BS: NHS treating drunks

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 09:23 AM

Worked really well for the idiot Georgie Best, didn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 09:21 AM

From Journal of Medical Ethics (US).

The yearly demand for liver transplants far exceeds the supply of available organs (living and cadaveric donation).1 Additionally, alcoholic cirrhosis has been a controversial indication for transplant as these recipients can be viewed as having caused their own illness—an illness that is preventable by abstaining from alcohol (or using alcohol in moderation). While not categorically denying liver transplantation to those with alcoholic cirrhosis, many hospitals have incorporated a six month alcohol abstinence criterion ("six month rule")2 in an effort to select optimal candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 09:14 AM

The difference being that obese people and smokers probably have the time and opportunity to remediate their situation before treatment.

Someone in A&E with injuries requiring immediate treatment, e.g. broken bones, blood loss etc., does not.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 08:52 AM

This isn't about drinking, but a very similar mentality is at work:

"In one of the first programmes of its kind in the country, Herts GPs have supported recommendations by NHS Hertfordshire, the county primary care trust (PCT), that force obese people to lose weight and encourage smokers to quit before they are allowed orthopaedic surgery.

Patients with a body mass index (BMI) of more than 30 will not be given knee or hip replacements until they have lost weight through a programme supported by GPs and other services. A healthy BMI - a calculation of weight to height - for adults is 18.5 to 25.

Tony Kostick, joint chairman of the clinical executive committee at NHS Hertfordshire and a Stevenage GP, said the move was aimed at reducing the need for surgery, as well as decreasing complications and increasing recovery rates.

"There is good evidence that weight loss can reduce symptoms and may avoid the need for surgery later. For patients who already have arthritis, weight loss will reduce the risk of complications that arise from having surgery and will help them have better results.

"Weight loss clearly takes time and if patients are really unable to make progress over a reasonable amount of time then they could still be offered surgery."

Smokers needing routine orthopaedic surgery are now asked to go on at least one session with a trained advisor to receive advice on quitting before being they are added to a waiting list.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 08:46 AM

My nieces don't need 'educating' about the dangers of binge drinking. They're v intelligent lasses, and their mother (as I said) is a doctor. They would scoff at the suggestion of changing their lifestyle, they revel in it.
"I think we are in danger of getting old..." I fear that my beautiful and much-loved nieces won't have the opportunity to 'get old'. They can't possibly have a long life in front of them at this rate. Their mother is in despair and v depressed about it. She sees liver failure etc etc daily in the hospital where she works.
In spite of other posters saying they had a drunken youth and are now fine, we must remember that women's livers are not so capable of processing alcohol as those of men. And I still maintain that when we were that age, we did NOT drink so much and so often as they do today. There wasn't the money to start with, and we just didn't have the inclination to get blind drunk. Very drunk young girls are vulnerable to pregnancy, STDs, rape, robbery, injury, even murder.
Could I also say that the drunks in A&E are often seriously injured through fighting, accidents etc. Their injuries MUST be treated, involving Xrays, sutures, bone-setting and so on. These are not things that can be refused to any patient.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 04:59 AM

I stopped drinking alcohol completely ten years ago, at age 70, because I just went off it: realised that in fact I had never liked it that much, & had never enjoyed the actual sensation of loss of control which comes along with: much prefer now to keep a clear head, & actually like the tastes of tea & cold water more than any of those inflatedly expensive liquid products. Not a proselytiser - you make your own decisions & arrangements - just one who genuinely prefers being so; though must add that I find myself more & more distressed at how much crime and other forms of anti-sociality, like the binge-phenomenon we have said so much of here, are unarguably drink-related.

I think myself extremely fortunate in this development.

YMMV.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Musket
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 04:20 AM

I used to have a cartoon from an old Punch magazine framed on my office wall, (nicely in context, as I was chairing a PCT at the time, commissioning health and working with social care.)

It was two old blokes in high wing back chairs in a care home, looking out of the window at a solitary tree. One is saying to the other,"Just think. If we hadn't kicked the booze and fags, we would have missed all this."

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 03:39 AM

"I'll stick to the real ale and enjoy the hell out of my reduced lifespan"

You lucky bugger, Don! I can't drink alcohol at all (chronic pancreatitis and complications too gruesome to go into!), and there are times I could sell my soul for a pint of Batemans. Imagine attending the folk club, watching everyone downing pints of real ale, and not being able to have a bugger yourself! Aaaaarrrggghhh!

