York Hospital rules out charges for drunks

York Hospital

York Hospital

First published in News
Last updated

Calls to charge drunken patients for their care at A&E departments would not be supported at York Hospital.

Edwin Poots, Northern Ireland’s health minister warned he is considering charging patients who turn up drunk or high on drugs to emergency wards.

He believes the free healthcare system is being abused and has lead to local hospitals missing their targets for treating patients 700 times.

York Hospital has recently been inundated with cases of patients being drunk after various events in the city, leading to tougher working conditions, and an increase in attacks on staff, according to a study by Dr Gillian Kelly, a former member of staff at the hospital.

Although the report found the number of alcohol-related overnight admissions fell by more than a quarter between 2011 and 2013/14, at the same time, the number of recorded head and face assaults rose by 60 per cent.

However, the figures were not enough to go against one of the main NHS principles that the care meets the needs of everyone.

Mr Mike Williams, consultant in Emergency Medicine at York Hospital, said: “One of the principles of the NHS is that services are free of charge at the point of delivery, and this is something we support.

"Whilst it is clear that alcohol has an impact on the emergency department, our staff treat patients on the basis of their clinical need, and are not in a position to make judgements regarding entitlement to care or how much a patient should be charged if they have had alcohol or drugs.

"We would of course encourage people to be responsible when drinking, and to only attend the emergency department if they have a genuine emergency, but we are here to provide treatment for those who need it regardless of the cause.”

Comments (40)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:33am Thu 14 Aug 14

eeoodares says...

If you charge for drunks, why not fat people, skinny people, people who exercise so much it puts a strain on their heart, cyclists who do not wear face masks. What about people who are born to stupid parents, thereby having a greater likelihood of growing up as idiots themselves? Admittedly the latter could always find employment in local Government and therefore have private medical insurance. But for the rest of us it would be dangerous propostion.
If you charge for drunks, why not fat people, skinny people, people who exercise so much it puts a strain on their heart, cyclists who do not wear face masks. What about people who are born to stupid parents, thereby having a greater likelihood of growing up as idiots themselves? Admittedly the latter could always find employment in local Government and therefore have private medical insurance. But for the rest of us it would be dangerous propostion. eeoodares
  • Score: -1

9:33am Thu 14 Aug 14

York2000 says...

You lot are not going to like this....
You lot are not going to like this.... York2000
  • Score: 6

9:39am Thu 14 Aug 14

SpinningJenny says...

Thank goodness. With all the letters on this subject recently I'm glad that the hospital has spoken out for the right to free healthcare for all, regardless of circumstance.
Thank goodness. With all the letters on this subject recently I'm glad that the hospital has spoken out for the right to free healthcare for all, regardless of circumstance. SpinningJenny
  • Score: 11

9:43am Thu 14 Aug 14

smudge2 says...

eeoodares wrote:
If you charge for drunks, why not fat people, skinny people, people who exercise so much it puts a strain on their heart, cyclists who do not wear face masks. What about people who are born to stupid parents, thereby having a greater likelihood of growing up as idiots themselves? Admittedly the latter could always find employment in local Government and therefore have private medical insurance. But for the rest of us it would be dangerous propostion.
Steady tiger !
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: If you charge for drunks, why not fat people, skinny people, people who exercise so much it puts a strain on their heart, cyclists who do not wear face masks. What about people who are born to stupid parents, thereby having a greater likelihood of growing up as idiots themselves? Admittedly the latter could always find employment in local Government and therefore have private medical insurance. But for the rest of us it would be dangerous propostion.[/p][/quote]Steady tiger ! smudge2
  • Score: -9

9:52am Thu 14 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

As far as I know local government workers don't get private medical insurance... my mother certainly doesn't.

This seems to be a very sensible approach. Next time it's people who were playing sport and "brought it on themselves". Or another random group of people the blob takes particular offense to in any given space of time. Free, at the point of use.
As far as I know local government workers don't get private medical insurance... my mother certainly doesn't. This seems to be a very sensible approach. Next time it's people who were playing sport and "brought it on themselves". Or another random group of people the blob takes particular offense to in any given space of time. Free, at the point of use. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 7

10:01am Thu 14 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

SpinningJenny wrote:
Thank goodness. With all the letters on this subject recently I'm glad that the hospital has spoken out for the right to free healthcare for all, regardless of circumstance.
It is not free, we pay for it.
[quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: Thank goodness. With all the letters on this subject recently I'm glad that the hospital has spoken out for the right to free healthcare for all, regardless of circumstance.[/p][/quote]It is not free, we pay for it. Fanny Free House
  • Score: 20

10:14am Thu 14 Aug 14

York2000 says...

It is not free, we pay for it.

Just like 'we' pay for Iain Duncan Smith's underpants.
It is not free, we pay for it. Just like 'we' pay for Iain Duncan Smith's underpants. York2000
  • Score: -2

10:19am Thu 14 Aug 14

Salsaman says...

I might be wrong, but doesn’t the NHS claim back costs from insurance companies for road traffic accidents that they are called to? If so what is the difference?
Also why should I as a reasonably sensible individual have to spend hours in hospital A&E because I have tripped over, cut myself or as happened to a friend had been injured by accident while playing cricket, just because people choose to abuse their bodies. The Government is talking about having a minimum charge for Alcohol, again why should I be penalised, if people choose to get legless and therefore need help they should pay.
I might be wrong, but doesn’t the NHS claim back costs from insurance companies for road traffic accidents that they are called to? If so what is the difference? Also why should I as a reasonably sensible individual have to spend hours in hospital A&E because I have tripped over, cut myself or as happened to a friend had been injured by accident while playing cricket, just because people choose to abuse their bodies. The Government is talking about having a minimum charge for Alcohol, again why should I be penalised, if people choose to get legless and therefore need help they should pay. Salsaman
  • Score: 14

10:28am Thu 14 Aug 14

bolero says...

So is there a problem or not? Or is it just media spin?
So is there a problem or not? Or is it just media spin? bolero
  • Score: 9

11:16am Thu 14 Aug 14

SRT_CM says...

Salsaman wrote:
I might be wrong, but doesn’t the NHS claim back costs from insurance companies for road traffic accidents that they are called to? If so what is the difference?
Also why should I as a reasonably sensible individual have to spend hours in hospital A&E because I have tripped over, cut myself or as happened to a friend had been injured by accident while playing cricket, just because people choose to abuse their bodies. The Government is talking about having a minimum charge for Alcohol, again why should I be penalised, if people choose to get legless and therefore need help they should pay.
If your cut was more serious than another person's injury then you'd be seen before them. That's how A&E works, treatment is delivered on the basis of the level of injury. You'd likely wait for a couple of hours regardless, because of the strain on NHS frontline staff.

If your friend was injured while playing cricket it's really no different to someone who's gone a bit OTT on the beer.

They both placed themselves in harm's way, the fact that one was through playing a sport and the other through over-indulgence of an intoxicant is irrelevant. They both made a choice. Why charge one and not the other?

This is exactly the problem when it comes to people shouting for drunks, or the overweight, to be charged for their treatment... they've (presumably) paid their tax and NI just like everyone else, so why should they have to pay again?

And where does it stop? Like eeoodares said at the top, are you going to charge someone who's exercised so much that they've damaged their heart?

