Monk Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 LINK Was watching BBC news this morning and came across this. Apparently GP's have installed a phone service which costs people 2p per minute more than a regular call so it pays for an patient voicemail service they are setting up. Anyone would think this is the end of the world reading this article! Honestly, how many minutes in the past year have you spent on the phone to your GP? 10? 20? even if you made 20 calls each lasting 3 minutes, you would be £1.20 worse off. Wish the BBC would get a grip and start reporting some real news.
The People's Hero Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 I called my Doctor, or at least tried to time and time again this morning from 8 30 onwards. Finally got through at 9 20 am to be told - no appointments - you should have called when we open at 8 30. She's probably got earache now. Bitch. I haven't had my promised 'appointment over the phone' either.
Kent Fox Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 I called my Doctor, or at least tried to time and time again this morning from 8 30 onwards.Finally got through at 9 20 am to be told - no appointments - you should have called when we open at 8 30. She's probably got earache now. Bitch. I haven't had my promised 'appointment over the phone' either. What's up then, TPZ.. oops..TPH?
Monk Posted 2 October 2007 Author Posted 2 October 2007 I called my Doctor, or at least tried to time and time again this morning from 8 30 onwards.Finally got through at 9 20 am to be told - no appointments - you should have called when we open at 8 30. She's probably got earache now. Bitch. I haven't had my promised 'appointment over the phone' either. Depression brought on by football. I could see it coming on at Charlton. Chronic. I think the surgery blocked his number to stem the personal abuse?
Jon the Hat Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 People's attitue to their health in this country drives me mad. There was a tonight program on the other day about NHS trusts denying treatment to people who refuse to TRY and give up smoking. They were talking mostly about hip replacements. Frankly if people are too thick to understand the overwhelming evidence connecting smoking with failure of bone to re-grow (non-union) then they don't deserve to be treated. Idiots. When many people who would do Anything within their power to get on these lists, why should fools be allowed to waste NHS money. I have no sympathy.
Kent Fox Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 People's attitue to their health in this country drives me mad. There was a tonight program on the other day about NHS trusts denying treatment to people who refuse to TRY and give up smoking. They were talking mostly about hip replacements. Frankly if people are too thick to understand the overwhelming evidence connecting smoking with failure of bone to re-grow (non-union) then they don't deserve to be treated. Idiots. When many people who would do Anything within their power to get on these lists, why should fools be allowed to waste NHS money. I have no sympathy. Sorry, Jon but that is absolute crap. If you drink alcohol, you risk liver damage at the very least. Drunkenness is resposible for many deaths and injuries. So do we not treat them? People get injured climbing, hill-walking, surfing, cycling - all healthy sports that carry risks. So do we not treat them? People drive cars. People have accidents in cars. There are any risks involved in driving. So do we not treat them? If you refuse to treat one set of people, where do you draw the line? And to say that smokers are thick for not giving up (I presume that was your meaning) is a very short sighted and somewhat stupid comment. I presume by your opening that you are a super fit guy that runs 3 times a week and never eats fatty foods, or sweets. Because fatty foods can cause obesity, and in turn lead to heart attacks. But hey, let the fat bastards die...
Monk Posted 2 October 2007 Author Posted 2 October 2007 Sorry, Jon but that is absolute crap.If you drink alcohol, you risk liver damage at the very least. Drunkenness is resposible for many deaths and injuries. So do we not treat them? People get injured climbing, hill-walking, surfing, cycling - all healthy sports that carry risks. So do we not treat them? People drive cars. People have accidents in cars. There are any risks involved in driving. So do we not treat them? If you refuse to treat one set of people, where do you draw the line? And to say that smokers are thick for not giving up (I presume that was your meaning) is a very short sighted and somewhat stupid comment. I presume by your opening that you are a super fit guy that runs 3 times a week and never eats fatty foods, or sweets. Because fatty foods can cause obesity, and in turn lead to heart attacks. But hey, let the fat bastards die... I know what you're saying here but its a bit OTT. If a doctor reccomends for the health of a patient that he/she changes their lifestyle and that change has an effect on the success of an operation or procedure then I think they have the right to refuse the treatment if they refuse the lifestyle change, all things reasonable. Extreme example - do you give a smoker with lung cancer chaemotherapy if they continue to smoke? No, surely as there is no benefit? Same goes for for stomach stapling surgery - if they cant prove they won't guzzle mars bars then they shouldnt get the surgery. Its not as pure as what you say above as the doctors should be aware of what is really required of the patient for successful treatment. Its not as simple as saying if you have a lifestyle involving any risk then you dont get treated.
The People's Hero Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 What's up then, TPZ.. oops..TPH? TPZ has an acute infection of the entire respiratory tree. Either that or mild pneumonia apparently. I also have a couple of burst blood vessels somewhere in my throat. I swear they added the word acute there just to scare me and make it sound worse. I actually feel okay.