On the thread topic, it's a very complicated problem and it won't be solved by one measure, it'll take a whole raft of measures including (especially) education, but also things like price-control in the supermarkets, maybe a return to controlled opening hours, stringent enforcement of laws which cover drunkenness and public behaviour, et al. I'm not sure that any government, of whatever cloth, is ready to go the whole hog yet.

Have a pint for me tonight, make sure I enjoy it!

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 08:57 PM

""I think we are in danger of getting old. Not just in body, but also in mind.""

I endorse Richard's comments.

As I see it:-

1. At 71, I am already old.
2. Being in the early stages of emphysema, and after having a heart attack I have, of necessity, given up smoking these five years past.
3. An arthritic knee joint which collapses on a regular basis and is awaiting surgical replacement has enforced a ban on both ballroom and folk dancing, both of which I loved.
4. I am only too aware that giving up alcohol may improve my life expectancy by a number of years, during which, like Frank Sinatra and Gracie Fields, my singing ability will deteriorate to the point of having to quit.

Having considered carefully the fullest implications of all of the above, and taking into account the benefits of making the final sacrifice, I have come to the conclusion that if this is what is required for a few extra years, it isn't f**king worth it.

I'll stick to the real ale and enjoy the hell out of my reduced lifespan, that is if they are right, which is by no means certain.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: gnu
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 08:52 PM

Ya wanna treat drunks properly? Educate them before they become drunks. Dunno if that has been said before (sorry) but it's the only way. Same for all other addictions. BUT, it has to be done properly in the education system. And, that ain't gonna happen any time soon because there is tooooo much money to be made by the drug dealers... including the government that controls and profits from the drugs... tobacco and alcohol.

If it's THAT big a weight on health care, why doesn't the government go the route of educating the youth to stem this monetary and human suffering cost in the future? $$$?

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 08:36 PM

BUGGER!!

Nigel beat me to it.

That'll teach me to read the whole thread before posting.

My BAD!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 08:30 PM

""Ian, in my time, and thanks to the chronic gout from which I used to suffer, I've had more suppositories up me than you can shake a stick at!""

For somewhat different reasons, I too have had to take suppositories on a number of occasions,.........and for all the good they did me, I might as well have stuffed them up my........

I'll get me coat!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:35 PM

There's a lot of holier than thou here. I knew all that stuff about alcohol poisoning, diabetes, kidney and liver disease when I was at university.   I took people to hospital for alcohol poisoning and other ODs. I got pretty shit-faced myself.

I think we are in danger of getting old. Not just in body, but also in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 04:01 PM

Excessive drinking in young is partly developmental rebellion. My Mom who was a teen in the 1940's said some some boys in her high school were drinkers and trouble makers. Fast forward to now and compound rebellion with immaturity, disposable income and cheap drinks and you have a recipe for weekend A&E overflow. In order to save money, many people get good and drunk on cheap supermarket drink before going out. It is not about getting a little light headed and loose anymore. It is about getting shitfaced which is some kind of badge of honour they must attain.

What is heartbreaking is these people are priming themselves for terrible life long health problems. Of course they should not be charged for A&E costs. But they should be required after second alcohol related A&E visit within a specified time to enter an education programme where they will meet face to face, victims of alcohol abuse. In fact it would not hurt to require secondary school students to learn the effects of binge drinking with hospital visits to see the effects of alcohol poisoning, diabetes, kidney and liver disease.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: gnu
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 03:38 PM

dRunks, 9... not ducks. >;-)

GREAT joke.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: GUEST,999
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 03:10 PM

From the www.

Chester and Earl are going hunting. Chester says to Earl, "I'll send my dog out to see if there are any ducks out in the pond. If there aren't any ducks out there, I'm not going hunting."

So he sends the dog out to the pond. The dog comes back and barks twice.

Chester says, "Well I'm not going to go out. He only saw two ducks out there."

Earl says, "You're going to take the dog's barks for the truth?" Earl doesn't believe it, so he goes to look for himself. When he gets back he says, "I don't believe it. Where did you get that dog? There really are only two ducks out there!"

Chester says, "Well, I got him from the breeder up the road. If you want, you can get one from him, too."

So Earl goes to the breeder and says he wants a dog like the one his friend Chester has.