No, of course you wouldn't.
[quote][p][bold]Salsaman[/bold] wrote: I might be wrong, but doesn’t the NHS claim back costs from insurance companies for road traffic accidents that they are called to? If so what is the difference? Also why should I as a reasonably sensible individual have to spend hours in hospital A&E because I have tripped over, cut myself or as happened to a friend had been injured by accident while playing cricket, just because people choose to abuse their bodies. The Government is talking about having a minimum charge for Alcohol, again why should I be penalised, if people choose to get legless and therefore need help they should pay.[/p][/quote]If your cut was more serious than another person's injury then you'd be seen before them. That's how A&E works, treatment is delivered on the basis of the level of injury. You'd likely wait for a couple of hours regardless, because of the strain on NHS frontline staff. If your friend was injured while playing cricket it's really no different to someone who's gone a bit OTT on the beer. They both placed themselves in harm's way, the fact that one was through playing a sport and the other through over-indulgence of an intoxicant is irrelevant. They both made a choice. Why charge one and not the other? This is exactly the problem when it comes to people shouting for drunks, or the overweight, to be charged for their treatment... they've (presumably) paid their tax and NI just like everyone else, so why should they have to pay again? And where does it stop? Like eeoodares said at the top, are you going to charge someone who's exercised so much that they've damaged their heart? No, of course you wouldn't. SRT_CM
  • Score: 9

11:19am Thu 14 Aug 14

SRT_CM says...

Oh, meant to add, I do agree on your point about minimum pricing for alcohol. I don't see why your average drinker should be penalised for the actions of a stupid minority, but that's how the Governments in this country tend to tackle problems... blanket legislation that affects everybody instead of actually tackling the issue.
Oh, meant to add, I do agree on your point about minimum pricing for alcohol. I don't see why your average drinker should be penalised for the actions of a stupid minority, but that's how the Governments in this country tend to tackle problems... blanket legislation that affects everybody instead of actually tackling the issue. SRT_CM
  • Score: 16

11:23am Thu 14 Aug 14

SelbyLady says...

I don't know why drunks have to go to A&E, they should be put in a 'drunk' tank at the police station with a member of the medical staff on hand to monitor them.
I don't know why drunks have to go to A&E, they should be put in a 'drunk' tank at the police station with a member of the medical staff on hand to monitor them. SelbyLady
  • Score: 21

11:44am Thu 14 Aug 14

SpinningJenny says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
SpinningJenny wrote:
Thank goodness. With all the letters on this subject recently I'm glad that the hospital has spoken out for the right to free healthcare for all, regardless of circumstance.
It is not free, we pay for it.
It is free at the point of service. And I am glad that my tax goes towards helping people in need rather than having to pay for private healthcare and knowing that there are other people who desperately need it but can't afford it.
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: Thank goodness. With all the letters on this subject recently I'm glad that the hospital has spoken out for the right to free healthcare for all, regardless of circumstance.[/p][/quote]It is not free, we pay for it.[/p][/quote]It is free at the point of service. And I am glad that my tax goes towards helping people in need rather than having to pay for private healthcare and knowing that there are other people who desperately need it but can't afford it. SpinningJenny
  • Score: 5

11:45am Thu 14 Aug 14

Salsaman says...

SRT_CM wrote:
Salsaman wrote:
I might be wrong, but doesn’t the NHS claim back costs from insurance companies for road traffic accidents that they are called to? If so what is the difference?
Also why should I as a reasonably sensible individual have to spend hours in hospital A&E because I have tripped over, cut myself or as happened to a friend had been injured by accident while playing cricket, just because people choose to abuse their bodies. The Government is talking about having a minimum charge for Alcohol, again why should I be penalised, if people choose to get legless and therefore need help they should pay.
If your cut was more serious than another person's injury then you'd be seen before them. That's how A&E works, treatment is delivered on the basis of the level of injury. You'd likely wait for a couple of hours regardless, because of the strain on NHS frontline staff.

If your friend was injured while playing cricket it's really no different to someone who's gone a bit OTT on the beer.

They both placed themselves in harm's way, the fact that one was through playing a sport and the other through over-indulgence of an intoxicant is irrelevant. They both made a choice. Why charge one and not the other?

This is exactly the problem when it comes to people shouting for drunks, or the overweight, to be charged for their treatment... they've (presumably) paid their tax and NI just like everyone else, so why should they have to pay again?

And where does it stop? Like eeoodares said at the top, are you going to charge someone who's exercised so much that they've damaged their heart?

No, of course you wouldn't.
Your comparison between playing cricket and going a bit OTT on beer doesn't really add up, yes, they have both made a conscious choice, however the cricket player has taken reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of getting injured through the wearing of appropriate safety equipment, pads, gloves etc, whereas the people ending up in A&E from drink have not "gone a bit OTT" they have in many cases, made the conscious decision to go out and consume excesses of alcohol and not stopped when they have "gone a bit OTT" they have carried on drinking, thus making the decision to put their lives at risk without taking any precautions to minimise that risk.
[quote][p][bold]SRT_CM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Salsaman[/bold] wrote: I might be wrong, but doesn’t the NHS claim back costs from insurance companies for road traffic accidents that they are called to? If so what is the difference? Also why should I as a reasonably sensible individual have to spend hours in hospital A&E because I have tripped over, cut myself or as happened to a friend had been injured by accident while playing cricket, just because people choose to abuse their bodies. The Government is talking about having a minimum charge for Alcohol, again why should I be penalised, if people choose to get legless and therefore need help they should pay.[/p][/quote]If your cut was more serious than another person's injury then you'd be seen before them. That's how A&E works, treatment is delivered on the basis of the level of injury. You'd likely wait for a couple of hours regardless, because of the strain on NHS frontline staff. If your friend was injured while playing cricket it's really no different to someone who's gone a bit OTT on the beer. They both placed themselves in harm's way, the fact that one was through playing a sport and the other through over-indulgence of an intoxicant is irrelevant. They both made a choice. Why charge one and not the other? This is exactly the problem when it comes to people shouting for drunks, or the overweight, to be charged for their treatment... they've (presumably) paid their tax and NI just like everyone else, so why should they have to pay again? And where does it stop? Like eeoodares said at the top, are you going to charge someone who's exercised so much that they've damaged their heart? No, of course you wouldn't.[/p][/quote]Your comparison between playing cricket and going a bit OTT on beer doesn't really add up, yes, they have both made a conscious choice, however the cricket player has taken reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of getting injured through the wearing of appropriate safety equipment, pads, gloves etc, whereas the people ending up in A&E from drink have not "gone a bit OTT" they have in many cases, made the conscious decision to go out and consume excesses of alcohol and not stopped when they have "gone a bit OTT" they have carried on drinking, thus making the decision to put their lives at risk without taking any precautions to minimise that risk. Salsaman
  • Score: 8

11:45am Thu 14 Aug 14

York2000 says...

It was Christmas Eve babe
In the drunk tank
An old man said to me, won't see another one
And then he sang a song
The Rare Old Mountain Dew
I turned my face away
And dreamed about you
It was Christmas Eve babe In the drunk tank An old man said to me, won't see another one And then he sang a song The Rare Old Mountain Dew I turned my face away And dreamed about you York2000
  • Score: 3

11:56am Thu 14 Aug 14

HeidTheBa' says...

