her ankle - nice that they're on the ball, of course, but I did feel 'watched'. Supposing this did come into play - would someone in Damon's second example get a visit too? "I see you were treated for an alcohol-related injury..."

Hm. The more I think about the implications of this, the less I like it (and the less workable it seems)

temporaryusername · 12/08/2014 18:20

I think that people getting drunk for kicks on a night out - very drunk and ending up in A and E, are in most cases not alcoholics. They are just irresponsible and stupid. Sorry, but I've been amongst enough to know that it is many, not all, who are like that. They don't have an illness or a long term dependency on alcohol, they are not self medicating for mental illness. The decision to not get that drunk would not be difficult for them. They are not comparable to those who are in long term struggles with obesity and smoking.

Personally I think that bars and clubs are making a huge profit out of binge drinking, and they should fund first aid stations that can triage people and filter what A and E has to deal with.

With many problems it is complicated to draw the line where self inflicted begins - with someone wanting to party it is not! That group really is a separate case and I don't see why they should detract resources.

temporaryusername · 12/08/2014 18:21

Just wanted to add though that I agree NHS charging at point of access is not necessarily a solution.

DamonAllbran · 12/08/2014 19:15

The thing is we all think they're taking about the trouble makers that are kicking off & causing all sorts of strife.

But what they're actually saying is "drunk people". That's Aunty Mavis who falls down the stairs after her 4th Christmas Sherry just as much as some gobshite from the pub who's been downing shots all night.

The government and it's bureau's aren't renowned for being able to tell the difference....

If it says "where alcohol is involved" then it'll mean it, no exceptions.

You'd hope that, for such a wide reaching change of the NHS's conditions that some sort of referendum would be required and that the facts would be made available to people so an informed decision could be made.

The thought that a bunch of BUPA using toffs (any party) could suddenly restrict a large amount of the population from using services they've paid for based "on a whim" worries me greatly.

If they're that worried about cost, they could always make HS2 a mile shorter, that'd cover it Grin...

RedToothBrush · 12/08/2014 19:19

DamonAllbran Tue 12-Aug-14 19:15:17
The thing is we all think they're taking about the trouble makers that are kicking off & causing all sorts of strife.

Poots is proposing it, because action against this type of anti-social behaviour has popular support.

He has previous for pandering to simple similar popular health causes, without so much of a thought for the wider implications, because he is quite frankly a media whore who lacks the intelligence to think beyond the headlines.

DamonAllbran · 12/08/2014 19:25

Agreed!

maddening · 12/08/2014 19:27

Anorexia is as self inflicted as severe over eating disorders, how do people overweight due to medical conditions come in to this?

Why shouldn't injuries from hobbies that carry a risk of injury be as included as well as smoking or drinking - maybe activities are covered up to a certain risk and the proportion you pay is based on a matrix of risk against cost.

Drinking and obesity can be caused by mh - how would you deal with this - there are to many factors due to individual circumstance and too many levels of responsibility within each type of illness for there to be a fair way of pricing and charging.

MiscellaneousAssortment · 12/08/2014 19:36

Trapper made a good point I thought:

"Surely we can fine people for drunk and disorderly under existing laws. But this is not done regularly enough and there is insufficient investment in policing late night antics. This is what should be fixed. Charging at A&E would be impractical and the cost of administration would probably outweigh the revenue."

Chunderella · 12/08/2014 19:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Hobnobissupersweet · 12/08/2014 20:29

Appalling idea, of course at first glance it seems an appealing way to reduce the horrendous ness that is A and E on a Saturday evening but not only is it unworkable, it is also totally against the spirit in which the NHs was founded. I am old enough to have a grandfather who was practicising when the NHS was founded, prior to that many avoided seeing the doctor as they didn't have the penny needed for treatment.
( of course he waived it if they did call and he knew they couldn't afford it)
Delay in obtaining medical treatment when it is needed rarely improves the outcome.
And just as drinking for many is a lifestyle choice, so are many sports. I participate in one of the most dangerous sports with a very high death rate to number of participants. Like heck does that knowledge stop me, but it is not a question of if I might get injured! but more when.

temporaryusername · 12/08/2014 20:59

*DamonAllbran Tue 12-Aug-14 19:15:17

The government and it's bureau's aren't renowned for being able to tell the difference.... *

This is completely right. When it comes to applying policies like this, they just can do shades of grey. It is always tick-box systems, no individuality or discretion allowed. I think that is anything like this can't be done through the NHS itself, it would have to be a case of making people pay in other ways.

DP thinks that smokers are great for the NHS and society - I don't know if he is right, but he claims they pay lots of tax on cigs and save the state money by usually dying younger and not requiring so much in old age care.