The breeder obliges and Earl brings the dog home, tells it to go out and look for ducks. Minutes later the dog returns with a stick in its mouth and starts humping Earl's leg.

Outraged, Earl takes the dog back to the breeder and says, "This dog is a fraud. I want my money back!"

The breeder asks Earl what the dog did. So Earl tells him that when he sent the dog out to look for ducks, it came back with a stick in its mouth and started humping his leg.

The breeder says, "Earl, all he was trying to tell you was that there are more f**king ducks out there than you can shake a stick at.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 08:10 AM

No problem Michael - I use the expression a lot, and I invariably ask myself what the hell it means!

Oh well, now I still don't know! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 07:43 AM

Thanks, BWM. Quinion's conclusion what you'd expect. I had forgotten that bit, tho I subscribe to Quinion & get his Bulletin by email every Sat morning.

Still think it an odd phrase...

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 07:29 AM

"Odd expression that, eh? I mean, why should anyone want to shake a stick at a pile of suppositories ~~ or at anything else, for that matter; except an orchestra if he was the conductor?..."

Well here's what Michael Quinion has to say about the expression "Shake a stick at..." on the website www.worldwidewords.org:-

"I plead guilty as charged. Sometimes I throw in expressions like this from a quiet sense of devilment. This time, however, I am hoist by my own petard.
Its recorded history began — at least, so far as the Oxford English Dictionary knows — in the issue of the Lancaster Journal of Pennsylvania dated 5 August 1818: "We have in Lancaster as many Taverns as you can shake a stick at". Another early example is from Davy Crockett's Tour to the North and Down East of 1835: "This was a temperance house, and there was nothing to treat a friend that was worth shaking a stick at". A little later, in A Book of Vagaries by James K Paulding of 1868, this appears: "The roistering barbecue fellow swore he was equal to any man you could shake a stick at".
The modern use of the phrase always exists as part of the extended and fixed phrase "more ... than you can shake a stick at", meaning an abundance, plenty. The phrase without the "more than" element is rather older, but not by much.
Shaking a stick at somebody, of course, is a threatening gesture, or at least one of defiance. So to say that you have shaken a stick at somebody is to suggest that person is an opponent, perhaps a worthy one. The sense in the second and third quotations above seem to fit this idea: "nothing worth shaking a stick at" means nothing of value; "equal to any man you could shake a stick at" means that the speaker is equal to any man of consequence.
Where it comes from can only be conjecture. One possibility that has been put forward is that it derives from the counting of farm animals, which one might do by pointing one's stick at each in turn. So having more than one can shake one's stick at, or tally, would imply a great number. This doesn't fit the early examples, though, which don't have any idea of counting about them. Another idea is that it comes from battle, in which one might shake a stick at one's vanquished enemy. This could possibly have led into the early usages.
Following publication of this piece in the World Wide Words newsletter, Suzan Hendren and Sherwin Cogan suggested that it might have come from the Native American practice of counting coup, in which merit was gained by touching a vanquished enemy in battle. In that case, "too many to shake a stick at" might indicate a surplus of fallen enemies, and "not worth shaking a stick at" would equate a person with "an enemy who is so cowardly or worthless that there is no merit to be gained from counting coup on him", as Sherwin Cogan put it. An intriguing idea, but there's no evidence that I know of.
Let me summarise: nobody knows for sure."

So.......anyone any wiser? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 07:19 AM

"I love a traditional joke."

Me too. As my wife (who is a good few years my junior) always says, "The old ones are the best", and she should know!

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 06:38 AM

I know of several people with "so called drink problems" that got a free mobility car because they are receiving the higher rate D.L.A. for alcohol problems. So not only do they pay them to drink,they put the on the road as well.

Enjoying the sunshine in Spain since the 3rd of January, not back until february. I bought this place eight years ago for 120,000, the ass has fallen out of the property market here, just told the current value is 52,000.

Regards to all.

Keith

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 06:06 AM

I love a traditional joke.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:27 AM

I was prescribed suppositories once. The doctor said to place them in my back passage. I did, but I think the cat must have eaten them.
For all the good they did I might just as well have stuffed them up my arse!