How about smokers who develop lung cancer. Shouldn't they be charged for their care? Once you start on this particular "journey" you pretty soon realise that there's no end in sight and that, ultimately, almost everybody could end up being charged for their care in A and E. What about DIY enthusiasts and gardeners and so on who injured themselves by not following the safety procedures relevant to their particular power tools. Once you abandon the "free at the point of care" principle and embark on a process involving moral judgements about who should and who should not pay for care you are at the start of a very long and very slippery downhill path. And who precisely would be required to make the necessary moral judgements - the medical staff in A and E, I would beg to suggest, have got more than enough work on their hands simply caring for those in need of attention.
How about smokers who develop lung cancer. Shouldn't they be charged for their care? Once you start on this particular "journey" you pretty soon realise that there's no end in sight and that, ultimately, almost everybody could end up being charged for their care in A and E. What about DIY enthusiasts and gardeners and so on who injured themselves by not following the safety procedures relevant to their particular power tools. Once you abandon the "free at the point of care" principle and embark on a process involving moral judgements about who should and who should not pay for care you are at the start of a very long and very slippery downhill path. And who precisely would be required to make the necessary moral judgements - the medical staff in A and E, I would beg to suggest, have got more than enough work on their hands simply caring for those in need of attention. HeidTheBa'
  • Score: 12

11:56am Thu 14 Aug 14

The Great Buda says...

eeoodares wrote:
If you charge for drunks, why not fat people, skinny people, people who exercise so much it puts a strain on their heart, cyclists who do not wear face masks. What about people who are born to stupid parents, thereby having a greater likelihood of growing up as idiots themselves? Admittedly the latter could always find employment in local Government and therefore have private medical insurance. But for the rest of us it would be dangerous propostion.
Bingo.

The people calling for this are basically saying "charge anyone who isn't me".
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: If you charge for drunks, why not fat people, skinny people, people who exercise so much it puts a strain on their heart, cyclists who do not wear face masks. What about people who are born to stupid parents, thereby having a greater likelihood of growing up as idiots themselves? Admittedly the latter could always find employment in local Government and therefore have private medical insurance. But for the rest of us it would be dangerous propostion.[/p][/quote]Bingo. The people calling for this are basically saying "charge anyone who isn't me". The Great Buda
  • Score: 8

12:09pm Thu 14 Aug 14

SRT_CM says...

Salsaman wrote:
SRT_CM wrote:
Salsaman wrote:
I might be wrong, but doesn’t the NHS claim back costs from insurance companies for road traffic accidents that they are called to? If so what is the difference?
Also why should I as a reasonably sensible individual have to spend hours in hospital A&E because I have tripped over, cut myself or as happened to a friend had been injured by accident while playing cricket, just because people choose to abuse their bodies. The Government is talking about having a minimum charge for Alcohol, again why should I be penalised, if people choose to get legless and therefore need help they should pay.
If your cut was more serious than another person's injury then you'd be seen before them. That's how A&E works, treatment is delivered on the basis of the level of injury. You'd likely wait for a couple of hours regardless, because of the strain on NHS frontline staff.

If your friend was injured while playing cricket it's really no different to someone who's gone a bit OTT on the beer.

They both placed themselves in harm's way, the fact that one was through playing a sport and the other through over-indulgence of an intoxicant is irrelevant. They both made a choice. Why charge one and not the other?

This is exactly the problem when it comes to people shouting for drunks, or the overweight, to be charged for their treatment... they've (presumably) paid their tax and NI just like everyone else, so why should they have to pay again?

And where does it stop? Like eeoodares said at the top, are you going to charge someone who's exercised so much that they've damaged their heart?

No, of course you wouldn't.
Your comparison between playing cricket and going a bit OTT on beer doesn't really add up, yes, they have both made a conscious choice, however the cricket player has taken reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of getting injured through the wearing of appropriate safety equipment, pads, gloves etc, whereas the people ending up in A&E from drink have not "gone a bit OTT" they have in many cases, made the conscious decision to go out and consume excesses of alcohol and not stopped when they have "gone a bit OTT" they have carried on drinking, thus making the decision to put their lives at risk without taking any precautions to minimise that risk.
Salsaman wrote: Your comparison between playing cricket and going a bit OTT on beer doesn't really add up, yes, they have both made a conscious choice, however the cricket player has taken reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of getting injured through the wearing of appropriate safety equipment, pads, gloves etc, whereas the people ending up in A&E from drink have not "gone a bit OTT" they have in many cases, made the conscious decision to go out and consume excesses of alcohol and not stopped when they have "gone a bit OTT" they have carried on drinking, thus making the decision to put their lives at risk without taking any precautions to minimise that risk.


Irrelevant.

They're both injured through a personal choice.

To carry on with the cricket theme, what about someone who you might say hasn't taken reasonable precautions to not be injured, through not wearing the correct pads, etc.?

Would you say they're liable to pay for their treatment?

Who makes that decision?

What's the decision based on, a pre-set criteria?

What criteria defines an unreasonable effort to reduce risk?

Who decides that criteria in the first place?

It's all far too much of a grey area, which makes it impractical and near-impossible to manage.
[quote][p][bold]Salsaman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SRT_CM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Salsaman[/bold] wrote: I might be wrong, but doesn’t the NHS claim back costs from insurance companies for road traffic accidents that they are called to? If so what is the difference? Also why should I as a reasonably sensible individual have to spend hours in hospital A&E because I have tripped over, cut myself or as happened to a friend had been injured by accident while playing cricket, just because people choose to abuse their bodies. The Government is talking about having a minimum charge for Alcohol, again why should I be penalised, if people choose to get legless and therefore need help they should pay.[/p][/quote]If your cut was more serious than another person's injury then you'd be seen before them. That's how A&E works, treatment is delivered on the basis of the level of injury. You'd likely wait for a couple of hours regardless, because of the strain on NHS frontline staff. If your friend was injured while playing cricket it's really no different to someone who's gone a bit OTT on the beer. They both placed themselves in harm's way, the fact that one was through playing a sport and the other through over-indulgence of an intoxicant is irrelevant. They both made a choice. Why charge one and not the other? This is exactly the problem when it comes to people shouting for drunks, or the overweight, to be charged for their treatment... they've (presumably) paid their tax and NI just like everyone else, so why should they have to pay again? And where does it stop? Like eeoodares said at the top, are you going to charge someone who's exercised so much that they've damaged their heart? No, of course you wouldn't.[/p][/quote]Your comparison between playing cricket and going a bit OTT on beer doesn't really add up, yes, they have both made a conscious choice, however the cricket player has taken reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of getting injured through the wearing of appropriate safety equipment, pads, gloves etc, whereas the people ending up in A&E from drink have not "gone a bit OTT" they have in many cases, made the conscious decision to go out and consume excesses of alcohol and not stopped when they have "gone a bit OTT" they have carried on drinking, thus making the decision to put their lives at risk without taking any precautions to minimise that risk.[/p][/quote][quote][bold]Salsaman[/bold] wrote: Your comparison between playing cricket and going a bit OTT on beer doesn't really add up, yes, they have both made a conscious choice, however the cricket player has taken reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of getting injured through the wearing of appropriate safety equipment, pads, gloves etc, whereas the people ending up in A&E from drink have not "gone a bit OTT" they have in many cases, made the conscious decision to go out and consume excesses of alcohol and not stopped when they have "gone a bit OTT" they have carried on drinking, thus making the decision to put their lives at risk without taking any precautions to minimise that risk.[/quote] Irrelevant. They're both injured through a personal choice. To carry on with the cricket theme, what about someone who you might say hasn't taken reasonable precautions to not be injured, through not wearing the correct pads, etc.? Would you say they're liable to pay for their treatment? Who makes that decision? What's the decision based on, a pre-set criteria? What criteria defines an unreasonable effort to reduce risk? Who decides that criteria in the first place? It's all far too much of a grey area, which makes it impractical and near-impossible to manage. SRT_CM
  • Score: 10

12:26pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Salsaman says...

