Free Healthcare for lawbreakers?

[obfuscator]

Treating burns costs $6000 US a day? Oh, the joys of private health care.

[Ginger_Warrior]

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

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.

[Orpheus]

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 am hoping this pun was horribly unintentional.

 

Yes, they should be treated, although I do think they shouldn't have priority over anyone else unless they're at risk of dying right then and there.

[Alg]

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

It makes sense to deal with that after they're not at risk of anything, though. So, doctors treat burns, find out they're from meth making, contact authorities as the patient is discharged? Unless I'm missing some fundamental part of the healthcare/legal system.

 

Kind of like if a guy got injured in a shooting; The doctors aren't going to wait until they learn whether or not the guy was responsible before they start operating.

[Nomrombom]

I'm kind of torn on this. I can't bring myself to say some people shouldn't be treated because then where do you stop/is that even okay in the first place, but it's also incredibly aggravating to know that these meth cooking scum are being treated by taxpayer (me to some extent) money and never giving it back.

 

And of course the reason this crap happens is because of the drug policy here. So sick of it.

 

I may very well move to Canada when I'm older. Still plenty of BS there but it's better. Also poutine

[Jaffy1]

Yes, they should be treated, although I do think they shouldn't have priority over anyone else unless they're at risk of dying right then and there.

 

This. In the case of making meth - I do not see how anyone is forced to do so as was said earlier. If criminals do something stupid and dangerous that is their own choice and responsibility. "Innocent" law-abiding people should not be put at a disadvantage because of a law-breaker's stupidity, nor do I see why tax payers should be paying for non-essential health care if the injuries were caused by a law-breaking action such as creating drugs.

[Guest jrhairychest]

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

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:

[sees_all1]

Treating burns costs $6000 US a day? Oh, the joys of private health care.

As referenced in the article, burns from shake-n-bake gone bad are often more severe than normal burns people sustain.

When treating someone who is burned, usually 24-hour supervision is required, along with antibiotics, pain killers, etc. Also I bet they're growing skin grafts, and possibly other forms of reconstructive surgery.

20 days of intensive care isn't cheap.

 

Socialize medicine won't take any of those costs away (it'll just spread it around), unless the treatment is rationed. But hey, you pay a premium for a 95% survival rate.

[Ginger_Warrior]

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

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.

[Guest jrhairychest]

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 disagree. The law and the suing culture in the UK puts the criminal way before the victim. I've been around enough years to see the changes, particularly from the 1970's onwards. That's why these days you can pretty much stick two fingers up to the law yet have all your "rights" fully backed up by ambulance chasing lawyers.

 

If it were up to me I'd leave them to rot.

[Ginger_Warrior]

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).

[Crocefisso]

 

I disagree. The law and the suing culture in the UK puts the criminal way before the victim. I've been around enough years to see the changes, particularly from the 1970's onwards. That's why these days you can pretty much stick two fingers up to the law yet have all your "rights" fully backed up by ambulance chasing lawyers.

 

If it were up to me I'd leave them to rot.

 

This is untrue. The UK legal system is far better than most. I come from Sicily and grew up there and in Rome, and let me tell you the legal system in Italy is ten thousand times worse than in the UK, owing to the almost total lack of corruption. Similarly, in the UK money does not matter as much as in the US, which is very anti-egalitarian in that sense.

[Kimberly]

Socialize medicine won't take any of those costs away (it'll just spread it around), unless the treatment is rationed. But hey, you pay a premium for a 95% survival rate.

 

If it was simply "ObamaCare", you'd be right. But that's why advocates of those types of coverage urged policy makers to look at examples around the world. Japan is one example. Taiwan another. We basically get screwed because we're willing to pay more, and companies know we have no alternative in which to fight that.

[Furah]

A doctor's duty of care is towards the sick and the injured, regardless of their wrongdoings.

[Guest jrhairychest]

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).

Anyone who commits a crime should forfeit most of their human rights except for life saving treatment - Trust me, that's me being nice. Accountability begins with the criminal, not anyone else. It comes down to those offensive words that are lacking in UK society these days - Self responsibility.

 

My tone does offend on such issues but I've no time for the daft liberalism that treats victims worse than the scum who walk the UK streets. I wouldn't piss on the criminal fraternity if they were burning to death right in front of me. Keep that in mind if anyone steals from you, beats you to a pulp or harms any members of your family.