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:24 AM

Nigel - Like all the other people contributing to this thread I don't have any access to the actual information about NHS costs, so anything I state is purely speculation based on my past observations.
I am well aware that on a Friday or Saturday night, an A&E department will be treating a higher number of patients there as the result of drink related injuries, but I still maintain that the numbers from the BBC are likely to be based on flawed or skewed data.
Hospital running costs are not based on the totally unpredictable number of attendees in Accident & Emergency and staffing levels are not based on the statistically expected number of drunks (I think you will find that weekend night-time staffing levels are usually lower than during office hours).
Whatever the number of drunks, there will be heart attacks, house fires, traffic pile-ups, accidental poisonings, kids falling off climbing frames and any number of other reasons for A&E to be needed, hence the ongoing Fixed Costs.

I suppose what I'm saying is don't just read the "tabloid" headlines. The reality is nearly always something entirely different.
Quack!
Geoff.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:22 AM

DRIFT ALERT ~~

Odd expression that, eh? I mean, why should anyone want to shake a stick at a pile of suppositories ~~ or at anything else, for that matter; except an orchestra if he was the conductor?...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:14 AM

Ian, in my time, and thanks to the chronic gout from which I used to suffer, I've had more suppositories up me than you can shake a stick at!

The idea of a suppository doesn't even bring on the involuntary clenching reflex any more!   :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:11 AM

You can get tablets for vituperative you know.

Or is it a suppository?

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:07 AM

"It is getting very alarming, all this agreeing with people with whom I have previously had vituperative disagreements"

I get over "stuff" very quickly, Richard, angry as hell one minute, cool calm and fine 'n' dandy the next, and I try very hard not to hold grudges. If someone I've previously disagreed with says something I see as having value, I'm big enough, old enough and ugly enough to support them! :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:04 AM

Buggerbuggerbugger! That should have been:-

"all driven by political dogma and controlled by big-business paymasters, all toeing whatever party-line is in vogue at the time.

Note to self: Must type posts out in Word, proof-read properly, then cut and past into 'Reply to Thread' box! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:03 AM

It is getting very alarming, all this agreeing with people with whom I have previously had vituperative disagreements.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:00 AM

"Well, Backwoodsman, scrapping the NHS appears to be exactly what this government is planning. Although if you imply that this government is not in its right mind I will agree

On the first point, I fear you may well be right, Richard. A former Tory government wrought havoc by selling off a good percentage of our council-housing stock, clearing the way for private landlords to make fortunes guaranteed by our benefits system, whilst huge numbers still go homeless, so why wouldn't this one sell the NHS out from under our feet? But I'd like to think that Cameron, at least, has more humanity in him than that. I hope so.

On the second point(and bear in mind that, in terms of personal political philosophy, I'm closer to you than I am to Don), I don't think this government is necessarily any worse than the past three or four - all driven and controlled by big-business paymasters, all toeing whatever party-line is in vogue at the time. Which, thinking a step further, may negate my above statement of hope regarding Cameron's humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 04:56 AM

Nice summary Mr Duck, however, I can't agree one point:
If so - it is a spurious calculation. The fixed costs are EXACTLY THE SAME whether there is one patient or 200 in the same time slot. I suspect that if you remove these from any calculation of treatment costs, the cost which is due to the actual individual patient (drunk or sober) is in most cases a tiny fraction of any sum quoted by the accountants
If there were a lot less patients we would need less hospitals & less staff, so the fixed costs would reduce. As such it is reasonable to apportion those costs when evaluating the cost of treating a patient.

Cheers! (my usual salutation, but probably not the most suitable in view of the subject matter)
Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 04:54 AM

I have been involved in these types of discussion before, wearing my real hat, rather than the luxury of Mudcat "say whatever comes into your head, or say in order to wind someone up."

I tended to give the example of a travellers' campsite near the village I used to live. Some Daily M*il type breather noted that we were sending health visitors into the campsite and demanded we stop wasting his tax payer's money on those who opt out of society; let them see the consequences of opting out.

Other than the obvious bits about children neither opting in or out, I pointed out that Tuberculosis was a high risk of incidence disease amongst the travellers, and even if you couldn't bring yourself to helping those in need, at least accept that these travellers visited the same shops, pubs etc as you and we are protecting you as well as them by monitoring and offering health information.

Ok Mather, there's a brick wall. See what it knows about War and Peace.

Related to this thread, Don points out that healthcare professionals will try to treat whatever slides or crawls through the door without fear nor favour, or words to that effect. Too true.

But also, in stabilising drunks, they are also keeping them from being a danger to themselves or others. Plus, trying to sort them at that stage is far cheaper to the beloved tax payer than the slow slide of failing health that accompanies long term addiction. Some people are rather ashamed after their first stomach pump, and rarely end up joining the A&E frequent flyers club.

