Ginger_Warrior

I'm naming mine Leaf-bladed sword. 'Coz it's got a leaf on its head. However: [hide=][/hide] [hide=] Grey Pikmin would be fine as well.[/hide]

I personally wish they'd just do away with the whole thing, but if I had to choose, then Herblore.

Oh come now, if we're going into sensationalist terms at least make it an accurate assessment of the situation you're proposing. No-one to date has turned up to an NHS-run Emergency Department and been told that because they lived in E2 rather than E5, they were not eligible to receive care which they have, by right through National Insurance contributions, already paid for. What you're proposing is that when a paramedic turns up to potentially rescue someone from life-threatening burns, they should be considering whether they're worthy of being taken to hospital or not for no other reason other than they may (key word) have committed a crime in sustaining the burns. You can attempt to deflect the sheer lunacy, some would say inhumanity, of the criteria you're proposing by pointing out that our care system has flaws elsewhere, and you'd be right to point out that those flaws exist, but it doesn't take anything away from the fact that what you're saying makes no sense, would lead to a poorer prognosis for the casualties concerned, and runs contrary to just about every professional guideline set out by the GMC and the RCN. Just so you can sit on a high horse. And then you have the audacity to accuse us of being "trendy".

I can appreciate how the opening cutscene of the tutorial would be more effective at attracting players than its predecessors. Some really lovely animations and voice acting.

Sure the principle of medicine dictates treatment. That's not happened in the last 3000 years to the criminal community. In fact, just the opposite. Mutilation, whipping, branding, flogging as well as execution were commonplace for criminals. We weren't all nicey nicey to criminals via your theory. It only existed as an idea. No-one could get it unless they could pay. It was only in 1948 that we got the NHS, before which, healthcare was erratic for the entire population. So now that we have the political will and financial resources to deliver good on medical principle, you want to pretend as though we're living in the 2,950 or so years before the foundation of the welfare state and revert back to the days where everyone received varying levels of care according to their personal circumstances. Makes total sense.

Oh, I already learned that lesson from my (brief) time at university. Way too many lectures missed after staying up late two nights before. :smile:

About seven hours, maybe a little less, midnight to 7. I always drink tea, it's pretty much the only thing I drink to be honest. I'll try bringing in water to work and seeing if that changes anything. And yeah I've not been eating well because I can't find enough time to do a food shop (working weekends).

Buy three bottles of mineral water. Drink them. Fill with tap water, keep in the fridge. £1.50 for a near endless supply of fresh, chilled water. 10,000% mark-up? Not here. Whenever I come home from work, I feel very tired. My job is quite physically and emotionally demanding, but it's near 8pm now, my shift finished at 4pm, and I'm still yawning/gasping for a cup of tea to keep me awake. I used to dungeoneer after work but now I just can't concentrate for long enough to play RS. My Halo performances are erratic when I play on a work day too because my reflexes are slow and I'm not paying attention well enough. Any tips on how stay more "awake" in the evening when you're winding down from work/school?

I think "god damn" would be seen as an overly aggressive tone here, but then"god damn" isn't used half as much here as it in the US, so that's understandable. Radio censorship definitely exists though. 'Listening' to the lyrics of the last verse in Stan by Eminem and Dido is just... pointless (I put inverted commas because you can't actually hear any lyrics, they're all cut out). The whole point of the song is completely ruined because children, who can't possibly understand what's being said in the song, might hear the lyrics and, I suppose the logic would follow, turn into wife-beating sociopaths.

There's currently cross-party talks on-going into the future of social care funding. There isn't a lack of people wanting to reform the system through which elderly care is delivered, I'm sure most people have enough experience through their own friends and family of how outdated the process is. I'm not sticking up for criminals because it's "liberally trendy". It's just a basic principle of medical care which goes back to days of Hippocrates: Doctors are not in a position to judge their patients, they're there to look after the patient's best interests. Giving them sub-standard care because society wants them to receive sub-standard care is quite obviously going against that principle. Unless you're willing to argue that we should uproot about 3,000 years of medical tradition, which if we're being honest, is right now actually working quite well for us all things considered, then I don't think there's any argument for denying criminals access to equal healthcare in a country where free healthcare at the point of need is considered a basic human right, especially when up until the point where they 'became' criminals, they were paying National Insurance in order to guarentee that safety net later on in life. If you're going to argue "Well he knew the risks, he shouldn't receive any sympathy", then where do you draw the line? People working on scaffolding shouldn't receive care because they knew there was a risk of walking off the edge? Firefighters shouldn't receive treatment for injuries sustained during operations because they knew that being in close proximity to fire usually burns? The elderly shouldn't receive care when they accidently forget to use sticks while walking and consequently fall because they knew that falling will likely cause serious injury? It's a debate which promises to be a bottomless pit and it's something I, and many others, would rather not indulge in when we can just say, "Everyone gets care when they need it, because through NI, they've already paid for it."

"Djokovic is super-human" Look, yesterday was one of the greatest sporting achievements of all time as far as I'm concerned, and it's one that will have physiotherapists and conditioners scratching their heads in disbelief, but he is still human. I think this is what they call word inflation, and all examples of it wind me up.

It's strange how I work in council-funded elderly care and yet I don't recognise the picture painted in that article, at least not at my workplace. I'm not denying neglect happens, and when that story came out, my colleagues and I were disgusted by some of the details, but social care is under huge pressure, and it's not just a lack of funding to blame. The system worked great for Florence Nightingale and hasn't improved much since--that's the problem with social care. Given the above, I'm not sure why you're linking a yet-to-be-convicted (this seems to be forgotten in just about every reply I've read) criminal's healthcare rights to the state of council-funded social care. It has no relevence to the topic.

