Free Healthcare for lawbreakers?

[sees_all1]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/23/meth-makers-fill-up-burn-hospitals/

[hide=Meth Makers fill up burn hospitals]

ST. LOUIS A crude new method of making methamphetamine poses a risk even to Americans who never get anywhere near the drug: It is filling hospitals with thousands of uninsured burn patients requiring millions of dollars in advanced treatment - a burden so costly that its contributing to the closure of some burn units.

 

So-called shake-and-bake meth is produced by combining raw, unstable ingredients in a 2-liter soda bottle. But if the person mixing the noxious brew makes the slightest error, such as removing the cap too soon or accidentally perforating the plastic, the concoction can explode, searing flesh and causing permanent disfigurement, blindness or even death.

 

An Associated Press survey of key hospitals in the nations most active meth states showed that up to a third of patients in some burn units were hurt while making meth, and most were uninsured. The average treatment costs $6,000 per day. And the average meth patients hospital stay costs $130,000 - 60 percent more than other burn patients, according to a study by doctors at a burn center in Kalamazoo, Mich.

 

The influx of patients is overwhelming hospitals and becoming a major factor in the closure of some burn wards. At least seven burn units across the nation have shut down over the past six years, partly due to consolidation but also because of the cost of treating uninsured patients, many of whom are connected to methamphetamine.

 

Burn experts agree the annual cost to taxpayers is well into the tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars, although it is impossible to determine a more accurate number because so many meth users lie about the cause of their burns.

 

Larger meth labs have been bursting into flame for years, usually in basements, backyard sheds or other private spaces. But those were fires that people could usually escape. Using the shake-and-bake method, drugmakers typically hold the flammable concoction up close, causing burns from the waist to the face.

 

Youre holding a flame-thrower in your hands, said Jason Grellner of the Franklin County, Mo., Sheriffs Department.

 

Also known as the one-pot approach, the method is popular because it uses less pseudoephedrine - a common component in some cold and allergy pills. It also yields meth in minutes rather than hours, and its cheaper and easier to conceal. Meth cooks can carry all the ingredients in a backpack and mix them in a bathroom stall or the seat of a car.

 

The improvised system first emerged several years ago, partly in response to attempts by many states to limit or forbid over-the-counter access to pseudoephedrine. Since then, the shake-and-bake recipe has spread to become the method of choice.

 

By 2010, about 80 percent of labs busted by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration were using shake-and-bake recipes, said Pat Johnakin, a DEA agent specializing in meth.

 

So instead of a large lab that supplies many users, there are now more people making meth for their personal use. The consequences are showing up in emergency rooms and burn wards.

 

From what we see on the medical side, thats the primary reason the numbers seem to be going up: greater numbers of producers making smaller batches, said Dr. Michael Smock, director of the burn unit at Mercy Hospital St. Louis.

 

Its impossible to know precisely how many people are burned while making shake-and-bake meth. Some avoid medical treatment, and no one keeps exact track of those who go to the hospital. But many burn centers in the nations most active meth-producing states report sharp spikes in the number of patients linked to meth. And experts say the trend goes well beyond those facilities, easily involving thousands of drug users.

[/hide]

 

Here's an interesting question. Should people injured while breaking the law be given free healthcare?

 

To broaden the scope from just "hurt while making illegal drugs," a couple other scenarios:

-Thieves injured while stealing copper cable

-Injured after high speed chase

 

Feel free to post related links, stories. We might need some comic relief in this discussion.

[Noxx]

I think they should. Sure, they did gain those injuries while breaking the law but at the end of the day it's about being the bigger man and doing the humane thing. In this case it would be to give them the same rights as any other citizen of that country regardless of his or her actions and regardless of him or her respecting those rights.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_rkX3bdAm8

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2099200n

Needless to say a lot of people get seriously injured by this, many also die.

[Jonanananas]

Of course they should. Breaking a law doesn't mean they're not entitled to the same rights as other people. If they broke a low, they'll get sentenced and punished, but it's no the place of the hospital or doctor to decide about that. They have to treat him/her like everyone else.

