Monday, May 08, 2006
When is denial of treatment acceptable?
An NHS hospital is refusing to treat a 75 year old for a hip operation, Edward Atkinson, because he is a pro-life campaigner who refused to stop sending graphic anti-abortion material to hospital staff. The Trust argues the NHS Zero Tolerance Policy, a policy to prevent violence and abuse against staff, justifies their actions. This must mean they are classifying the material as a form of severe verbal abuse. The Courts agree with the Trust, sentencing Mr Atkinson to 28 days for sending offensive material to hospital staff.
Fair Deal @ 06:57 PM
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Recently was in a hospital with an elderly person and lots of elderly and frail there and not one son or daughter or friend with them. Struck me as very wrong.
Posted by on May 08, 2006 @ 09:22 PMI’m very uneasy about this to say the least.
Posted by on May 08, 2006 @ 09:28 PMI think they were just right. They asked him to stop and he didnt, he sent rude and offensive material to hospital staff, invading their peaceful lives. Just right, you cannot be let get away with this kind of stuff.
Posted by on May 08, 2006 @ 09:33 PMwouldnt expect you to think anything else missfitz…youre not a very nice person…
Posted by on May 08, 2006 @ 10:04 PMThis is a strange amalgam of two issues; what is acceptable protest and how much crap should medical staff have to put up with.
The material of itself isn’t going to be particularly traumatic to trained medical staff. Though many forms of unsolicited mail are restricted or sought to be restricted and we are all meant to be equal..I wouldn’t be happy with unsolicited photos of aborted foetuses with my paper.
Do we expect medical staff to put up with and assist those that go beyond the norms we’d expect, again and again…? Of course.
Should we expect them to continue putting up with it for a non-urgent patient who could survive going to the next nearest unit and maybe learning some manners? No. imo
Posted by on May 08, 2006 @ 10:07 PMIt seems the man is being punished twice for the same offence.
Zero-tolerance is supposed to protect staff from assault and abuse while conducting their duties. Did this man damage the effectiveness of Trust staff? He upset some sure - but this seems to be political correctness gone mad.
What next? Will the staff of the Sun be banned treatment for putting bare boobies in the paper that might upset some NHS staff?
The NHS is there to deliver care - the courts deal with criminal behaviour. The Trust should get on with what the public pay it to do.
Posted by on May 08, 2006 @ 10:17 PMah this an easy one
the man is a crank and the staff are at risk endof
Posted by on May 08, 2006 @ 10:27 PMFair Deal
Once again I have to have regard to your awesome powers. Although I am not so sure that the courts acquiessed in the refusal of treatment.
Rubicon
Is there a codicil of Godwins law regarding the expression “Political Correctness gone mad?”
He abused staff. It is nothing to do with effectiveness.
Mark
Got it in one. He wants to abuse staff and then have them care for him. To be fair, it is the shadowy people in UK life league I would worry about. I used to get spam from them. I can’t understand what they had to do with Tommy Sheridan.
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 01:26 AMFartrick
Given that some of your comments scare me, I am actually quite relieved you dont like me! I would not want you in my fan club
I was a nurse for a very long time and I disagree with Mark, in that hospital staff never become fully de-senisitsed. You still have feelings, and indeed you expect certain insults and can be more upset by ones you dont expect.
I agree with Ecce on this one, a no brainer. If you want to be treated with courtesy, care and respect, you dont treat the staff with contempt, and disrespect.
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 05:49 AMMilitary medical personnel in combat are expected to render medical aid to captured wounded enemy combatants who had but recently been trying to kill them.
Many patients who are mentally and emotionally ill heap vitriolic abuse on medical staff attempting to care for them. Such things are taken for granted.
This man’s behaviour was punished by the courts and has no bearing on his medical condition and need for treatment. He ought to be treated and if necessary the decision of the NHS Trust should be challenged all the way to the highest legislative board available, including the European Human Rights Court as this seems to me clearly to be a human rights issue.
While having every sympathy with the abused medical workers whataboutery regarding the rights of hospital staff to be free from the kind of abuse Mr Atkinson has been guilty of are unhelpful. That is a separate issue and must be (indeed has been) dealt with separately.
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 08:52 AMAs a health care professional myself, I fully support this decision.
The right of the hospital staff to security from abuse rank higher than the right of this man to treatment from one particular trust.
The man is a hypocrit since he has a problem with the hospital performing certain procedures, leading him to abuse the staff. However, his self-interest leads him to demand that his victims tend to his needs.
As I see it, the man has two options. Either stop his criminal nonsence or go find treatment somewhere else.
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 09:17 AMWillis
“Although I am not so sure that the courts acquiessed in the refusal of treatment.”