SRT_CM wrote:
Salsaman wrote:
SRT_CM wrote:
Salsaman wrote:
I might be wrong, but doesn’t the NHS claim back costs from insurance companies for road traffic accidents that they are called to? If so what is the difference?
Also why should I as a reasonably sensible individual have to spend hours in hospital A&E because I have tripped over, cut myself or as happened to a friend had been injured by accident while playing cricket, just because people choose to abuse their bodies. The Government is talking about having a minimum charge for Alcohol, again why should I be penalised, if people choose to get legless and therefore need help they should pay.
If your cut was more serious than another person's injury then you'd be seen before them. That's how A&E works, treatment is delivered on the basis of the level of injury. You'd likely wait for a couple of hours regardless, because of the strain on NHS frontline staff.

If your friend was injured while playing cricket it's really no different to someone who's gone a bit OTT on the beer.

They both placed themselves in harm's way, the fact that one was through playing a sport and the other through over-indulgence of an intoxicant is irrelevant. They both made a choice. Why charge one and not the other?

This is exactly the problem when it comes to people shouting for drunks, or the overweight, to be charged for their treatment... they've (presumably) paid their tax and NI just like everyone else, so why should they have to pay again?

And where does it stop? Like eeoodares said at the top, are you going to charge someone who's exercised so much that they've damaged their heart?

No, of course you wouldn't.
Your comparison between playing cricket and going a bit OTT on beer doesn't really add up, yes, they have both made a conscious choice, however the cricket player has taken reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of getting injured through the wearing of appropriate safety equipment, pads, gloves etc, whereas the people ending up in A&E from drink have not "gone a bit OTT" they have in many cases, made the conscious decision to go out and consume excesses of alcohol and not stopped when they have "gone a bit OTT" they have carried on drinking, thus making the decision to put their lives at risk without taking any precautions to minimise that risk.
Salsaman wrote: Your comparison between playing cricket and going a bit OTT on beer doesn't really add up, yes, they have both made a conscious choice, however the cricket player has taken reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of getting injured through the wearing of appropriate safety equipment, pads, gloves etc, whereas the people ending up in A&E from drink have not "gone a bit OTT" they have in many cases, made the conscious decision to go out and consume excesses of alcohol and not stopped when they have "gone a bit OTT" they have carried on drinking, thus making the decision to put their lives at risk without taking any precautions to minimise that risk.


Irrelevant.

They're both injured through a personal choice.

To carry on with the cricket theme, what about someone who you might say hasn't taken reasonable precautions to not be injured, through not wearing the correct pads, etc.?

Would you say they're liable to pay for their treatment?

Who makes that decision?

What's the decision based on, a pre-set criteria?

What criteria defines an unreasonable effort to reduce risk?

Who decides that criteria in the first place?

It's all far too much of a grey area, which makes it impractical and near-impossible to manage.
But how many people are going to A&E suffering from Cricket , DIY, Gardening,injuries compared to the number of people suffering from self induced drink related incidents? I would suggest that from the information supplied by the media there is a significant difference.
[quote][p][bold]SRT_CM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Salsaman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SRT_CM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Salsaman[/bold] wrote: I might be wrong, but doesn’t the NHS claim back costs from insurance companies for road traffic accidents that they are called to? If so what is the difference? Also why should I as a reasonably sensible individual have to spend hours in hospital A&E because I have tripped over, cut myself or as happened to a friend had been injured by accident while playing cricket, just because people choose to abuse their bodies. The Government is talking about having a minimum charge for Alcohol, again why should I be penalised, if people choose to get legless and therefore need help they should pay.[/p][/quote]If your cut was more serious than another person's injury then you'd be seen before them. That's how A&E works, treatment is delivered on the basis of the level of injury. You'd likely wait for a couple of hours regardless, because of the strain on NHS frontline staff. If your friend was injured while playing cricket it's really no different to someone who's gone a bit OTT on the beer. They both placed themselves in harm's way, the fact that one was through playing a sport and the other through over-indulgence of an intoxicant is irrelevant. They both made a choice. Why charge one and not the other? This is exactly the problem when it comes to people shouting for drunks, or the overweight, to be charged for their treatment... they've (presumably) paid their tax and NI just like everyone else, so why should they have to pay again? And where does it stop? Like eeoodares said at the top, are you going to charge someone who's exercised so much that they've damaged their heart? No, of course you wouldn't.[/p][/quote]Your comparison between playing cricket and going a bit OTT on beer doesn't really add up, yes, they have both made a conscious choice, however the cricket player has taken reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of getting injured through the wearing of appropriate safety equipment, pads, gloves etc, whereas the people ending up in A&E from drink have not "gone a bit OTT" they have in many cases, made the conscious decision to go out and consume excesses of alcohol and not stopped when they have "gone a bit OTT" they have carried on drinking, thus making the decision to put their lives at risk without taking any precautions to minimise that risk.[/p][/quote][quote][bold]Salsaman[/bold] wrote: Your comparison between playing cricket and going a bit OTT on beer doesn't really add up, yes, they have both made a conscious choice, however the cricket player has taken reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of getting injured through the wearing of appropriate safety equipment, pads, gloves etc, whereas the people ending up in A&E from drink have not "gone a bit OTT" they have in many cases, made the conscious decision to go out and consume excesses of alcohol and not stopped when they have "gone a bit OTT" they have carried on drinking, thus making the decision to put their lives at risk without taking any precautions to minimise that risk.[/quote] Irrelevant. They're both injured through a personal choice. To carry on with the cricket theme, what about someone who you might say hasn't taken reasonable precautions to not be injured, through not wearing the correct pads, etc.? Would you say they're liable to pay for their treatment? Who makes that decision? What's the decision based on, a pre-set criteria? What criteria defines an unreasonable effort to reduce risk? Who decides that criteria in the first place? It's all far too much of a grey area, which makes it impractical and near-impossible to manage.[/p][/quote]But how many people are going to A&E suffering from Cricket , DIY, Gardening,injuries compared to the number of people suffering from self induced drink related incidents? I would suggest that from the information supplied by the media there is a significant difference. Salsaman
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Thu 14 Aug 14

bolero says...