[Randox]

I can't say the idea of my tax dollars potentially going to save the lives of criminals is exactly the most awesome thought I have ever head, nor is the idea that they would be given priority over law abiding citizens (since triage works based on severity of of condition), but if they seek help, then the only humane thing to do would be to provide it. Even in war, doctors are still supposed to treat the enemy if that situation comes up.

[Shiny]

I thought the US didn't have free healthcare?

[Ouchy]

To be honest, it comes down to morality. If they injured themselves doing something illegal and were in a critical state and were unable to pay for it, where they would die if they didn't have the treatment, I think even judging by what they've done, it's still a human life, and I think most people would still choose to save them regardless.

[obfuscator]

Yeah. I see why people get upset about it, but at the end of the day it's a life, and they should be cared for.

[Range_This11]

Doctors should not the be the moral authority in any situation. They should objectively care for each person equally and fairly.

[Quyneax]

Yeah. I see why people get upset about it, but at the end of the day it's a life, and they should be cared for.

This. I'm of the opinion that everyone should recieve at least the basic health care for free.

[champion]

Of course they should still be given equal treatment, they'll likely be punished for their drug use later anyways.

[Kirschen]

No matter how illegal or stupid the activity was, they still should be treated at the very least. It's not like we're giving them a free pass and patting on the back since they're still going to trial afterwards. America is already treating criminals very badly as it already is with their focus on retribution rather than redemption. If they're going to be sent to trial and eventually jail, we should have the decency to patch them up of their injuries.

[Dizzle229]

Everyone has a right to be treated. After all, a good justice system is about rehabilitation rather than punishment, and that includes physical rehabilitation. Of course, if they repeatedly wind up in the hospital for the same thing, then it's a little more of a tricky situation.

[Kaida23]

I thought the US didn't have free healthcare?

As I understand it (I'm just a simple Canadian, so please correct me if I'm wrong), the hospitals have to treat people with life-threatening injuries, regardless of insurance, or they risk a lawsuit from the victim's family. Doctors are not allowed to let someone to die because of their inaction.

[Giordano]

I don't see the problem here?

 

People go to the hospital for treatment and doctors don't ask how you got injured. LATER, in recovery, they ask for payment. Either they don't or do have insurance, the police will investigate the crimes.

 

Doctors don't ask how you got injured, so why does it matter?

[The Dark Lord]

They should still be treated.

[Guest Rob]

I thought the US didn't have free healthcare?

As I understand it (I'm just a simple Canadian, so please correct me if I'm wrong), the hospitals have to treat people with life-threatening injuries, regardless of insurance, or they risk a lawsuit from the victim's family. Doctors are not allowed to let someone to die because of their inaction.

I think these people are fined for the services after-the-matter though (I'm also a Canadian, so correct me if I'm wrong as well).

[Kimberly]

It's impossible to separate treating someone in a hard time in their life with no insurance, and a meth-head with no insurance. If hospitals didn't admit individuals without health insurance, my father would have died last July.

 

It's unfair and frustrating, but even if they sued these people afterwards, it doesn't make the money they need appear out of thin air. It seems like denying healthcare to the uninsured to save burn wards is like treating the symptoms and not the problem.

 

The problem is disgusting but if companies were forced to innovate and charge less, this wouldn't be such a huge problem. Or if there was cradle-to-grave healthcare similar to Taiwan's.

 

 

 

I think these people are fined for the services after-the-matter though (I'm also a Canadian, so correct me if I'm wrong as well).

 

You're correct. They're billed afterwards. And while you're in the ER getting stabilized, sometimes they'll send a social worker out to you to discuss what aid you can receive.

[sees_all1]

Not that I'm advocating for anything different (call it devils advocate?), but here's the problem:

 

 

Usually these types of injuries are spectacular. As cited in the article, an average meth maker's burns cost $6k/day to treat, $130k to heal completely. 21 days in a hospital bed for someone who is there not only for their own sheer stupidity, but also because they broke the law.

It doesn't matter if you have socialized medicine or not, everyone still pays for it one way or another.