The reference to the courts was how they had defined the material not in the decision about treatment.
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 10:07 AMIm surprised that a health care professional cant spell nonsense.A sign of the times perhaps. Methinks youre talking nonsense
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 10:34 AMWhat does spelling nonsense have to do with health?
Troll somewhere else and by the way, it’s ‘you’re’, not ‘youre’.
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 10:37 AMyoure supposed to be professional.youve spoofed enough about it, yet you spell like the kids on bebo.
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 10:41 AMand by the way, youre attitude of “he wronged us, so were right to wrong him back” is typical of whats wrong with our society today. when it comes from a health care ” professional” it makes very sad reading indeed
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 10:45 AMIf the boot were on the other foot and a hospital refused to treat an abortionist would we have a different view?
Because the principle is the right to refuse to treat people you object to. Once that is conceded we are on a mad road.
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 10:50 AMThey are not ‘wronging him back’. They are simply refusing to provide a service to an abusive individual. He is free to seek care elsewhere. He would get exactly the same treatment from a lot of pharmacies, medical practices or dental practices.
Henry, your analogy or an abortionist doesn’t stand up. The abortionist is not abusing the staff.
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 10:59 AMrefusing to provide a service is “wronging him back”, no matter what way you spin it.
your attitude is the attitude the killers of the young lad in ballymena possess. i hope you are proud of the death and hurt that you culture, mr health care “professional”you say he would get “exactly the same treatment from a lot of pharmacies, medical practices or dental practices”, but not them all. The decent ones would treat him
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 11:21 AMbtw, why are you ignoring rorys comment
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 11:22 AMI wasn’t ignoring anyone, I was having lunch.
They are not ‘wronging’ because they are not wrong. They are protecting the rights of their employees.
You are too busy trolling that you’ve lost sight of the story. The Trust in question will provide treatment for life-threatening conditions so your statement ” i hope you are proud of the death and hurt that you culture, mr health care “professional” ” would be silly rubbish even if it made sense.
Now I am busy and you are a troll fartrick.
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 12:20 PMIn fairness I’d go a along with the idea that courts punish crimes and hospitals treat people. The people in the NHS are funded by taxes, and shouldn’t have the right to deny access to care, or insist that someone should go elsewhere.
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 12:31 PMWell lets look at it from another perspective, and this is from my experiences working in the Trauma room at Lincoln Hospital in the South Bronx.
We treated everyone there, as we were an indigent hospital. In fact, I think we were the third largest trauma department in the States.
We had drug addicts, violent criminals, prostitutes, drug dealers, mobs and gangs. One common denominator? They treated the staff with repsect, and we duly did likewise.
Actually, I recall the day I announced I was moving to Belfast. We had a young fellow on a stretcher with a knife wedged in his knee joint, lying moaning. When I said where I was going, he shot up on the trolley and said” Are you crazy man, they kill each other over there!”
Maybe I should have listened to the druggies.
On the other hand, when we had patients who treated us with disrepect, we refused treatment. I’m sorry Rory, but its that simple.
I was bitten by someone with Aids once, and she was in her right mind at the time. She was cleaned up and discharged from the department. I was held up at knifepoint another time, and the full might of the NYPD went out looking for the chap ao he could hepl them with their enquiries.
That was all in the bad old days in New York, I think things have cleaned up a lot, but there was that line that you didnt cross.
This man purposely terrorised the staff at the hospital, and he should be refused elective treatment and advised to go elsewhere.
Maybe I should make that point again, we would treat any and all in an emergency. Indeed, we once treated a man who had raped a 98 year old lady. But once emergency treatment is administered,. thats it, cheers. off you go and find somewhere else
Respect!
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 01:32 PMMiss Fitz, much as I am sympathetic to the plight of health workers subject to abuse it is nevertheless part of the job description really and musts be endured. You admit yourself that even the most abusive patients must be given emergency treatment and then moved elsewhere for treatment (but treated nevertheless). There is no indication that this man has any issue with health personnel other than his opposition to abortion or that he would be abusive or violent while receiving treatment for a hip condition. To refuse to treat him now is petty and vindictive and unbecoming of a vocational health professional.
As you have pointed out there would be no case against providing orthapedic treatment for a serial rapist/killer even though failing to provide such treatment might well limit his ability to continue in his evil ways.
There may have been some argument for declining to treat him had he been seeking to have an abortion I suppose but even with rapid advances in modern medicine this seems an unlikely prospect.
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 02:47 PMMissfitz
“who treated us with disrepect”
How is communicating a moral objection to a medical procedure disrespectful?
From the scant details above it seems he hasn’t directly verbally abused staff nor physically assualted them he has simply distributed a leaflet.
Posted by on May 09, 2006 @ 03:56 PM