It's all `What about, what about`. How many of those who end up in A & E having had too much to drink have gone out with the sole intention of; as they say; `Getting bladdered`? Let's have some common sense and learn to be sensible when it somes to drink.
It's all `What about, what about`. How many of those who end up in A & E having had too much to drink have gone out with the sole intention of; as they say; `Getting bladdered`? Let's have some common sense and learn to be sensible when it somes to drink. bolero
  • Score: 7

12:56pm Thu 14 Aug 14

gravitydrips says...

bolero wrote:
It's all `What about, what about`. How many of those who end up in A & E having had too much to drink have gone out with the sole intention of; as they say; `Getting bladdered`? Let's have some common sense and learn to be sensible when it somes to drink.
Precisely. When I go out cycling I don't go out with the intention of crashing my bike. When I go climbing I sure as hell don't go intending to fall 100ft down a cliff. I take a myriad of precautions to minimise as much as I can the risk of injury to myself.
I'm sick and tired of people comparing those who get injuried playing sport to people who have drank so much alcohol they actually endanger their own lives. Their trying to justify the consequenceless society, where no one has to take responsibility for themselves. Sport is natural healthy competition, a natural human behaviour. Drinking enough alcohol you suffer liver failure or suffer brain damage is what???
The NHS has run out of money, (York Hospital especially). In a few years time it won't be free for anyone. It's time we took measures to delay the inevitable and start charging these idiots for the massive drain their placing on the NHS.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: It's all `What about, what about`. How many of those who end up in A & E having had too much to drink have gone out with the sole intention of; as they say; `Getting bladdered`? Let's have some common sense and learn to be sensible when it somes to drink.[/p][/quote]Precisely. When I go out cycling I don't go out with the intention of crashing my bike. When I go climbing I sure as hell don't go intending to fall 100ft down a cliff. I take a myriad of precautions to minimise as much as I can the risk of injury to myself. I'm sick and tired of people comparing those who get injuried playing sport to people who have drank so much alcohol they actually endanger their own lives. Their trying to justify the consequenceless society, where no one has to take responsibility for themselves. Sport is natural healthy competition, a natural human behaviour. Drinking enough alcohol you suffer liver failure or suffer brain damage is what??? The NHS has run out of money, (York Hospital especially). In a few years time it won't be free for anyone. It's time we took measures to delay the inevitable and start charging these idiots for the massive drain their placing on the NHS. gravitydrips
  • Score: 9

1:05pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Salsaman says...

gravitydrips wrote:
bolero wrote:
It's all `What about, what about`. How many of those who end up in A & E having had too much to drink have gone out with the sole intention of; as they say; `Getting bladdered`? Let's have some common sense and learn to be sensible when it somes to drink.
Precisely. When I go out cycling I don't go out with the intention of crashing my bike. When I go climbing I sure as hell don't go intending to fall 100ft down a cliff. I take a myriad of precautions to minimise as much as I can the risk of injury to myself.
I'm sick and tired of people comparing those who get injuried playing sport to people who have drank so much alcohol they actually endanger their own lives. Their trying to justify the consequenceless society, where no one has to take responsibility for themselves. Sport is natural healthy competition, a natural human behaviour. Drinking enough alcohol you suffer liver failure or suffer brain damage is what???
The NHS has run out of money, (York Hospital especially). In a few years time it won't be free for anyone. It's time we took measures to delay the inevitable and start charging these idiots for the massive drain their placing on the NHS.
Thats the point I have been trying to make.
[quote][p][bold]gravitydrips[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: It's all `What about, what about`. How many of those who end up in A & E having had too much to drink have gone out with the sole intention of; as they say; `Getting bladdered`? Let's have some common sense and learn to be sensible when it somes to drink.[/p][/quote]Precisely. When I go out cycling I don't go out with the intention of crashing my bike. When I go climbing I sure as hell don't go intending to fall 100ft down a cliff. I take a myriad of precautions to minimise as much as I can the risk of injury to myself. I'm sick and tired of people comparing those who get injuried playing sport to people who have drank so much alcohol they actually endanger their own lives. Their trying to justify the consequenceless society, where no one has to take responsibility for themselves. Sport is natural healthy competition, a natural human behaviour. Drinking enough alcohol you suffer liver failure or suffer brain damage is what??? The NHS has run out of money, (York Hospital especially). In a few years time it won't be free for anyone. It's time we took measures to delay the inevitable and start charging these idiots for the massive drain their placing on the NHS.[/p][/quote]Thats the point I have been trying to make. Salsaman
  • Score: -1

1:25pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

It saddens me greatly to see these awful calls for charging for certain types of medical care.
As a few have said FREE AT THE POINT OF USE.

The NHS is brilliant, no thanks to governments trying to run it down by underfunding and badly managing it in order to bring in privatisation.
I imagine we all have someone dear to us who likely wouldn't still be here if they'd had to pay thousands of pounds for whatever it was that saved them.

People calling for charging based on their own arbitrary and petty moral code should be very careful. One day it might be someone else's arbitrary code and you might not fall on the right side of it.
It saddens me greatly to see these awful calls for charging for certain types of medical care. As a few have said FREE AT THE POINT OF USE. The NHS is brilliant, no thanks to governments trying to run it down by underfunding and badly managing it in order to bring in privatisation. I imagine we all have someone dear to us who likely wouldn't still be here if they'd had to pay thousands of pounds for whatever it was that saved them. People calling for charging based on their own arbitrary and petty moral code should be very careful. One day it might be someone else's arbitrary code and you might not fall on the right side of it. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 4

1:27pm Thu 14 Aug 14

SRT_CM says...

But how many people are going to A&E suffering from Cricket , DIY, Gardening,injuries compared to the number of people suffering from self induced drink related incidents? I would suggest that from the information supplied by the media there is a significant difference.

Without the figures we can't possibly say.

But it's not like A&E is empty until the weekend, is it? So there's obviously enough non-drink related accidents and emergencies to keep the staff more than busy.

But in fact this article itself says that drink-related admissions have fallen by a quarter in the last three years, it's potentially drink-related (because obviously you don't have to be drunk to hit someone) assaults that has risen by 60%.

So really we're not even talking about people being dangerously drunk that's the real problem, it's the people out and about who feel the need to have a scrap when they've had a few drinks that are the nuisance.

So, say you've been on a night out and through no fault of your own someone's belted you, meaning you have go to to A&E. You're a bit drunk though, so does this come under the remit of treatment that would be charged for?

That's what I'm talking about... it's easy to say "charge drunk people for treatment", but which drunk people and for what treatment? Are we only taking about people who've drunk enough that they've given themselves alcohol poisoning or something similar, or would you charge someone who's been admitted to A&E because they've misjudged how much alcohol they can handle, and are in a bit of a state, but haven't actually caused any harm to anyone else?

Like I said, it's all too much of a grey area.

Precisely. When I go out cycling I don't go out with the intention of crashing my bike. When I go climbing I sure as hell don't go intending to fall 100ft down a cliff. I take a myriad of precautions to minimise as much as I can the risk of injury to myself.
I'm sick and tired of people comparing those who get injuried playing sport to people who have drank so much alcohol they actually endanger their own lives. Their trying to justify the consequenceless society, where no one has to take responsibility for themselves. Sport is natural healthy competition, a natural human behaviour. Drinking enough alcohol you suffer liver failure or suffer brain damage is what???
The NHS has run out of money, (York Hospital especially). In a few years time it won't be free for anyone. It's time we took measures to delay the inevitable and start charging these idiots for the massive drain their placing on the NHS.

