Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Equality for all?

48 replies

MamaMaiasaura · 09/05/2006 11:09

What are you views on this? \link[http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17050919%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=pro%2dlifer%2doff%2dop%2dlist%2d-name_page.html\here]

As a final year studnet nurse it raises ethical questions for me. Should someone be refused treatment because of their beliefs? HE has strong beliefs but that doesnt change his right to treatment.

One of the 4 biomedical ethics is Equity which means that each person is entitled to the same care regardless of who they are. I can understand the hospital being upset with him but they should not be refuse treatment imo.

OP posts:
Original poster
MamaMaiasaura · 09/05/2006 11:10

\link{http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17050919%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=pro%2dlifer%2doff%2dop%2dlist%2d-name_page.html\here} sorry

OP posts:
quanglewangle · 09/05/2006 11:15

I don't think he should be refused treatment. The two medical situations (sorry, can't think of the word) are not related. His views on one have no bearing on the other.

Blu · 09/05/2006 11:16

Is he still in prison?

It would seem that his harrassment of the hospital has been dealt with by the courts and the hospital are taking things into their own hands....but do prisoners get treatment for things which are not a threat to health? Hip Replacement is a serious 'quality of life' issue rather than health-threatening, isn't it?

the hospital statement could well have been issued over the conviction, rather than the refusal to treat him....vague reporting there, and it is the Mirror.

gomez · 09/05/2006 11:16

It is his actions (i.e. sending of pictures) that have brought about the Trust's decision not his beliefs so am not convinced by your argument Awen.

Original poster
MamaMaiasaura · 09/05/2006 11:23

Gomez, do you think he should be refused treatment? Ok, a prisoner for example may have committed a crime (I have worked in forensics) and they are still entitled to recieve treatment. So believes, actions, colour, creed, good, bad - nurses and health professionals are not meant to judge who deserves treatment in that way.

OP posts:
Original poster
MamaMaiasaura · 09/05/2006 11:26

\link{http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4750647.stm\bbc coverage}

OP posts:
gomez · 09/05/2006 11:31

I am fence sitting TBH the principle of treatment for all is good and fair.

But he has been harrassing hospital staff (regardless of whether he has been convicted or not)yet these same staff are expected to treat him. He could of course receive treatment elsewhere and the Trust would provide emergency care if required so my other side says 'Tough t*t mate.'

katzg · 09/05/2006 11:32

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

katzg · 09/05/2006 11:34

its not about his beliefs - he is free to believe what he likes what he is not free to do is send threatening literature to hospital staff.

Saggarmakersbottomknocker · 09/05/2006 11:36

They can refuse to treat someone who abuses medical staff (in A&E for example). I suppose it's an extension of that.

Maybe he should have thought it through a bit more!

Original poster
MamaMaiasaura · 09/05/2006 11:39

katzg - no it doesnt amount to the same imo and yes i have looked after patients who are abusive. Yes they are liable to prosecution. This person has strong believes but he wasnt making threats of harm as far as i am aware. YEs the material was upsetting but it wasnt threats of violence to the staff and it wasnt sexual in nature. It was of an upsetting nature, yes, but it may have been sent in his opinion to those who made decisions. btw i am not wanting the whole arguement surrounding his beliefs (and no i am not an 'activist' either) because I personally dont think it has any relevance to the care this guy should receive.

If a person sent images of the war in Iraq to his local MP to express his opinion of the war should he not be allowed to vote? perhaps he shouldnt be allowed to have bins collected or have the protection of the police force.

OP posts:
Bugsy2 · 09/05/2006 11:44

I'd be interested to know more about the case than appears in this article. I wonder if he has received warning letters from the hospital, asking him to refrain from threatening behaviour as otherwise he will be considered to big a risk to staff to operate on.
It is very hard to decide what has actually happened from this brief snippet.

katzg · 09/05/2006 11:44

i guess we will have to agree to disagree - i think it does amount to the same think harassment is harassment, whether is it physical, emtional or sexual.