Oh, and protecting staff is of paramount priority. Police will and do deal with aggressive drunks and charges are brought, regardless of what you may read.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 04:43 AM

Weren't we once warned about "Lies, damned lies, and statistics".
Let's go back to the original posting :-
According to a piece on BBC news recently, it costs the National Health Service approximately £200.00 to look after/treat an intoxicated person in A&E.

My questions would be

Who says it costs £200 to treat a drunk?

Why do they claim that is what it costs?

What do they say it costs to treat someone they have not classed as "a drunk"?

Do the figures distinguish between someone who is there for a reason not caused by them being drunk? Perhaps they were a passenger in a car accident? Mugged? Slipped on the same patch of ice as the sober patient on the next seat?

Does it cost the same to treat a drunk with a minor wound which needs disinfecting then holding together with a couple of "butterfly" sticking plasters compared with someone hit by a bus, with serious injuries, broken bones and needing surgery? I think not!

Is the figure for "How Much It Costs" based on Total cost for Staff Wages + Heating/Lighting + Rent being paid to the firm who built the new PFI funded building (and whatever hospital outgoings the accountants might add) then Divided by the number of patients seen in one shift?
If so - it is a spurious calculation. The fixed costs are EXACTLY THE SAME whether there is one patient or 200 in the same time slot. I suspect that if you remove these from any calculation of treatment costs, the cost which is due to the actual individual patient (drunk or sober) is in most cases a tiny fraction of any sum quoted by the accountants.

Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 04:28 AM

"Why are so many people, in so many cities across the UK, indulging in this potentially self-destructive behaviour?"

Nigel,
I think you've answered your own question. It's the phrase "potentially self-destructive behaviour?" everyone thinks it can't happen to them.

To quote from a Johnny Cash parody that I posted elsewhere:

To drink's a very very easy thing to do,
I'm sure I'm sober when the evenings through.
Though early on I may have 'called for Hugh'
Just one more time,
I'll walk the line.

Cheers
Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 04:18 AM

Don - I was about to agree with you until your government remark. I think I detect more hopelessness now than ever before. I think that that is what many are running away from into the arms of alcohol (even though you and I both quite like alcohol anyway).

And I am wholly clear that this new hopelessness is the fault of this government, which can turn round the day after the House of Lords (hardly a bastion of socialism) savages government attempts to steal from the worst off in society, and without even pause to examine its conscience if any announces plans to reverse the Lords' improvements to the Welfare Bill.

Well, Backwoodsman, scrapping the NHS appears to be exactly what this government is planning. Although if you imply that this government is not in its right mind I will agree.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 12:24 AM

And treatment on the NHS is free to all, at the point of delivery. It's the basic, founding principle of the service. The moment we start charging people for treatment on the basis that, by their behaviour or lifestyle, they somehow 'asked for it', that basic founding principle will be blown away and the NHS will be no more.....we will be on the slippery slope towards a private health-care system.

Does anyone in their right mind really want that?

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 12:17 AM

Richard, "blame the government"? Really?
I'd be more likely to blame Tesco.

The young people I work with don't get pissed in the pub or club - they get pissed at home, on the dirt-cheap booze they get from the local supermarket, then they go out at 11-30 pm, a time of night I used to be staggering home from the pub to bed when I was a young drinker, to hit the pubs and clubs for the last couple (just to top the job off and look out for a pick-up, so to speak).

IMHO, there needs to be a joined-up policy of education/rehabilitation, perhaps court-enforced (same as there needs to be for drug-abusers), price-control-legislation on all alcohol sales (including supermarkets - stop the loss-leader culture), a return to controlled licensed hours (the link between the abandonment of controlled opening and the increase in alcohol abuse is absolutely clear, only a complete idiot would deny it), control of advertising, and a culture-change in the media where alcohol abuse is constantly glamourised.

I don't believe that all young binge-drinkers are addicted to alcohol, but I do believe they are, in a way, addicted to an image of a lifestyle that's rammed down their throats as being desirable, glamourous and "dangerous" in a "non-harmful" way - that it's somehow 'clever' and 'attractive' to behave that way. Young people are impressionable, and they are being given entirely the wrong impression by the media, and by advertisers, who should know better.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: gnu
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 08:38 PM

"I'm okay Jack."? Good lord! There, but for the grace of God, go I... YOU.