A lot of people don't go out for a night with the intention of getting so drunk they cause themselves illness or injury either, but sometimes you can have one too many.

Sport versus drinking isn't a direct comparison either, it's just an example highlighting the fact that once you go down the road of charging for certain treatments, whatever their cause, it's a road you'll never get off of, and eventually it'll grow to include things like sport, gardening or DIY accidents.

Is that really what everyone wants, because of a minority that can't behave properly or know when to stop when they're out drinking?
[quote]But how many people are going to A&E suffering from Cricket , DIY, Gardening,injuries compared to the number of people suffering from self induced drink related incidents? I would suggest that from the information supplied by the media there is a significant difference.[/quote] Without the figures we can't possibly say. But it's not like A&E is empty until the weekend, is it? So there's obviously enough non-drink related accidents and emergencies to keep the staff more than busy. But in fact this article itself says that drink-related admissions have fallen by a quarter in the last three years, it's potentially drink-related (because obviously you don't [i]have[/i] to be drunk to hit someone) assaults that has risen by 60%. So really we're not even talking about people being dangerously drunk that's the real problem, it's the people out and about who feel the need to have a scrap when they've had a few drinks that are the nuisance. So, say you've been on a night out and through no fault of your own someone's belted you, meaning you have go to to A&E. You're a bit drunk though, so does this come under the remit of treatment that would be charged for? That's what I'm talking about... it's easy to say "charge drunk people for treatment", but which drunk people and for what treatment? Are we only taking about people who've drunk enough that they've given themselves alcohol poisoning or something similar, or would you charge someone who's been admitted to A&E because they've misjudged how much alcohol they can handle, and are in a bit of a state, but haven't actually caused any harm to anyone else? Like I said, it's all too much of a grey area. [quote]Precisely. When I go out cycling I don't go out with the intention of crashing my bike. When I go climbing I sure as hell don't go intending to fall 100ft down a cliff. I take a myriad of precautions to minimise as much as I can the risk of injury to myself. I'm sick and tired of people comparing those who get injuried playing sport to people who have drank so much alcohol they actually endanger their own lives. Their trying to justify the consequenceless society, where no one has to take responsibility for themselves. Sport is natural healthy competition, a natural human behaviour. Drinking enough alcohol you suffer liver failure or suffer brain damage is what??? The NHS has run out of money, (York Hospital especially). In a few years time it won't be free for anyone. It's time we took measures to delay the inevitable and start charging these idiots for the massive drain their placing on the NHS. [/quote] A lot of people don't go out for a night with the intention of getting so drunk they cause themselves illness or injury either, but sometimes you can have one too many. Sport versus drinking isn't a direct comparison either, it's just an example highlighting the fact that once you go down the road of charging for certain treatments, whatever their cause, it's a road you'll never get off of, and eventually it'll grow to include things like sport, gardening or DIY accidents. Is that really what everyone wants, because of a minority that can't behave properly or know when to stop when they're out drinking? SRT_CM
  • Score: 1

2:08pm Thu 14 Aug 14

YorkshireLad82 says...

The NHS should be free at point of use, apart from being one of it principles, it’s one of the places you can see our tax put to good use. I've never used A&E as a patient and rarely use the NHS but it is good to know the NHS is there as I’m sure we will all need/want it in the future and hope it is here to stay, free at point of use.
Implementing a charging system for some is likely to cost a chunk out of the NHS budget and inevitably a tax increase; I'd personally rather we look after the careless few with free healthcare than by adding another level of potentially costly bureaucracy.
The NHS should be free at point of use, apart from being one of it principles, it’s one of the places you can see our tax put to good use. I've never used A&E as a patient and rarely use the NHS but it is good to know the NHS is there as I’m sure we will all need/want it in the future and hope it is here to stay, free at point of use. Implementing a charging system for some is likely to cost a chunk out of the NHS budget and inevitably a tax increase; I'd personally rather we look after the careless few with free healthcare than by adding another level of potentially costly bureaucracy. YorkshireLad82
  • Score: 3

3:42pm Thu 14 Aug 14

bolero says...

All these minus votes; are they a sign of ignorance or guilt I wonder? Or are they covering themselves for the future when they go out with the intention of getting bladdered yet again? Yes, charge them for the service provided, and heavily.
All these minus votes; are they a sign of ignorance or guilt I wonder? Or are they covering themselves for the future when they go out with the intention of getting bladdered yet again? Yes, charge them for the service provided, and heavily. bolero
  • Score: -5

4:06pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Nightjar29 says...

Good to see some well observed and intelligent comments on this piece, just for a change like.
Good to see some well observed and intelligent comments on this piece, just for a change like. Nightjar29
  • Score: 6

4:34pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Mr. Marcus says...

SpinningJenny wrote:
Thank goodness. With all the letters on this subject recently I'm glad that the hospital has spoken out for the right to free healthcare for all, regardless of circumstance.
There is NO "free healthcare" in this country.
Everyone pays, directly or indirectly.
York District Hospital is taking the easy route out.
Soon they will moan that they do not have any money to pay some staff, and their contracts will cancelled.
Of course drunks and drug users must pay in hard cash for their stupidity.
Any one who believes in a "free healthcare" is does not live in the real world, sadly for them.
[quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: Thank goodness. With all the letters on this subject recently I'm glad that the hospital has spoken out for the right to free healthcare for all, regardless of circumstance.[/p][/quote]There is NO "free healthcare" in this country. Everyone pays, directly or indirectly. York District Hospital is taking the easy route out. Soon they will moan that they do not have any money to pay some staff, and their contracts will cancelled. Of course drunks and drug users must pay in hard cash for their stupidity. Any one who believes in a "free healthcare" is does not live in the real world, sadly for them. Mr. Marcus
  • Score: 2

4:43pm Thu 14 Aug 14

SRT_CM says...

Of course drunks and drug users must pay in hard cash for their stupidity.


But...

There is NO "free healthcare" in this country. Everyone pays, directly or indirectly.


...they pay already.

(Unless you're going to try and tell me that every single person taken to A&E with a drink-related illness or injury is on benefits, of course?)

So what you're talking about is a fine, and not paying for treatment, isn't it.

Soon they will moan that they do not have any money to pay some staff, and their contracts will cancelled.


You want to use people being treated for alcohol or drug-related admission to hospital as a money-making scheme to fund hospital staff?

Doesn't seem a sound financial model to me. Very open to abuse.
[quote]Of course drunks and drug users must pay in hard cash for their stupidity.[/quote] But... [quote]There is NO "free healthcare" in this country. Everyone pays, directly or indirectly.[/quote] ...they pay already. (Unless you're going to try and tell me that every single person taken to A&E with a drink-related illness or injury is on benefits, of course?) So what you're talking about is a fine, and not paying for treatment, isn't it. [quote]Soon they will moan that they do not have any money to pay some staff, and their contracts will cancelled.[/quote] You want to use people being treated for alcohol or drug-related admission to hospital as a money-making scheme to fund hospital staff? Doesn't seem a sound financial model to me. Very open to abuse. SRT_CM
  • Score: 1

5:25pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Loggo Logmond says...

If it wasn't for drinkers and smokers we would not have an NHS. The tax on the two things are phenomenal.
If it wasn't for drinkers and smokers we would not have an NHS. The tax on the two things are phenomenal. Loggo Logmond
  • Score: -2

5:38pm Thu 14 Aug 14

bolero says...