 

This is untrue. The UK legal system is far better than most. I come from Sicily and grew up there and in Rome, and let me tell you the legal system in Italy is ten thousand times worse than in the UK, owing to the almost total lack of corruption. Similarly, in the UK money does not matter as much as in the US, which is very anti-egalitarian in that sense.

 

The corruption you've seen is exactly the same here, except it's done under the banner of championing human rights. The corruption's in our legal system. Perhaps you're a bit young to understand but there's something seriously wrong in the UK society when you have criminals having their rights championed left right and centre. The same human rights are ignored when you get old folk who are left to sit in their own piss in shoddy care homes. But then, theres no money in championing that is there......no, thought not.

[Erewhon2]

The corruption you've seen is exactly the same here, except it's done under the banner of championing human rights. The corruption's in our legal system. Perhaps you're a bit young to understand but there's something seriously wrong in the UK society when you have criminals having their rights championed left right and centre. The same human rights are ignored when you get old folk who are left to sit in their own piss in shoddy care homes. But then, theres no money in championing that is there......no, thought not.

 

I do see some of where you are coming from, there are examples that I can give of victims being charged for violence against a criminal who was in their house to steal. If a criminal threatened my home and family I would want the law to support my actions to defend my property and loved ones, not arrest and charge me.

 

However, there is a grey area here as suggested by Ginger_Warrior, where the 'arrest' is more ambiguous and evidence sketchy. One cannot make the assumption that the person is guilty of a crime until all information is put forward to the court. I think it is dangerous to assume that because someone has been arrested they are automatically a criminal. Our police and justice system is hardly infallible at the best of times. Consider those criminals that were not found out too, they accessed free health care etc. So what happens when they are found out and convicted? Do you bill them for all the times they have used health care whilst conducting criminal activities? Or maybe only those in prison should be denied? Where is the line?

[Nomrombom]

The corruption you've seen is exactly the same here, except it's done under the banner of championing human rights. The corruption's in our legal system. Perhaps you're a bit young to understand but there's something seriously wrong in the UK society when you have criminals having their rights championed left right and centre. The same human rights are ignored when you get old folk who are left to sit in their own piss in shoddy care homes. But then, theres no money in championing that is there......no, thought not.

 

I do see some of where you are coming from, there are examples that I can give of victims being charged for violence against a criminal who was in their house to steal. If a criminal threatened my home and family I would want the law to support my actions to defend my property and loved ones, not arrest and charge me.

 

However, there is a grey area here as suggested by Ginger_Warrior, where the 'arrest' is more ambiguous and evidence sketchy. One cannot make the assumption that the person is guilty of a crime until all information is put forward to the court. I think it is dangerous to assume that because someone has been arrested they are automatically a criminal. Our police and justice system is hardly infallible at the best of times. Consider those criminals that were not found out too, they accessed free health care etc. So what happens when they are found out and convicted? Do you bill them for all the times they have used health care whilst conducting criminal activities? Or maybe only those in prison should be denied? Where is the line?

 

 

Yes.

[Furah]

Anyone who commits a crime should forfeit most of their human rights except for life saving treatment - Trust me, that's me being nice. Accountability begins with the criminal, not anyone else. It comes down to those offensive words that are lacking in UK society these days - Self responsibility.

 

My tone does offend on such issues but I've no time for the daft liberalism that treats victims worse than the scum who walk the UK streets. I wouldn't piss on the criminal fraternity if they were burning to death right in front of me. Keep that in mind if anyone steals from you, beats you to a pulp or harms any members of your family.

 

You do realise that people have spent decades in prison for crimes that was later proven they weren't capable of committing, right? They get everything but lynched by friends and family, and even once proven innocent, they don't get compensated for the large chunk of their lives lost.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Anyone who commits a crime should forfeit most of their human rights except for life saving treatment - Trust me, that's me being nice. Accountability begins with the criminal, not anyone else. It comes down to those offensive words that are lacking in UK society these days - Self responsibility.

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.

[Kimberly]

Anyone who commits a crime should forfeit most of their human rights except for life saving treatment.

 

Brb buying criminals for slaves since they've 'forfeited human rights'.

[Crocefisso]

Anyone who commits a crime should forfeit most of their human rights except for life saving treatment.

 

Brb buying criminals for slaves since they've 'forfeited human rights'.

