observer Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 Seems this one has raised it's head again, with an alleged 80% of A&E patients at week-ends being drink related injuries. What ever happened to a night in police cells for being drunk and disorderly? Then charge them in the morning! :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 The official definition of "drink related injuries" includes injuries sustained by people who have been attacked by those who are drunk, accidental injuries sustained by anyone who has consumed any alcohol at all (whether or not it was a factor in the accident), and injuries sustained by those involved in accidents caused by drunk drivers. Should all of those people spend a night in the cells? More distorted statistics, propaganda and spin from the finger wagging brigade. :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 That wasn't the picture painted by an A&E nurse on TV tonight. If folk turn up rat-a**d at A&E, a padded cell would seem appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 Of course it's not the picture the media choose to paint. Are you saying that ANY injury or illness suffered by anyone who has had a few drinks is entirely their own fault? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Of course it's not the picture the media choose to paint. Are you saying that ANY injury or illness suffered by anyone who has had a few drinks is entirely their own fault? Any individual who has consumed excessive amounts of alcohol that results in their mental and physical state such that it incurs injury to themselves or others, should not be provided with the luxury of a nice warm padded cell, they should be left lying on the pavement and take their chance of recovering from the state they got themselves into, why should I be expected to contribute to their welfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Twise in one day, I find myself agreeing with inky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 As a tee-totaller I find myself agreeing totally with algy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 So you are walking back from the offie with your three bottles of Chablis and trip over the front step and break your leg as well as all the bottles. As a result you are taken to A&E reeking of booze, will you be expected to pay for treatment.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Inky - where did I mention "a few drinks"? The issue is about Richard Heads who binge drink to the point where they are legless; which is compounded if they then become aggressive/violent. Alg - the luxury of a padded cell, would be for their own safety and the safety of others AND (thinking outside the box), could be paid for by the individual themselves at B&B rates; if they don't pay up they don't get out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 And then the tax payer would have to feed them Obs, when they don't pay!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 If people on benefits who buy fags booze and plasma TV's don't have to pay for dentists, opticians, council tax, school meals etc.... why would they be charged for going to A&E whilst drunk? Surely it would be the usual working man that pays after a night out on the booze that gets a bit out of hand! Dumb idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Your right Kije, but their stay would then become permanent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 And we would be paying Obs, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 We pay now to keep folk in prison and off the streets, so what's the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 The government wil receive less money because all the drinkers will be locked up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Well if it's owt like drugs, they'll get it in prison! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 The government don't tax drugs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Who's to decide the difference between a person who admits to having a few drinks and is swaying and slurring their words - possibly as a result of blood loss or a concussion - and someone who is "drunk"? What objective test is to be used? What is the legal liability on any medical person who refuses treatment - or discourages someone from seeking it by telling them they'll have to pay - if the patient is, in fact, suffering a stroke and ends up with a preventable brain injury which requires them to have lifelong care? And hasn't the alcohol consumer paid for their treatment in the high levels of Duty and VAT on the alcohol they've bought? Far more so than the free-loading roaduser who has simply fallen off their bike has, anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Inky, stop it!! I agree completely again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 The government wil receive less money because all the drinkers will be locked up They seemed to have managed ok with the smoking ban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Peter.... don't wind Obs up.... you know how he is when you mention fags! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Think Ink, most medical professionals could tell the difference between an illness or injury, and intoxication - otherwise they shouldn't be employed in A&E. :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 You think so? Really??????? Been through triage at Warrington A&E recently have you? And you still have the problem of forming a fair and objective definition of when having consumed alcohol becomes "intoxication". It is already illegal for licenced premises to serve alcohol to someone who appears to be intoxicated. That's plenty of law to tackle the problem, and the taxes paid on alcohol provide plenty of resources to do it with. Why drag the NHS into it and deliberately compromise the principle of universal healthcare treatment free at the point of delivery? Because it wouldn't stay restricted to alcohol. Since all accidents - and most illnesses - are "preventable" with the benefit of hindsight it could quite soon be extended to virtually anything. Road accidents (wouldn't have happened if you'd been driving slower/faster/via a different route/hadn't got into the care at all), sports injuries (wouldn't have happened if you were playing a different sport/had warmed up properly/had stayed at home on the sofa), DIY accidents (should have got a professional in), even heart disease (wouldn't have happened if your diet was better/if you'd excercised more), STDs (should have kept your pants on!),and pregnancy (ditto!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 It's not my proposition Ink, but one that's been raised by the Gov and Health professionals. I happen to agree with the point you've developed about charging for NHS services. My tongue in cheek comments refer more to social and policing options to deal with binge drinkers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverlady54 Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Isn't there already a charge levied on motorists who are involved in accidents where someone needs hospital treatment? I know there used to be, whether or not the motorist was at fault. If this still happens, surely a charge could be applied for those who need treatment for alcohol related injuries? They would still be treated but the subsequent cost might make them think twice about their behaviour next time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.