Loggo Logmond wrote:
If it wasn't for drinkers and smokers we would not have an NHS. The tax on the two things are phenomenal.
So are you also saying that if it were not for smokers and drinkers we wouldn't need the NHS?
[quote][p][bold]Loggo Logmond[/bold] wrote: If it wasn't for drinkers and smokers we would not have an NHS. The tax on the two things are phenomenal.[/p][/quote]So are you also saying that if it were not for smokers and drinkers we wouldn't need the NHS? bolero
  • Score: 1

6:01pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Loggo Logmond says...

bolero wrote:
Loggo Logmond wrote:
If it wasn't for drinkers and smokers we would not have an NHS. The tax on the two things are phenomenal.
So are you also saying that if it were not for smokers and drinkers we wouldn't need the NHS?
Of course not. I am saying that the tax they pay funds it. The big 3 things that pay for most things in this country is Fags, Booze and Petrol. The standard person pays more in tax on them three items then they do income tax. Read the comment I made and understand it first please sailor.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Loggo Logmond[/bold] wrote: If it wasn't for drinkers and smokers we would not have an NHS. The tax on the two things are phenomenal.[/p][/quote]So are you also saying that if it were not for smokers and drinkers we wouldn't need the NHS?[/p][/quote]Of course not. I am saying that the tax they pay funds it. The big 3 things that pay for most things in this country is Fags, Booze and Petrol. The standard person pays more in tax on them three items then they do income tax. Read the comment I made and understand it first please sailor. Loggo Logmond
  • Score: -1

7:40pm Thu 14 Aug 14

bolero says...

Loggo Logmond wrote:
bolero wrote:
Loggo Logmond wrote:
If it wasn't for drinkers and smokers we would not have an NHS. The tax on the two things are phenomenal.
So are you also saying that if it were not for smokers and drinkers we wouldn't need the NHS?
Of course not. I am saying that the tax they pay funds it. The big 3 things that pay for most things in this country is Fags, Booze and Petrol. The standard person pays more in tax on them three items then they do income tax. Read the comment I made and understand it first please sailor.
What an insult to those people who pay their taxes and NHI contributions but don't smoke, don't drink and perhaps don't have a car. Get a life Popeye.
[quote][p][bold]Loggo Logmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Loggo Logmond[/bold] wrote: If it wasn't for drinkers and smokers we would not have an NHS. The tax on the two things are phenomenal.[/p][/quote]So are you also saying that if it were not for smokers and drinkers we wouldn't need the NHS?[/p][/quote]Of course not. I am saying that the tax they pay funds it. The big 3 things that pay for most things in this country is Fags, Booze and Petrol. The standard person pays more in tax on them three items then they do income tax. Read the comment I made and understand it first please sailor.[/p][/quote]What an insult to those people who pay their taxes and NHI contributions but don't smoke, don't drink and perhaps don't have a car. Get a life Popeye. bolero
  • Score: 2

9:09pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

SpinningJenny wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
SpinningJenny wrote:
Thank goodness. With all the letters on this subject recently I'm glad that the hospital has spoken out for the right to free healthcare for all, regardless of circumstance.
It is not free, we pay for it.
It is free at the point of service. And I am glad that my tax goes towards helping people in need rather than having to pay for private healthcare and knowing that there are other people who desperately need it but can't afford it.
Not sure where the random comments about private health care and needy people has come from. I am not disputing who benefits, I am however making it clear it is not free, it is a paid for service, no matter which point payment is made.

The minute people are convinced that the service is free is the time the political elite can fully commit to dismantleling the NHS because after all we are not losing anything because it's free.

To claim a service is free at the point of use is little more than a pedantic argument, do people on pre-paid electric meters get free electric, no they don't, it is paid for.
[quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: Thank goodness. With all the letters on this subject recently I'm glad that the hospital has spoken out for the right to free healthcare for all, regardless of circumstance.[/p][/quote]It is not free, we pay for it.[/p][/quote]It is free at the point of service. And I am glad that my tax goes towards helping people in need rather than having to pay for private healthcare and knowing that there are other people who desperately need it but can't afford it.[/p][/quote]Not sure where the random comments about private health care and needy people has come from. I am not disputing who benefits, I am however making it clear it is not free, it is a paid for service, no matter which point payment is made. The minute people are convinced that the service is free is the time the political elite can fully commit to dismantleling the NHS because after all we are not losing anything because it's free. To claim a service is free at the point of use is little more than a pedantic argument, do people on pre-paid electric meters get free electric, no they don't, it is paid for. Fanny Free House
  • Score: 2

10:45pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Omega Point says...

Loggo Logmond wrote:
If it wasn't for drinkers and smokers we would not have an NHS. The tax on the two things are phenomenal.
Of course we would. it is funded out of general taxation. Excise duty is not the only source
[quote][p][bold]Loggo Logmond[/bold] wrote: If it wasn't for drinkers and smokers we would not have an NHS. The tax on the two things are phenomenal.[/p][/quote]Of course we would. it is funded out of general taxation. Excise duty is not the only source Omega Point
  • Score: 3

2:59am Fri 15 Aug 14

Magicman! says...

I still think if a drunk or high person is abusive to staff, then they don't get any assistance - perhaps even being barred for a few weeks.
I still think if a drunk or high person is abusive to staff, then they don't get any assistance - perhaps even being barred for a few weeks. Magicman!
  • Score: 2

8:43am Fri 15 Aug 14

anistasia says...

York hospital in debt why not charge drunk or drug users the ones that come in week after week people who are overweight or those who exercise dont end up in hospital week after week causing trouble.these people have enough money to buy drink or drugs and expect the public to pay for their treatment this is wrong when you think people who want ivf can't get it too expensive and cancer treatment being cut back because of cost.who deserves the treatment genuine cases.
York hospital in debt why not charge drunk or drug users the ones that come in week after week people who are overweight or those who exercise dont end up in hospital week after week causing trouble.these people have enough money to buy drink or drugs and expect the public to pay for their treatment this is wrong when you think people who want ivf can't get it too expensive and cancer treatment being cut back because of cost.who deserves the treatment genuine cases. anistasia
  • Score: 1

9:38am Fri 15 Aug 14

magnard says...

