Equality for all?

[MamaMaiasaura]

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.

If there was no threat of physical violence then I don't think treatment should be withheld. He obviously feels strongly enough about the issue to be evangelical about it and continue in spite of warnings, fanatical even, but if he is only forcing his views on people it shouldn't disadvantage him.

Though I am not quite sure what other sanction the hospital could threaten him with to put a stop to his nuisance mail. It's a bit like no television if you don't eat your greens.

I think there is abigger issue here. NHS staff do get abused by irate patients. They are yelled at and threatened. And this guys mail is definately a form of abuse. So, the NHs has stood up and said right we are here to put our staff first so they can serve the patients to the best of their ability. If they didn't do this, the abuse workers would surely have a case against them for an unfit working atmosphere (or whatever the appropriate legal term would be).

I am no fan of the NHS, but on this one, they did the right thing. They put their staff first.

No I don't agree that he has the right to have the same medical staff treat him, just as I don't think a teacher who has been assaulted by a pupil should have to tolerate that pupil in their classroom again. But this guy didn't assault or stalk anyone, he just sent nuisance pictures. And as Awen says, the courts would have imposed an injunction on him if they felt that he constituted a risk to the staff - that sanction is open to them and presumably they felt they didn't need to use it. He is a 73 year old nutter - perhaps if he were younger they might have felt he posed more of a threat to the staff.

Irate patients on the premises are a different matter - verbal abuse is often the precursor to violence. Quite right to refuse to treat and eject the patient.

But harmless stuff through the post, however offensive, if it isn't accompanied by a threat should just be water off a ducks back imho.

I think an individual medical worker has a right to refuse to treat somebody if they feel they are being harrassed by them.

I would say that if somebody sent me pictures of aborted foetuses I would feel it was more than just a nuisance, and given the reputation of some pro-lifers I would feel threatened.

However I think a comparible situation is the trial of the 7/11 bomber in the US. He was very abusive to his defense team, but they still gave him a legal defence. It depends on the details, but I think where the argument not to treat him breaks down is can you refuse not to treat somebody in sympathy with a colleague? Did he send pictures to everybody in the hospital including the people who work on hip replacements?

Only looked at the Mirror article (which seems to be short on facts) but my gut feeling is that he has harrassed medical staff despite warnings that he should stop. Because of the harrassment, I do think there was a good case for the hospital refusing treatment as the medical condition was not life threatening.

Does anyone know if this means he has not right to optional treatments or if it means he has to go get them elsewhere?

I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the way verbal abuse in A&E is handled.

Some research was done a while ago which showed that people with mental health problems were more likely to be ejected from A&E than other patients. Their verbal abuse is a symptom of their illness and a sign of their need for medical assistance, and hospital staff are using their symptoms as an excuse not to treat them. Not on imo.

i have chnaged my name because people on mn know me RL

i work in a field which prolifers and animal rights activist feel the need to send this sort of literature to. i however do not actually do any work on animals or embryo's. i feel strongly that people how intimidate and harass others who do should be stopped, and the message being sent out here is that you harass our staff for carrying out this sort of work then we will have nothing to do with you.

OK, so Norman Kember (think that was his name) was a peace activist against the action in IRaq, despite that he was rescued by our forces because it was the right thing to do ethically.

This guy has been on a long waiting list and now may have to go on a waiting list elsewhere. I still think that from the facts available to us the trust have made the wrong decision.

Caligula - interesting re A&E research as I work in MH amd final year and actually in A&E a fair bit with crisis team too :)

As a soon to be nurse, yes when treating clients we are aware of their differing backgrounds and sometime quite horrendous criminal backgrounds, however we are also professionals with a duty of care to our patients and wider comunity and eachother. If we had difficulty in dealing iwth a patient fro whatever reason, there is support there and another colleauge would deal with them.

I am rambling again but what i am trying to say is that in healthcare it is a vocation. THere are a huge number of ethical issues that come up day to day which you deal with in supervision and reflection. It is ok not to like all of the patients or not to hold the same values, but it is important to accept that and to care for them in an equitable and benevolent manner.

(should be writing my essay in RL - feel like i am writing one on here tho )

sorry 7/11 bombers was a typo...

Good point Caligula. I also seem to think there are some physiological conditions that can make you stroppy, though can't remember what they are. Is Alzheimers one?

MadameP, I also take your point that pictures can be threatening especially in this context. We don't really have enough background info but I suppose it must have been a serious matter, perhaps worse than is reported here, for it to get as far as him being jailed.

However, I still think he should not have been refused treatment. Though if he has campaigned so strongly about that particular hospital, I am surprised he would want or consent to be treated there.

I think it is the right decision - hospital staff deserve not to be harassed and he ignored warnings.
having beliefs is one thing - but this man put himself beyond the pale.

I disagree that this man did put himself beyond the pale harp because if he did the court would have made an injunction.

Yes we are entitled to safe environments, however he was not from what it seems, violent and he is 73 needing a hip replacement (so not too mobile either by the sounds of it). I cant remember the number of pissed up people that attend A&E, disrupt wards etc.

I mean does this mean trusts can ban anyone offensive cos I could write up a WHOLE list of them - many of them politicians.

If you bite the hand that feeds you, it really shouldn't come as a surprise when the food is taken away.

Sending hospital staff pictures of aborted foetuses is not campaigning, it's harrassing.

you sound like a fortune cookie

He didnt bite a hand that feeds him - sounds like he was targeting a diff department AND freedom of speech? He has been dealt with by the judicial system - healthcare is a right in this country and should not be used in a punitive manner

but it sends out the message harass our staff and we won't stand for it - reguardless of the form of harassment.

i think he is currently serving his sentence so they maybe an injunction against him, hes not yet been released

IT hasnt said that there is an injunction against him.

The message should be that we prosecute for harrassment abuse through the correct channels. If an injunction has been given then it is fine as the judicial systems made that decision. As healthcare professionals we owe our clients ethical care regardless of their beliefs.

If the trust have made that decision then I think it is questionable. It will be interesting to see how this case develops.

well I don't think that necessarily follows - about an injunction I mean
that woul dhave been expensive and possibly not best use of NHS funds/tax payers money
also, he was guilty of the crime of harassment - presumably if the threat of imprisonment didn't put him off, then the threat of being sent to court for contempt of court etc wouldn't either
I don't have a problem with people holding beliefs - but he should understand that actions have consquences
that life

Harp - if they were in court already where is the extra cost? It appears that he hasnt re-offended either from the article.

I dont agree with what he did as it did distress others but he should still receive treatment. He is still entitled to receive healthcare despite his conviction. I know our facts here are limited but I also know from the shop floor that we deal with far more dangerous clients on a day to day basis.

He is also carrying out his campaign, harrassing or however you look at it, against the wrong people. And they certainly deserve to be protected against the likes of him.
But I am still uneasy about refusing treatment. The law is there to deal with that. When my mother was in hospital I had to walk past single rooms with prisoners chained to the beds, no idea what they had done but they weren't refused treatment.

Awen, because an injunction and the criminal proscution are two different things.
An injunction would be applied for my the Health authority at its cost
the criminal prosecution would be brought by the police/Crown Proseuction Service.
The fact that the guy was prosecuted suggests that the harassment itself was pretty serious - these things don't happen lightly