No it doesn't, and now you're drawing superfluous tangents. They don't have any legal obligation to take care of me when off-duty in the UK either (although there is a minimal requirement that they should phone 999, as is the case with everybody, since it's a serious offence to not call for help when you notice someone in a life-threatening condition). You're trying to insinuate that my right to healthcare means that doctors and nurses are 'working' 24/7 even during their personal time; that's simply not the case, if that doctor wants to phone 999 and walk on by, that's still their choice. There is absolutely an expectency, however, that an on-duty paramedic should respond to an emergency call, and that on-duty doctors and nurses should take care of me at the hospital, and that that treatment should be free at the point of need because, after all, that's why I'm paying National Insurance out of my wages.

Ohai National Insurance which gets automatically deducted from my wage. It's not free bro. It's "free at the point of need". We can all play semantics.

Maybe it's a record for most hits on a 404 error page... [hide=][/hide]

We're moving away from the topic. This isn't a discussion on whether healthcare is an inalienable right or whatever. The central flaw to any plan which denies would-be criminals access to the same level of healthcare as any normal citizen is that you're asking doctors to be judge, jury and executioner. They lack both the legal and moral responsibility to make that decision, and until a court finds their patient guilty of the crime they're meant to using as a factor for deciding their "right to care", they have to treat them just as equally as other patients. Given the nature of burns injuries (acute, high risk of infection and potentially fatal), the vast majority of people requiring emergency healthcare for a burn will not be fit to stand trial whilst the burns, plus any potential side-effects, are being treated, making the whole debate academic. If what we're really arguing is the principle "Criminals should not have equal access to state-funded healthcare as law-abiding citizens", then severe burns aren't a good case study to reference.

Access to healthcare free at the point of need and funded by the state is an inalienable right for all UK citizens, regardless of whatever personal opinions you have on the matter, which is the example made in Croc's point. To deny criminals access to that treatment is to take away one of the most fundamental pillars of British society, despite the fact that up until the point they were convicted, they were paying National Insurance in order to fund the service they would later need to rely on. I agree with criminals having some rights of their citizenship being revoked (such as the right to vote) whilst they serve time, but removing their right to healthcare contradicts one of the most fundamental values of our society. Simply put, if we deny them vital treatment when they require it, are we really any better than the savages we're portraying them to be? If we're meant to be showing them that our society's values and laws should be respected for the universal good, how is denying them all but life-saving treatment a good example for them to follow?

And you're having doctors make that decision? If you're the doctor for a serious burn which goes untreated and leads to a systemic infection, potentially an infection which could drastically change that person's quality of life, you're going to sit on your high horse in court when they inevitably sue you for dereliction of care, and say you were protecting the interests of "human rights" and "self-responsibility"? Frankly, I think you're being ridiculous.

You mean, like, LoveFilm (not in the US, but I'm sure Amazon have US alternatives)? Two million subscriptions, but people are still downloading pirated stuff from the Internet. Strange, eh? Piracy still happens despite there being a decent, paying alternative. There's just no getting around that.

Are you implying someone shouldn't be held accountable for allowing the police to interview a man who's too ill to provide evidence? Or for providing sub-standard care to someone who is presumed to be a criminal, without that "criminal" ever having had the opportunity to attend a court hearing to defend himself? Only a court can find a man guilty of a crime, not a hospital. I don't think that has anything to do with ambulance chasing, I think that's the basic human right of "fair trial", and of all people to be failing that, I'd rather it not be doctors and nurses, be it in the UK, US or otherwise. Although I agree those laywers do sadly exist (the number of safeguards I have to go through just to volunteer as a first aider is, only partly, thanks to them).

Nice. Wouldn't normally reply just to say "nice", but none of the links in the OP's quote are working for me, and I thought that deserved a mention.

I appreciate there are US/UK differences, but if a (presumed, not convicted) criminal was provided sub-standard care leading to their death under the NHS, there would be all hell to pay for, the result of which would no doubt eradicate any savings you'd previously made by not giving them decent care in the first place. It's generally not a good idea to start using the origin of a person's illness/condition as a factor in their treatment, unless it has some medical relevence to the effectiveness of that treatment. Yup agreed. We in the UK tend to put criminals first as the powers that be are so scared of being sued :ohnoes: It's not really fear of being sued. It's more like evidence falling apart in court because the defendent was interviewed in an unfit state. If you want to define due caution as "putting criminals first", then that's up to you.

I appreciate there are US/UK differences, but if a (presumed, not convicted) criminal was provided sub-standard care leading to their death under the NHS, there would be all hell to pay for, the result of which would no doubt eradicate any savings you'd previously made by not giving them decent care in the first place. It's generally not a good idea to start using the origin of a person's illness/condition as a factor in their treatment, unless it has some medical relevence to the effectiveness of that treatment.

Professional guidelines on this matter are quite clear: A doctor's or a nurse's first duty of care is to their patient, not the police or the courts. Not only do they lack the moral authority to decide whether someone's lifestyle is "worthy" of medical treatment, but they may also be called upon to protect their patient from improper practice by the police. For instance, if the police want to interview while the patient isn't in a fit state, the healthcare professional would be duty-bound to prevent the interview from taking place. You are the patient's advocate first and foremost.

So, what we're actually discovering here is that when a customer tips a waiter/waitress, they're masking a far more serious problem: That their employer isn't paying them a fair amount for the work they do. I'm not sure about anyone else, but if I discovered that my charitable act of kindness was reinforcing the unfair circumstances someone else finds themselves in, I wouldn't be giving them money, I'd be giving them support to make their circumstances fairer.