 

On top of that, filling a hospital bed with someone who deserves a jail cell takes away a hospital bed from someone who deserves treatment. Not that I'd pretend to know or be able to cite waiting times for every country, they're probably higher than they need to be.

 

Lastly, as cited in the article. Hospitals can't afford to keep burn units open with so many deadbeats. Treatment for criminals is actually making care for civilians worse.

 

 

As heartless as this may sound, as a law abiding society we would be better off if criminals didn't receive free care for injures during their crimes.

[jasignhagj]

Not that I'm advocating for anything different (call it devils advocate?), but here's the problem:

 

 

Usually these types of injuries are spectacular. As cited in the article, an average meth maker's burns cost $6k/day to treat, $130k to heal completely. 21 days in a hospital bed for someone who is there not only for their own sheer stupidity, but also because they broke the law.

It doesn't matter if you have socialized medicine or not, everyone still pays for it one way or another.

 

On top of that, filling a hospital bed with someone who deserves a jail cell takes away a hospital bed from someone who deserves treatment. Not that I'd pretend to know or be able to cite waiting times for every country, they're probably higher than they need to be.

 

Lastly, as cited in the article. Hospitals can't afford to keep burn units open with so many deadbeats. Treatment for criminals is actually making care for civilians worse.

 

 

As heartless as this may sound, as a law abiding society we would be better off if criminals didn't receive free care for injures during their crimes.

 

Instead, maybe the US should take a look at why it's drug policy is forcing people to resort to making meth this way.

 

Either way, I find the American system of privatized health care morally repugnant.

[Kimberly]

Can a person still be prosecuted if they need those procedures to stand trial or they'd die from injury complications?

 

EDIT: Legit question, not answering a question with another. >_>'

[sees_all1]

Instead, maybe the US should take a look at why it's drug policy is forcing people to resort to making meth this way.

Forcing?

 

I can't take your comments seriously when you say people are "forced" to make meth this way.

 

EDIT:

Can a person still be prosecuted if they need those procedures to stand trial or they'd die from injury complications?

 

EDIT: Legit question, not answering a question with another. >_>'

I'm not sure what you're asking, could you rephrase it?

[Kimberly]

A person does shake-n-bake, the container explodes, and he's rushed to a hospital. At this point he isn't arrested or charged with a crime, because he's in critical care. In order to be charged, doesn't he have to be healthy enough to be detained? So...basically, wouldn't the state had to foot his medical bills regardless if he was going to prison?

 

I'm basically asking if this is inevitable, and if his healthcare was denied how could he properly be charged with the crime if he's not well enough to stand sentencing? One way or the other the state will be footing the bill, and preventing them beforehand seems like a violation of their rights to due process.

 

If I'm talking out of my ass, please tell me. I'm kind of ashamed I'm this ignorant, but I don't know where to find the info to get my answers.

[Ginger_Warrior]

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.

[Racheya]

It's not a brilliant situation but there's no real question that the moral obligation that doctors have is to save lives - no matter who those people are or what they've done.

 

Alcoholics, Smokers and Drug Addicts probably cost the health system a lot more than they should, but they have to be treated regardless.

[sees_all1]

A person does shake-n-bake, the container explodes, and he's rushed to a hospital. At this point he isn't arrested or charged with a crime, because he's in critical care. In order to be charged, doesn't he have to be healthy enough to be detained? So...basically, wouldn't the state had to foot his medical bills regardless if he was going to prison?

 

I'm basically asking if this is inevitable, and if his healthcare was denied how could he properly be charged with the crime if he's not well enough to stand sentencing? One way or the other the state will be footing the bill, and preventing them beforehand seems like a violation of their rights to due process.

 

If I'm talking out of my ass, please tell me. I'm kind of ashamed I'm this ignorant, but I don't know where to find the info to get my answers.

I think I understand what you're getting at.

 

I think the "solution" would be to place them somewhere it doesn't cost $6000/day for treatment, like a prison hospital. That way they could recover, not cost so much to society, and stand trial possibly with a sentence of time served.

And if they succumb to their injuries, that's a shame, but they shouldn't have been making meth in the first place.