Jon the Hat Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 Sorry, Jon but that is absolute crap.If you drink alcohol, you risk liver damage at the very least. Drunkenness is resposible for many deaths and injuries. So do we not treat them? People get injured climbing, hill-walking, surfing, cycling - all healthy sports that carry risks. So do we not treat them? People drive cars. People have accidents in cars. There are any risks involved in driving. So do we not treat them? If you refuse to treat one set of people, where do you draw the line? And to say that smokers are thick for not giving up (I presume that was your meaning) is a very short sighted and somewhat stupid comment. I presume by your opening that you are a super fit guy that runs 3 times a week and never eats fatty foods, or sweets. Because fatty foods can cause obesity, and in turn lead to heart attacks. But hey, let the fat bastards die... Lots of nice examples there, none of which deal with my point. The question is whether given a limited amount of funding, and people who are unwilling to bother to make an effort to improve their chances of a successful treatment, you should waste those funds on people who would rather keep smoking than get the treatment. We are not talking about asking an obese person with a wrecked hip to exercise, which is clearly extremely difficult. We are not talking about asking people not to enjoy the occaisional drink. We are not even talking about asking people to spend some of their own money. The treatment is available if they are willing to make a little bit of effort. If they can't then stuff them, I would rather see the money spent on people who really want to get better.
Kent Fox Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 Lots of nice examples there, none of which deal with my point. The question is whether given a limited amount of funding, and people who are unwilling to bother to make an effort to improve their chances of a successful treatment, you should waste those funds on people who would rather keep smoking than get the treatment. We are not talking about asking an obese person with a wrecked hip to exercise, which is clearly extremely difficult. We are not talking about asking people not to enjoy the occaisional drink. We are not even talking about asking people to spend some of their own money. The treatment is available if they are willing to make a little bit of effort. If they can't then stuff them, I would rather see the money spent on people who really want to get better. I didn't see the programme, but there has been a woman in the news recently who was told to lose 3 stone in order to have her operation on a hip, I think. She exercised and dieted. Your point was that people who smoke and need care should not get it because they are too thick to help themselves, right? As a smoker (not thick) who finds it very hard to give up (tried 3 times), I cannot say how I would react if diagnosed with cancer. Giving up smoking is bloody hard work and that combind with chemotherapy (sp?) would make one's life more miserable so begs the question - why bother if you're dying? But I really don't know how I would react. My point was that there are a lot of people out there who have a vice that could kill them, and will certainly make them ill. Drug addiction and Alcoholism are two. Where do you draw the line? It is not that these addicts are thick, it's because they cannot stop what they are doing without help. By the time they need the help, it's too late. I hope this clarifies my position a bit. I see your argument but the way you worded it was harsh IMO.
Jon the Hat Posted 3 October 2007 Posted 3 October 2007 I hope this clarifies my position a bit. I see your argument but the way you worded it was harsh IMO. Probably, I was in a bad mood!
MPH Posted 3 October 2007 Posted 3 October 2007 Probably, I was in a bad mood! were you trying to give up smoking?
Kent Fox Posted 3 October 2007 Posted 3 October 2007 Probably, I was in a bad mood! Good! So am I. I always am these days.
Jon the Hat Posted 3 October 2007 Posted 3 October 2007 were you trying to give up smoking? No... I wasn't stupid enought to start...
Rincewind Posted 3 October 2007 Posted 3 October 2007 Were there not stories a while ago about GP's and hospitals refusing obese people treatment? Again these stories are taken out of context and misunderstood when published in the tabloids. The 'refusing treatment' would only occur if the patient showed no willingness to help themselves be it smoking, eating,drinking or drugs. There is a lot of time wasted spent on this kind of person that could be spent on those willing to be cured. But because of the proffession GP's cannot refuse point blank to treat someone but maybe put some lower down the list of priorities when busy.
Head Honcho Posted 3 October 2007 Posted 3 October 2007 Sorry, Jon but that is absolute crap.If you drink alcohol, you risk liver damage at the very least. Drunkenness is resposible for many deaths and injuries. So do we not treat them? People get injured climbing, hill-walking, surfing, cycling - all healthy sports that carry risks. So do we not treat them? People drive cars. People have accidents in cars. There are any risks involved in driving. So do we not treat them? If you refuse to treat one set of people, where do you draw the line? And to say that smokers are thick for not giving up (I presume that was your meaning) is a very short sighted and somewhat stupid comment. I presume by your opening that you are a super fit guy that runs 3 times a week and never eats fatty foods, or sweets. Because fatty foods can cause obesity, and in turn lead to heart attacks. But hey, let the fat bastards die... People aren't refused permission because they are smokers but they are required to refrain from smoking for a period before the op to increase the success rate. The decision is normally made by the anaestatist-it's his job to keep you alive when under and it could be his head on the block if unsuccessful.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.