P45 · 09/05/2006 11:46

For me, the relationship between this man and the hospital has broken down. He persists in upsetting staff who should be concentrating on patients in spite of warnings to stop. This is not to say that he can´t and won´t have access to facilities in another hospital!

Saggarmakersbottomknocker · 09/05/2006 11:47

The bbc coverage says he was warned. The courts obviously felt it was offensive material.

gomez · 09/05/2006 11:51

Awen - you obviously feel strongly about this. Why is this form of harrassment different from verbal abuse or intimidating behaviour? You are right to say we shouldn't focus on his beliefs as they are not the issue but his actions. He was harrassing staff, who were presumably upset by this (given the subsequent police involvement), he was asked to stop and didn't. How would you suggest the Trust respond? What if he was stalking or undertaking vigils outside staff members homes - would that be serious enough to warrant action by the Trust. Or can he basically harrass the staff as much as he likes, be punished by law, but still expect them to quite merrily treat his in-grown toe nails!

I am struggling to see the comparison with your other examples I am afraid so can't respond to your questions there.

Original poster
MamaMaiasaura · 09/05/2006 11:53

This is a really interesting debate, I think it is helpful to hear other views and I can see that if he had been upsetting staff to the extent of detracting care to others this could have implications. It is true that there is a limited amount of reported information and that it is not always accurate.

I still believe that if it is a case of him having made a 'political' stand which did not involve acts or threats of harm then he should be given care. I do agree that there is probably a complete comuncation breakdown between him and the hospital too and I expect there is more to this than meets the eye.

OP posts:
Saggarmakersbottomknocker · 09/05/2006 11:55

It is interesting.

I just wonder why anyone would feel the need to upset someone who may have your life in their hands. Not a very wise move I think!

Original poster
MamaMaiasaura · 09/05/2006 11:57

gomez - a hip replacement is far more serious that ingrowing toe nails :) guess both of us can be off with comparisons.

Was it just the gynae uit he was sending his information too? It it was a proceedure in this are I could understand that the staff may struggle treating him.

IT appears the trust did respond by having the police involved and a prison term incurred. THat is how society tends to deal with indivduals who break the law. It doesnt appear that there was a restraining order enforced upon him by the court of law.

OP posts:
Original poster
MamaMaiasaura · 09/05/2006 11:58

I guess if he was harrassing femlae gynaecologists he didnt think he would ever be in need of them ;)

OP posts:
Caligula · 09/05/2006 11:59

I think people who intimidate and harrass staff should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. They should still be entitled to medical treatment.

Same as people who assault teachers. Their children should still be entitled to education, but the assailants should be properly dealt with by the courts - and that shouldn't mean a meaningless caution, imo.

I don't like this creeping habit of punishing people in ways which are not available to the courts. If a court could order that you will have to stay on a hospital waiting list for an extra five years to punish you for shoplifting, fine, (although i don't think that should be a punishment available to the courts) but as it isn't, I don't see why hospitals are allowed to impose this kind of punishment. It's all very well saying the guy's a twat (he obviously is) but if you concede their right to deny him treatment, then you're on a slippery slope, imo.

Original poster
MamaMaiasaura · 09/05/2006 12:03

hear hear caligua, you worded it much better than i could

OP posts:
gomez · 09/05/2006 12:15

But he is still entitled to medical treatment - just not at that particular hospital and for that particular ailment. If he turfed up with an MI he would be treated.

So in essence he can treat staff as he likes - stalking, physical assault, verbal abuse - and as long as he is sanctioned by the Courts he has a right to ask the same medical staff to treat him?

Original poster
MamaMaiasaura · 09/05/2006 12:20

{rolls eyes emocion} .. Stalking, phyiscal assualt.. court involved... I would expect an injuncion order to be imposed. The reason we have a criminal justice system is hopefully to ensure justice/equity/fairness..

Sheesh - are you just playing devils advocate are do you seriously think that?

OP posts:
Original poster
MamaMaiasaura · 09/05/2006 12:22

sorry Blush just no mention of physical assualt etc actually the information is limited but the court system appeard to have dealt with him, surely that should be enough? If they felt he was a risk to staff the court would have passed a prohibited steps order.

OP posts: