Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

have his hip operation?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4750647.stm

My view is YES

No - the hospital in question have the right to refuse to treat him.

He should go and stick himself on another hospital's waiting list and stop acting like an idiot...

marty wrote:No - the hospital in question have the right to refuse to treat him.

On what grounds can they refuse treatment to someone??

"We've run out of money"
"He's ugly"
"He's gay and we don't like that"
Just a few examples off the top of my head.....

Is it legal that someone who's been convicted of a crime then has reduced rights to treatment??

J

Let's be clear - this man sent material which could cause offense or upset to hosptial workers, was requested to stop said behavior and yet continued. Whether you believe his motivation to be good or bad, he offended innocent hospital workers and continued to do so when asked to refrain. Just as a pub, restaurant or shop has the right to refuse service, so should a hospital, if reasonable grounds for doing so are present, as they are in this case. It should be noted that the hospital in question have said that this man would be treated in life-threatening cases, and he has not been barred from all hosptials in his area - just the one against which he waged a personal war.

jtaylor wrote:On what grounds can they refuse treatment to someone??

If the person in question has commited acts that reduce the ability of the person performing the treatment to do so, due to emotional distress or fear of physical harm. Treatment should then only be refusable if it is not life-threatening.

I understand your point, Julian, but many if the reasons you list are personal predjudices, which a doctor should, professionally, ignore or deal with. You wouldn't, however, reasonably expect a doctor to treat someone who had harmed them or one of their family. I think this case is analagous.

I'm with Marty on this one.

hound of the baskervilles wrote:I'm with Marty on this one.

Me too.

If someone is drunk/drugged/obnoxious and is threatening staff in A& E he/she can be refused treatment, there are notices everywhere saying so, said person is ejected by security staff.

Not even analogous, the same.

As a corollary, and after barraging said hospital staff with offensive photos, would one not feel a trifle nervous at allowing them to slice one up under general anaesthetic ??? Hospital staff , no matter how dedicated, are still human beings, and cannot be expected not to react viscerally....I , for one, would not want to be treated in a facility where I had made enemies !

And on another point, I cannot validate in any way a male opinion, whether pro or con, on abortion, since this is something which they will never, ever have to face.

I will now get back down off my soapbox and have a coffee...

hound of the baskervilles wrote:I'm with Marty on this one.

So there!

Graham's well constructed argument summed up the reasons I feel this chap shouldn't get his treatment.

To add to this, I am, quite frankly sick of people who continually behave in an appalling manner and then cry, whinge and throw their toys out the pram when when they don't get their own way. Yes there are certain 'rights' that people have but they need to start taking responsibility for their actions and stop acting like petulant children and demanding what they think is rightfully theirs, regardless of their actions. People like this idiot need to know that they cannot simply go around upsetting people and doing as they please without suffering the consequences. I've got no sympathy for him at all.

Interesting and, if I'm honest, surprising in some ways to read your views on this.

Anyway here is why I say "YES":

The bloke was a t wat to send the stuff and I disagree with his actions but, sadly, it seems that ordinary people almost HAVE to do something outrageous to be listened to these days otherwise they are ignored.

Firstly he did not threaten individual staff or their families in the way that, say, animal rights activists do and have done. He stupidly sent images of what the HOSPITAL ITSELF (AND BY DEFINITION IT'S STAFF) produces in it's work. Unpleasant yes but undeniably factual. I cannot see therefore that this was abuse in the way a drunk threatening staff in casualty is abuse for example.

Secondly, following complaints by the hospital, the man was convicted in a Court of Law. If you or I were victims and exacted further retribution against the perpetrator over and above the sentence passed in Law we would be prosecuted. The hospital is exacting it's own punishment on top of that imposed by the Courts and therefore, arguably, should be prosecuted.

Thirdly the real issue though, in my opinion, is this. Should the State Medical Service (that's what the NHS is ) have the right, in a supposedly free and democratic society, to refuse treatment to those whose views are contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy?

In my view if the answer to my question in the paragraph above is "YES" then we are on the slippery slope to totalitarianism in society rather than freedom.

I say Mr Atkinson has been punished by the courts and should have his hip operation.

Secondly, following complaints by the hospital, the man was convicted in a Court of Law. If you or I were victims and exacted further retribution against the perpetrator over and above the sentence passed in Law we would be prosecuted. The hospital is exacting it's own punishment on top of that imposed by the Courts and therefore, arguably, should be prosecuted.

If a friend of yours assaulted you in your home, you might choose not to invite them over any more. That's 'further retribution' right there, but you won't be prosecuted for it.

The hospital is a public body, and needs to act in the public interest rather than on a whim. In addition, this charming man has a right to treatment. But if the hospital can refuse him service *without* trampling on his rights, I don't see a problem, and it's probably best for all concerned.

So yes, he should get his operation, but no, not at that hospital.

Mid A 15 wrote:.

He stupidly sent images of what the HOSPITAL ITSELF (AND BY DEFINITION IT'S STAFF) produces in it's work. Unpleasant yes but undeniably factual.

Thirdly the real issue though, in my opinion, is this. Should the State Medical Service (that's what the NHS is ) have the right, in a supposedly free and democratic society, to refuse treatment to those whose views are contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy?

I have to disagree on anumber of points.
If someone does a job that is unpleasant they do not have to put up with being reminded of it.
(The drain cleaner has every right not to be continually reminded of the unpleasant sights and smells assosciated with their work.)
In fact most hospital employees will have no connection to abortion clinics at all. Even obstetric staff can elect not to be involved.
This man is not being refused treatment because of his views, he is being refused treatment because of his behaviour towards NHS staff.

Aha ! I disagree with Marty !

The sending of pictures of aborted foetuses (sp ?) must be described as not only educational to hospital workers, but the right of a person in this country to excercise free-speech. I do not happen to agree on abortion for abortions sake.

And whilst I'm on my soap box.....................

The animal rights protestors right to publish share-holders in Glaxo on the web is also absolutely right and fair. It is NOT privileged information.

Huntingdon was closed down through a legitimate campaign.

University students from Oxford are certainly putting their heads above the parapet by advocating animal experimentation. Well, now that hunting with hounds has been banned, (thank God), it'll give people something else to hunt !

Mid A 15 wrote:Thirdly the real issue though, in my opinion, is this. Should the State Medical Service (that's what the NHS is ) have the right, in a supposedly free and democratic society, to refuse treatment to those whose views are contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy?

Surely it's precisely the reason we live in a free society that the hospital have the option of refusing to treat him? It's not his views that are the issue anyway - it's his actions. There are certain ways of going about things and Mr Atkinson chose the wrong way in my view.

As for free speech - there is a difference between speaking freely and deliberately targeting innocent people - this is what Mr Atkinson did. The fact is that Mr Atkinson sent these images to hospital staff without knowing what their own personal opinions were. He rather arrogantly assumed a) that they all agreed with abortions and b) that his view was superior to theirs. Mr Atkinson chose a group of people loosely associated with something he despises and then targeted them, regardless of their level of involvement. This is the same method that terrorists use (although I wouldn't go so far as to call him that as he didn't use violence).