NHS shouldn't have to treat gang members / criminals

[Sellias]

I live in a city with lots of crime (drugs, gangs, knife crime)

Groups of idiots 'beefing' with other groups of idiots over postcodes, selling drugs on eachothers patch and perceived disrespect over the silliest of things leading to murder.

I recently watched a documentary about knife crime and it got me thinking about what a terrible state our NHS is in and how people like cancer patients, people with heart problems etc are waiting far too long for treatment to the extent that they can and do die before their treatment even begins.

..these gang idiots though, if they stab or shoot one another an ambulance is called and they get rushed to hospital. It's all hands on deck to save them. Seriously ill people have their much needed surgery cancelled because this stab victim (who sells drugs and causes endless harm in their community) is deemed to need treatment more than they are.

AIBU to think if they chose to live that way then the NHS should have no obligation to treat them? Let them pay for their own treatment with their ill gotten gains.

Disclaimer, I'm not talking about children who of course we should do all we can to save.

I know these people make up only a small percentage of those requiring urgent treatment but it really pisses me off that they bring it on themselves by living the life they do and then expect the tax payer (having never paid tax in their lives)

You seem to think gang crime is an unavoidable eventuality when you live in an impoverished community. It isn't.

I suppose you don't believe that any young person would actively choose and aspire to it?

They do.

Whilst I might agree with you, who man's it? Danny turns up to A&E unconscious with a stab wound, before any treatment do you start calling round his next of kin to ask is ok sound or is he a wrong'un? Ask the little cherubs to carry an ID card that confirms if they are a dealer or not? Impossible.

Heading down a very slippery slope if we start discriminating who we treat. Though I do think some things that are lifestyle related should be changed for. But it would become a mine field.
People
who are permanent residents in The UK should have to pay for an interpreter if they need one. As its incredibly expensive.

You could argue that if "lifestyle" is to be the judge of whether someone gets treated out not, then the majority of people shouldn't be treated. Much ill health has some connection to lifestyle. I have crippling arthritis after a life of not smoking, not drinking much alcohol, and keeping fit and active - a doctor told me that I'd worn out my joints. Is that my fault too?

You are wrong. Nobody should be denied treatment because if choices they make, age etc. The only good reasons to withhold treatment should be if the person refuses it or it is the appropriate clinical assessment.

We often don't know the story either. Just presented with a multi stab wound patient. That could be an innocent person walking through the park who was attacked or a gang member. I'm certainly not going to waste time finding that info out before treatment.

Last time I checked we don't have the death penalty in this country. Do no, we should not leave people to bleed to death in the street for punishment for an alleged crime.

OP, you're just bitter because the waiting list for your brain transplant is so long...

How does a person getting stabbed and needing treatment prevent someone from getting cancer treatment?

And how do you know they weren't the intended target?

How about prisoners? Should they not get medical treatment either?

how about people on remand? They might be guilty so probably better not treat them either.

OP this is a really foolish idea.

Personally, I'd refuse treatment for people who can't spell 'feud'.

You seem to think that letting someone bleed to death in a hospital car park is better than working to divert them from the lifestyle they've chosen. I guess we just have different outlooks.

I shouldn't laugh but I've got images of some poor young lads mum pleading with staff to treat him coz the gang tattoos all over him were a drunken benidorm mistake. Honestly, we've got enough to do without playing judge, jury and executioner. We treat on clinical need and that is that.

How do you know whether a stab victim has chosen to engage in violence?

What if they were minding their business and took a stray bullet?

Also, I assume ppl are listed by need via triage, could it not cost more if they are left to deteriorate further for a few hrs while someone checks linked in to see if they’ve dealer on CV?

You have never worked in healthcare have you?

Would we all have to prove ourselves worthy? Where do we draw the line? Are other criminals included, or just gang members? What if someone is a gang member but gets hit by a bus? Is that different? Who will be responsible for making the judgement?
Lots of people "bring it on themselves by living the life they do" though don't they? T2 diabetic? Sorry, I should have put the chocolate down. Lung cancer after 20 years of smoking? Too bad, so sad.
We have some serious social issues in this country, leaving people to bleed to death isn't the solution.

YABVU - the whole premise of the NHS is that it is there for everybody.
you have no idea what people have been through and the vulnerabilities that lead some people to a life of crime and the grooming which takes place.
Should we stop treating people who have attempted suicide, are unwell due to obesity/smoking/drinking etc? Specifically, middle class people who have become alcohol dependent and end up with liver damage? How do you feel about them being treated, I can guess the answer.

Your comment about stab victims being prioritised over cancer patients is non sensical - the resource is a completely different budget and you are comparing emergency, acute treatment provided by ambulance services/A&E departments to routine outpatient care.

So before a paramedic administers life-saving CPR, plugs an open wound, or gets the defibrillator going... they first need to stop, find a police officer and access this person's criminal record to check if they're worth saving or not? Have I got that correct?

Even if we ignore the fact that healthcare is a fundamental human right, that's completely bonkers

I don’t understand your argument. Are you saying that it’s a choice to be a gang member and therefore because they’ve made that choice they shouldn’t receive healthcare?
What about the choice to eat unhealthy food and end up with cancer or heart problems because of it? Or the choice to not exercise?
Because if your reasoning is centred around the ‘choice’ then I’d hope you’d also like to see the NHS refuse treatment for the other groups I’ve named.

I could possibly entertain the idea that everyone responsible for bringing the nhs down is deprioritised.
”Did you vote Tory, yes, okay then back of the queue”.

Because anyone gets the treatment they need, same day no waiting lists if they get stabbed, or hit by a bus, or break their leg playing rugby. Thats how emergency treatment works.

Apart from anything else, how do the medics know who are the undeserving? Do you stand there and decide? And what do they do with the ones you decide not to treat? Let them bleed out on a hospital trolley, or do they just leave them in the street to die?

You must know the details of how your plan would work. Do share.

But you can’t just leave people bleeding to death in the street. It would cause even more expense and problems.

Also you can’t expect clinical staff to assess someone’s guilt or innocence at the point of need.
It’s unworkable.

Not to mention everyone is someone’s son or daughter.

A few problems with this. Would you allow medical staff to treat them if they wanted to, or ban them from using hospital equipment and force them to let them die? Would you leave them to die publicly in the street, in a hospital bed, a special room somewhere...? If the latter, who would transport them there? What if member/s of the public were caught up in this, would they treat first or ask questions first? At what point would you stop life saving treatment if you discovered they were a gang member?

How about going step further and legalising the killing of gang members as Duterte has with drug dealers?

Interesting x post whatwasthatgrandma!

Agreed