 

This is exactly the problem I see with jr's argument. The UK legal system isn't corrupt because it allows prisoner's healthcare as far I am concerned. The area of disagreement here is essentially how extreme (not intended as a pejorative) you want to be with interpreting the extent of their social contract compared to their rights.

 

I think that a lawbreaker should certainly forfeit their right to vote, which is granted by their social contract, for the duration of their prison sentence, but I think that denying them the free healthcare entitled to everyone else is cruel as far as I am concerned. Self-responsibility is one thing, but given that crime has always been a fact of life, and that it has been decreasing in the UK for years with criminals getting healthcare, extreme knee-jerks aren't going to help affairs.

[sees_all1]

[D]enying them the free healthcare entitled to everyone else is cruel as far as I am concerned.

I don't believe that healthcare is an inalienable right endowed by the Creator. I don't believe doctors or hospitals should have a moral legal obligation to treat people.

Sure, turning people away from hospitals if they're unable to pay is "cruel," but having to shut down entire burn units in hospitals because of criminals making meth is worse for the general population.

 

In the strictest John Locke sense of government (that the USA is founded on), requiring a health care professional to treat someone violates the professional's freedoms (and in a sense is tyranny). Government (We the people) paying for healthcare for those who can't (i.e. making the taxpayers pay for the poor) violates the rights of the people.

 

That's not to say that people who can't pay shouldn't be treated, it means that's left up to charity. In my opinion, that also means that people who can't pay shouldn't receive the latest and greatest, most costly treatment.

 

EDIT:fixed an inconsistency... :oops:

[Ginger_Warrior]

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?

[Bxpprod]

Yes, they should be treated, although I do think they shouldn't have priority over anyone else unless they're at risk of dying right then and there.

 

This. In the case of making meth - I do not see how anyone is forced to do so as was said earlier. If criminals do something stupid and dangerous that is their own choice and responsibility. "Innocent" law-abiding people should not be put at a disadvantage because of a law-breaker's stupidity, nor do I see why tax payers should be paying for non-essential health care if the injuries were caused by a law-breaking action such as creating drugs.

 

Where do you stop with this logic? Drunk drivers? Underage drinkers? Riding without a helmet (well, atleast in Aus, riding a bicycle without a helmet is illegal). How far down the criminal chain do we create an arbitrary cutoff to decide who deserves help and who doesn't. And, as for the "stupid and dangerous" comment, people do that all the time, regardless of legality. What about smokers? Whilst not illegal, it is stupid and dangerous, should we give them treatment?

 

Anyone who commits a crime should forfeit most of their human rights except for life saving treatment - Trust me, that's me being nice. Accountability begins with the criminal, not anyone else. It comes down to those offensive words that are lacking in UK society these days - Self responsibility.

 

Speediing. Drink driving. Downloading music. Prostitution. Riding iwthout a helment

All low-level crimes, but all crimes none the less. So, based on the quote (specifically the bolded) you think people who do these things deeserve to be stripped of most of their human rights?

Well, we've just cut a HUGE segment of the populus down haven't we.

[Jaffy1]

Where do you stop with this logic? Drunk drivers? Underage drinkers? Riding without a helmet (well, atleast in Aus, riding a bicycle without a helmet is illegal). How far down the criminal chain do we create an arbitrary cutoff to decide who deserves help and who doesn't. And, as for the "stupid and dangerous" comment, people do that all the time, regardless of legality. What about smokers? Whilst not illegal, it is stupid and dangerous, should we give them treatment?

 

I would distinguish between minor crimes and those that are more severe, hence me using the meth making as an example. To respond to your examples: drunk drivers - yes. Like creating drugs that is intentionally putting not only yourself but also others in danger; drugs are harmful and drunk drivers may hit others. In cases like these it is not hard to stop and think that maybe it is a stupid and dangerous thing to do, not only for themselves but others as well.

 

Riding a bicycle without a helmet is common practise in my country and not considered dangerous, but we do have bikers and cars separated at all times. Either way, not wearing a helmet may be negligent, but not necessary a danger to society or a severe crime. I would not consider someone neglecting to wear a helmet a criminal, whereas I would consider people that make drugs or kill someone whilst driving under influence criminals.

 

As for smokers. Smoking is perfectly legal, so with regard to the original statement not very relevant. That said, personally I would like to see smokers pay additional health insurance fees due to their choice to smoke and the resulting increased risk of lung cancer and related conditions. This risk is intentional because everyone who smokes knows with what risks it comes.