I hope you have LOTS of coin and can buy friends and health care when you need it because, with that attitude, I suspect yer gonna need coin if YOU ever get sick and need help.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 06:44 PM

Totally specious crap!

In the UK at least, we have a welfare system which takes care of people who need treatment, no matter the reason for that need, and that is exactly how it should continue.

Medical staff undoubtedly have opinions about those who willfully make themselves ill, but they are not Judges or Jurors and should not be expected to act as such.

Their purpose is, and should remain, the treatment of the sick without fear or favour.


""Ask the government - they are a major reason. And trying to duck the tab.""

Richard, do you seriously suggest that binge drinking etc only started since May 2010, or are you just slinging mud for the fun of it.?

Two minutes research would make you look a total fool, if I could be arsed to bother.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 05:49 PM

Also fine the people who need health care because they smoke, drive without seat belts, testing and driving, doing ANYTHING while driving except driving, eat a lot or fat, or salt, or sugar, are overweight, refuse vaccinations, get into fights because they're a-holes, don't lift heavy objects properly, listen to loud music...

I think almost everything is preventable, but how many pet hates are you going to cater to?

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 03:27 PM

The simple answer is that being drunk is fun, because it releases their inhibitions. But only for a while, then it becomes horrible. Most people, eventually, start to realise that it is possible still to have fun without feeling horrible afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 03:22 PM

Don't charge them, enroll them in an education and treatment program. But if they do not attend, fine them.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 03:08 PM

Nigel, I have asked myself the same question, ie Why do countless people do this all over the country? Especially young people. My two nieces are at University, and seem to live to get hopelessly drunk as often as possible. They drink before they go out,(one in Durham and one in Edinburgh) they drink in the pubs and clubs, they drink on the way home. They get in at dawn, practically paralytic, with plans to go out and do it all again. They are often terribly sick and feel ghastly for a day or so. I dread what this is doing to their livers, and I wonder what they get up to while in this state, they're both so vulnerable, aged 20 and 21. Their mother is a doctor, but she can't persuade them to ease up. I was at Edinburgh Uni, and I swear we didn't do this. What is the matter with them?

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 02:58 PM

Ask the government - they are a major reason. And trying to duck the tab.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Nigel Paterson
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 01:02 PM

A few random observations from a personal point of view, speaking as one who 'battled with the demon drink' from age 16 until 35 & has clung to sobriety for the subsequent 39 years.

Are all binge drinkers alcoholics? No, but the possibility of addiction/habituation is ever present.

Will all binge drinkers permanently damage their liver? No, the liver self-repairs, but only up to a point.

Is Cirrhosis of the Liver found in increasingly younger people, both male & female? Yes.

Addiction, habituation & binge are not synonyms.

Am I still addicted to alcohol? Yes, I just don't drink the stuff!

Do intoxicated people require treatment? Yes, there is a risk of death if they are left unattended.

Is all this placing an enormous strain on NHS Staff & resources? Unequivocally Yes.

Charging for treatment/care following a 'bender' MIGHT replenish the coffers a little. It MIGHT deter a few individuals from becoming repeat binge drinkers. It DOESN'T address the underlying question which is: "Why are so many people, in so many cities across the UK, indulging in this potentially self-destructive behaviour?"
                                                                                           Nigel.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 12:25 PM

Falstaff would have been bankrupt...

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 12:03 PM

Good company in the Oh-wotta-character fashion, which has always been one that gets on my tits; but I recognise that not everyone thinks as I do about that...

LoL

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 11:22 AM

MtheGM

Sir Toby was nothing but an exploitative pain-in-the-arse

Indeed so but probably good company and, it would seem, redeemed by Maria's love rather than Malvolio's virtuous efforts.

Subject: RE: BS: NHS treating drunks
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 11:15 AM

If a charge were introduced, many drunks would avoid going to hospital. (or their mates would avoid taking them there or calling an ambulance) This might result in deaths. Self-inflicted (for whatever reason) medical problems are still medical problems. What if a drunk arrived and it was discovered he/she couldn't pay? Would they chuck them out on the street? But it might be an idea to have special units for such cases, to free up A&E departments a bit. These special units could poss have more security staff, and trained advisors to help tackle the addiction if necess. The trouble is, many drunks have also sustained injuries and need a proper A&E.