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)

😂

YABU, how on earth would this work in practise? Totally impossible, and unethical. Where do you draw the line - do you not treat someone who’s a smoker? Or someone who is morbidly obse?

You know that convicted prisoners are transferred in handcuffs for medical treatment in hospital, right? Hospital care is for everyone.

If you're saying these are essentially self-inflicted, and therefore not worthy of treatment, you're opening a door to smokers, speeding drivers, alcoholics. Should they similarly not be treated?

To my mind, young men involved in these sort of activities need treatment and rehabilitation, not leaving to bleed.

(But I suppose I do concede you're just venting. I get it, it's frustrating and upsetting when you have family members waiting totally unreasonable amounts of time for treatment, with an underfunded and crumbling NHS, and people making more work/taking up resources because of their criminal activity).

Rhys Jones was killed by a gang member in an area where gang activity is fairly rife.

It wasn't until after the event that the facts were established. So if he hadn't died immediately, he'd have been pushed down the list in A&E because people may have assumed he was related to gangs in some way.

Doesn't sound exactly right or fair to me.

As in, they didn't take the oath (when doctors elsewhere did in the 1940s).

Sorry I was assuming a level of reading comprehension that would negate such pedantry, but I hope you understand what I meant now.

Aside from all the practicalities, determining emergency treatment on the basis of moral worth is a very slippery slope.

If I have a broken ankle from falling over whilst horribly drunk should I be denied treatment that I would get it if broke it playing sport? After all drunken behaviour blights many town and city centres late at night.

If I have a heart attack after a lifetime where I smoke, drink heavily and am morbidly obese does that make me less worthy of treatment than a slim teetotal non smoker? Even though I knew I would harm myself by behaving that way and I could have reduced my chances with better health choices? Where do you stop?

but look I get it OP. It is wildly annoying to have resources used up like you’re seeing and I suspect nobody feels that more strongly than the practitioners dealing with it.

Such a nonsensical approach OP,

Yet, will the distinction between available treatment and bleeding out be so far removed in the not too distant future?

The deciding factor though could be money, not morals and ethics.

Some comments could be applied to the privatisation of the NHS, and the people who could be left to suffer.

Some hilarious replies, especially the brain transplant one.

You have a point in some cases.

And I work with young people from this demographic.

But the drug laws we have in this country mean that drug dealing is incredibly lucrative. And you may be exploited into it in the 1st place and decide to stay and exploit others or decide to leave. Or just don't get involved in the 1st place.

But it isn't as simple as poverty-stricken disadvantaged people becoming involved. If it was, then prison officers, Police officers, Dr's etc wouldn't be involved.

It is extremely lucrative. Thomas Cashman who was convicted of murdering Olivia Pratt- Korbel is a white confessed drug-dealer who said he was making 3-5k a week dealing cannabis.

I think it's likely he was dealing class A but who knows? What we do know is he was making money from dealing drugs that affording him a lifestyle where he was not living in poverty and not working but renting a half a million pound house in Liverpool and his partner turned up to court every day in designer gear.

If you're 13/14/15 or even older, not that well educated and aren't ever going to get a job which will give you a gangster/dealer lifestyle. What would you be drawn to?

You're saying drug dealers don't hurt anyone?

@Ponoka7 Precisely.

My point was in reference to someone implying the drug honchos wouldn’t be affected because they aren’t killing each other.

Deciding who is/isn’t worthy of healthcare is a slippery slope. Next step would be pensioners calling for those not working/on benefits being denied care…. (But not the pensioner cos they paid all their lives)

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

I would guess they think that’s their only personal option in order to survive, and for some this may be true.

Irrespective, you do realise that this would not really solve any problems. Bed shortage is complex and often due to lack of staff in various areas, not because gang members are physically laying in beds. The fact one is in a bed won’t matter when there is a gynae shortage and beds are sitting unoccupied in gynae ward, that’s the main reason someone is not getting their hysterectomy, or a delay to oncology treatment etc. Gang members in beds will honestly make next to zero difference.

Drug crimes and drug related violence would be reduced exponentially if drugs were legal and supply under official control rather than gangs and the black market. Humans always have and always will take drugs, its only their illegality that leads to violence. Drug taking has nothing to do with morality anymore than alcohol does. Prohibition is the real killer.

This documentary you saw... it wasn't called "Top Boy" was it?

Food for thought....

A huge part of the prison population are undiagnosed neurodivergent and various mental health issues as a result of being unsupported. There’s an argument that if we as a society provided better MH support services then a vast majority of criminality wouldn’t take place.

Well, being slightly overweight I get very much the "fuck off until you've lost weight" in order to receive treatment, that's taken to be my choice. So it's not like the NHS aren't fine with prioritising over "lifestyle".

This is possibly the most idiotic thing I've read on here, and that's saying something. How you tell who is innocent and who is guilty? Mistakes would of course be made.

And it's a slippery slope, how do we decide who is worthy? Are paedophiles more worthy than gang members?

Not only that, those gang members are a product of their environment, they are someones son/daughter. Just be glad you don't have to raise your offspring in an area where this is rife. It's the poor who would be penalised.

Haha.

Now this I could get on board with 😆

Isn't it your fault, OP, for living in such a poor area then? Why don't you work a bit harder, and move to a nicer area with less crime and more financially endowed NHS resources?

After all, you believe lifestyle choices and circumstances are mostly down to sheer hard work and willpower. Then morally speaking, it's simply your fault for choosing a lifestyle of poverty, sorry!

OP.....WHERE HAVE YOU GONE...??

Very very unpopular opinion : those over 75. 80 at a push should only receive palliative care.

that would save an awful lot of money.

but voters won’t like it.

So we’ll keep spending BILLIONS of pounds on cancer treatment for 80 yr olds instead of spending it on improving quality of early years education.

Edited to add : because I think a better quality ‘start in life’ is actually going to help senseless gang violence much more than refusing to treat people who get caught up in it.

As an NHS worker, we are there to provide care, free to all at the point of delivery. It is absolutely not for us to make any kind of moral judgement.

@Hooplahooping my dad is 76 and is still working! Nice!