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)

The nhs is based on need not cause.

The person who is in a life threatening condition whether that be a stroke or a stab victim will be prioritised as it should be .

you think people who don’t require a&e can just be told no . They have to be triaged , care documented- they take up time too. They Might not take up a bed but time and resources .

what about people who OD completely self inflicted / self harm ?

I have never heard such nonsense

That's because people who are actively bleeding to death can't be put on a waiting list for treatment.
Yes, that was meant to be sarcastic.

With that logic, you could also refuse to treat smokers, people who are overweight, drinkers/drug users, etc.

currently any crime perpetuated against a young black person is assumed to be gang related until proven otherwise. So your ‘bright’ idea would just amplify racism and 2-tier healthcare systems for black people.

Who made you judge and jury OP?

Perhaps we shouldn't treat smokers because they deliberately kill themselves and others via passive smoking.

There's nothing fair in having such a terrible start in life that dealing drugs and carrying a knife to protect yourself is a great option.

I find people like you who jump to judge in this way very concerning. Bring back hanging eh..

Do you know who shouldn't get treatment based on your flawed model of only treating those deemed 'deserving'? Those who've allow the NHS to be chronically mismanaged. That's the real drain on it, not a handful of gang members getting patched up and sent on their way.

We should have a French style system whereby everyone should pay towards treatment. But for that to work the current government needs to stop it’s love affair for the American style system which is the worst of all words (Americans pay more tax than us, and pay more for their treatment, it isn’t fair)

I suspect that's the underlying idea. Note that the OP refers to 'gang members/criminals' and not, eg. the other way round.

No I get you OP. I would go further. Create a HTT* priority protocol so anyone previously done for CSA, rape, assault, murder would be left till absolutely everyone else was treated. They would be put in a room with one way glass so they could see the error of their ways.
*HTT = Holier than thou

Weird thread!

Anyway, yes they should still be treated. Of course they should!

I suspect this is what it comes down to - saving a young black teenager’s life being seen as less worthwhile than a nice white middle class pensioner’s hip replacement. Abhorrent.

This argument is age old, I remember in one of my university interviews almost 30 years ago having to discuss about who, if anyone, should get priority for an organ donation.

The difficulty is once you start giving one group less priority or reduce access to treatment it will be evermore extended. Treatment has to decided on immediate need not the worthiness of who is needing it.

It's a good discussion to have, just not on here.

Some of those people in gangs or criminals have had horrendous lives and are doing what circumstances/decisions when young have led them to.

Being treated with care, respect and compassion by the NHS might be one of the only times that they experience this in their lives.

I don't begrudge them that as long as they aren't abusive whilst being treated or waiting for treatment.

We should put "anyone who has ever voted Conservative" on the "doesn't deserve treatment" list.

@Sellias You do realise that it's a totally different part of the hospital, set of doctors and pool of resources that treat cancer patients vs A&E trauma, don't you? On a miracle day where there wasn't one single violent crime or gang incident, there wouldn't be any additional resources available for the chronically sick.

Exactly. What about people who take part in risky extreme sport or are speeding in a car and get injured. Impossible to draw the line….

So if someone in the street is found stabbed or shot do you think the paramedics should stand there and carry out an evaluation into if they think it’s gang related or a random attack before proceeding with treatment? If a family member or friend of yours was in that situation would you want that delay in treatment on the off chance it’s gang related, as obviously they would need to treat all incidents the same, right?

And then I guess we should also extend the same to people who have accidents when they are drunk, don’t look before crossing the road, go outside when it’s snowing, ride bikes without crash helmets and jump into rivers during heatwaves….

Lots of people present with illnesses or injuries that are the result of illegal, immoral or unwise actions, or at least have been contributed to by their own poor decisions. If you start rationing care on the basis of moral judgment where do you stop?
I've spent many a night up all night in theatres and or/ICU with critically injured or ill people who I know are almost certainly going to go right back to the lifestyle that put them there in the first place. When I was a senior registrar in a big city hospital there was a phase when if you got through a night without dealing with a drugs related shooting or stabbing (machetes were the gangs' weapon of choice at the time) it was an event. There were times when the scheduling of theatre lists had to take into account which gang patients were in so that members of rival gangs weren't in adjacent beds in recovery as that could be dangerous. I have treated people who were in police custody for violent crimes, people who have been attacked or attempted to take their own lives in prison, people where the police have insisted on remaining present until the patient was anaesthetised because they were concerned for my safety, and so on. Not pleasant, but it's not my job to judge who is worthy of care. That's a very slippery slope. Yes, of course I have personal views on patients and their lifestyles. I'm a human being and we all make judgements based on our own values. That's inevitable, but those personal feelings have to stay exactly that - personal. We must treat according to clinical need and to the best of our ability regardless of the individual's background.

Yes, definitely heavy drinkers and vapers.

People who don't care about their health should not get priority.

on a second thought, for child molestors YANBU! But that’s about it ….

err.... are you OK?

any kind of differentiation in providing medical care is a slippery slope

by all means bung them in jail afterwards

but can't deny medical care especially life saving medical care

Doctors have an ethical obligation to treat anyone who needs treatment, based on the Hippocratic Oath.

You know the only ones who didn't take that oath? Medical students in Nazi Germany.

Seriously.

Your idea is not only astoundingly unethical, it's completely impracticable.

I honestly wonder what some people are teaching their kids when I see posts like this. Almost makes me think there should be some kind of mandatory parenting course for people so ignorant of how society works.

Don't be daft 🤨

It’s so interesting when people post things like this, as I think the crux of their argument is that there shouldn’t be an NHS. If you think that gang members, or “fat people”, or smokers or alcoholics or people who extreme sports shouldn’t have their injuries or illnesses treated on the NHS for free, you are against the basic principles of the NHS.

Now, I am also of the opinion the NHS shouldn’t be the healthcare model in this country, but often the people posting these things would consider themselves very pro-NHS. It’s just a very interesting contradiction at the heart of a lot of pro-NHS people’s opinions and suggestions for helping the service at the moment.

Nah OP, you're over complicating it.

It would be far better if all these drug dealers and gang members were simply rounded up regularly and "disappeared". The local Police know exactly who is and where they are.

Crazy to wait for them to rock up to A&E!

You profess to know about this 'type of environment' - but honestly, if you think people are calling ambulances every time someone gets stabbed etc you are wrong. Only the worst cases end up in A&E, a lot of people involved in organised crime patch themselves up as best they can and try to move on. No one wants to go near the authorities - and this includes hospitals - unless they have to.

You should really be blaming the politicians who insisted on the grinding austerity that has decimated the NHS for your family member's death. But hey - let's just do a little thinking out loud about denying people treatment 🙄