"York Hospital has recently been inundated with cases of patients being drunk after various events in the city". Like the Tour de France? No. York City playing at home? No again. How about Dawn French at the Barbican? Hardly. It's the races and only the races, we all know it but YEP can't report that for the fact it is. Why is that? Until the racecourse CYC and the police collectively sort the problem the whole of York, not just A & E, will continue to be a zoo and a toilet on racedays.
"York Hospital has recently been inundated with cases of patients being drunk after various events in the city". Like the Tour de France? No. York City playing at home? No again. How about Dawn French at the Barbican? Hardly. It's the races and only the races, we all know it but YEP can't report that for the fact it is. Why is that? Until the racecourse CYC and the police collectively sort the problem the whole of York, not just A & E, will continue to be a zoo and a toilet on racedays. magnard
  • Score: 3

1:22pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Mr. Marcus wrote:
SpinningJenny wrote:
Thank goodness. With all the letters on this subject recently I'm glad that the hospital has spoken out for the right to free healthcare for all, regardless of circumstance.
There is NO "free healthcare" in this country.
Everyone pays, directly or indirectly.
York District Hospital is taking the easy route out.
Soon they will moan that they do not have any money to pay some staff, and their contracts will cancelled.
Of course drunks and drug users must pay in hard cash for their stupidity.
Any one who believes in a "free healthcare" is does not live in the real world, sadly for them.
This comment isn't from the real world, sadly for you.
What's so hard to understand about "free at the point of use?"
Google "NHS core principle"

Thank god you're not in charge. Or maybe you are? Maybe that's the problem.
[quote][p][bold]Mr. Marcus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: Thank goodness. With all the letters on this subject recently I'm glad that the hospital has spoken out for the right to free healthcare for all, regardless of circumstance.[/p][/quote]There is NO "free healthcare" in this country. Everyone pays, directly or indirectly. York District Hospital is taking the easy route out. Soon they will moan that they do not have any money to pay some staff, and their contracts will cancelled. Of course drunks and drug users must pay in hard cash for their stupidity. Any one who believes in a "free healthcare" is does not live in the real world, sadly for them.[/p][/quote]This comment isn't from the real world, sadly for you. What's so hard to understand about "free at the point of use?" Google "NHS core principle" Thank god you're not in charge. Or maybe you are? Maybe that's the problem. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Tue 19 Aug 14

DeeJaiEss says...

Salsaman wrote:
I might be wrong, but doesn’t the NHS claim back costs from insurance companies for road traffic accidents that they are called to? If so what is the difference?
Also why should I as a reasonably sensible individual have to spend hours in hospital A&E because I have tripped over, cut myself or as happened to a friend had been injured by accident while playing cricket, just because people choose to abuse their bodies. The Government is talking about having a minimum charge for Alcohol, again why should I be penalised, if people choose to get legless and therefore need help they should pay.
Hospitals used to charge for dealing with injuries resulting from RTAs although this seems to be a dying trend - I used to deal with a lot of RTA work and I can't say I've seen an emergency treatment bill in years - maybe even in the past decade.

To return to the subject proper, I see a massive disconnect with what the Northern Ireland Health Minister is proposing and what the NHS is there for.

Yes, the founding principle was that the NHS was free at the point of use but when it was founded, nobody wanted to end up at hospital - nobody got so paralytic that they needed to attend hospital thus delaying more serious matters or accidents - sober people don't injure themselves for the hell of it but once they've drunk themselves stupid, they expect the hospital to come and rescue them.

And to those previous posts that refer to 'what next?'

At this rate = NO NHS = it'll become such a behemoth that the government simply won't be able to continue funding it - currently 18% of public spending goes on Health & the NHS.

And please don't simplify it by saying " you'll be charging fat people/drug users etc. next"

Drug users = well, maybe as they are putting themselves in harm's way.

Fat people = now you're just being a pedant.

York District Hospital - your decision means you are suggesting it's permissible to get s**t-faced, to put yourself and others at risk and then to (probably) come to your hospital and start abusing your staff, whilst those who have succombed to some fate or illness and who have not put themselves in harm's way through alcohol should wait.

Quoting Mike Williams (consultant in Emergency Medicine at York Hospital);

“One of the principles of the NHS is that services are free of charge at the point of delivery, and this is something we support."

"Whilst it is clear that alcohol has an impact on the emergency department (to the detriment of those who have to go to A&E and are not blathered), our staff treat patients on the basis of their clinical need, and are not in a position to make judgements regarding entitlement to care (not asking them to) or how much a patient should be charged if they have had alcohol or drugs (they wouldn't need to)."

This is simple - you pass these details to the police who will issue a fixed penalty fine for being drunk and disorderly in a public place and maybe some additional consideration for wasting hospital's time - the police doe it if you waste their time - you don't have to decide how much someone is charged - all that needs to be agreed first is "how much is too much?"

The amount of alcohol can be determined by a blood test - this leaves the hospital to get on with it's job and helps the police to get on with theirs. All it needs is something on the statue books regarding how much is 'too much alcohol'.

As Salsaman says - why should everyone pay the price created by a minority - the minimum charge for alcohol penalises those that know their limits and increases the incentive to smuggle booze from the continent.

It's issue like these that need dealing with now, before we see the NHS charging for everything.

Grow a BACKBONE York District Hospital.
[quote][p][bold]Salsaman[/bold] wrote: I might be wrong, but doesn’t the NHS claim back costs from insurance companies for road traffic accidents that they are called to? If so what is the difference? Also why should I as a reasonably sensible individual have to spend hours in hospital A&E because I have tripped over, cut myself or as happened to a friend had been injured by accident while playing cricket, just because people choose to abuse their bodies. The Government is talking about having a minimum charge for Alcohol, again why should I be penalised, if people choose to get legless and therefore need help they should pay.[/p][/quote]Hospitals used to charge for dealing with injuries resulting from RTAs although this seems to be a dying trend - I used to deal with a lot of RTA work and I can't say I've seen an emergency treatment bill in years - maybe even in the past decade. To return to the subject proper, I see a massive disconnect with what the Northern Ireland Health Minister is proposing and what the NHS is there for. Yes, the founding principle was that the NHS was free at the point of use but when it was founded, nobody wanted to end up at hospital - nobody got so paralytic that they needed to attend hospital thus delaying more serious matters or accidents - sober people don't injure themselves for the hell of it but once they've drunk themselves stupid, they expect the hospital to come and rescue them. And to those previous posts that refer to 'what next?' At this rate = NO NHS = it'll become such a behemoth that the government simply won't be able to continue funding it - currently 18% of public spending goes on Health & the NHS. And please don't simplify it by saying " you'll be charging fat people/drug users etc. next" Drug users = well, maybe as they are putting themselves in harm's way. Fat people = now you're just being a pedant. York District Hospital - your decision means you are suggesting it's permissible to get s**t-faced, to put yourself and others at risk and then to (probably) come to your hospital and start abusing your staff, whilst those who have succombed to some fate or illness and who have not put themselves in harm's way through alcohol should wait. Quoting Mike Williams (consultant in Emergency Medicine at York Hospital); “One of the principles of the NHS is that services are free of charge at the point of delivery, and this is something we support." "Whilst it is clear that alcohol has an impact on the emergency department (to the detriment of those who have to go to A&E and are not blathered), our staff treat patients on the basis of their clinical need, and are not in a position to make judgements regarding entitlement to care (not asking them to) or how much a patient should be charged if they have had alcohol or drugs (they wouldn't need to)." This is simple - you pass these details to the police who will issue a fixed penalty fine for being drunk and disorderly in a public place and maybe some additional consideration for wasting hospital's time - the police doe it if you waste their time - you don't have to decide how much someone is charged - all that needs to be agreed first is "how much is too much?" The amount of alcohol can be determined by a blood test - this leaves the hospital to get on with it's job and helps the police to get on with theirs. All it needs is something on the statue books regarding how much is 'too much alcohol'. As Salsaman says - why should everyone pay the price created by a minority - the minimum charge for alcohol penalises those that know their limits and increases the incentive to smuggle booze from the continent. It's issue like these that need dealing with now, before we see the NHS charging for everything. Grow a BACKBONE York District Hospital. DeeJaiEss
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree