Have we got our priorities right? (drink driving again)
Discussion
Following on from all the drink driving threads, it seems that most people would support random breath testing and maybe even lowering the legal limit from 80mg.
I'm one of those who wouldn't support that, especially not random testing.
My reason is simple. There are other more important things that we could be spending that money, time and effort on, which we should be tackling first. When we have tackled the bigger issues, then let's think about tackling the more minor issues such as drivers over the legal limit.
Here's one example.
Deaths from killer diseases picked up in our NHS hospitals out number drink driving recorded deaths TEN fold.
Yet we see constant drink driving advertising campaigns that cost millions of pounds, and road blocks set up with great numbers of staff costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, all to tackle the lesser issue. Meanwhile, the larger issue gets pushed to the back of the spending queue.
I'm one of those who wouldn't support that, especially not random testing.
My reason is simple. There are other more important things that we could be spending that money, time and effort on, which we should be tackling first. When we have tackled the bigger issues, then let's think about tackling the more minor issues such as drivers over the legal limit.
Here's one example.
Article said:
The Office for National Statistics data reports C. difficile was mentioned on 8,324 death certificates compared to 6,480 in the previous year
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7585668.stmDeaths from killer diseases picked up in our NHS hospitals out number drink driving recorded deaths TEN fold.
Yet we see constant drink driving advertising campaigns that cost millions of pounds, and road blocks set up with great numbers of staff costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, all to tackle the lesser issue. Meanwhile, the larger issue gets pushed to the back of the spending queue.
Article said:
Gordon Brown's pledge to have every patient screened for MRSA on admission to hospital has been postponed by nearly a year. Health officials fear some hospitals will be unable to tackle superbugs properly without substantial increases in staff and budgets.
The nationwide screening of more than 12 million patients a year who are admitted for surgery was due to begin in January 2009, but officials have now pushed back its launch until the end of next year, and may delay it even further if hospitals cannot find the cash to buy the tests
Something is very wrong here! Or is it just me! Why can't funds be directed at the bigger killer?The nationwide screening of more than 12 million patients a year who are admitted for surgery was due to begin in January 2009, but officials have now pushed back its launch until the end of next year, and may delay it even further if hospitals cannot find the cash to buy the tests
People who die in hospital through carelessness are mainly old and infirm. They aren't exciting to politicians or the press, so no real 'public outrage'.
Drive dangerously, and there will (quite rightly) be a specialist police team investigation should injury or death result.
Nurse or doctor dangerously and the police or other authorities ignore it.
Drive dangerously, and there will (quite rightly) be a specialist police team investigation should injury or death result.
Nurse or doctor dangerously and the police or other authorities ignore it.
deeps said:
Following on from all the drink driving threads, it seems that most people would support random breath testing and maybe even lowering the legal limit from 80mg.
I'm one of those who wouldn't support that, especially not random testing.
My reason is simple. There are other more important things that we could be spending that money, time and effort on, which we should be tackling first. When we have tackled the bigger issues, then let's think about tackling the more minor issues such as drivers over the legal limit.
Something is very wrong here! Or is it just me! Why can't funds be directed at the bigger killer?
The drink drive limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. The unit of 80 you comment on is the blood level. Urine is different again.I'm one of those who wouldn't support that, especially not random testing.
My reason is simple. There are other more important things that we could be spending that money, time and effort on, which we should be tackling first. When we have tackled the bigger issues, then let's think about tackling the more minor issues such as drivers over the legal limit.
Something is very wrong here! Or is it just me! Why can't funds be directed at the bigger killer?
I don't support random testing but there are already enough ways to breathalyse a person.
These drink drive check points also don't cost the hundreds of thousands you think. They will be staffed by traffic bobbies (most of the time) who are on duty anyway and that is what traffic are for, enforcing traffic laws. No one is brought on especially for it costing more money.
Fair enough the campaigns do cost a lot (all advertising does) but I personally don't think it's a huge price to pay.
As for tackling bigger issues first, you can claim that with anything but if a drink driver wipes someone out it'll cost a lot in police time, NHS time and so forth. Not to mention the pain or suffering of someone else injured because of them and their families.
To play the devil's aardvark, you could argue that without the drink drive campaign funding the death rate would be much higher. The nature of the casualties of drink driving is also a factor. If MRSA and other bugs could instantly wipe out 3, 4, 5 healthy members of a family I'm sure more funds would be found.
I am no expert, but morals and social responsibility aside. This country is run by accountants (or "bean counters" as I prefer to call them) one death in hospital (at any age)that is down to an "inquired infection", costs a whole lot less than a DUI plastering them self into a tree.
This is just one example, albeit a not very good one. Also it should be noted in no way do I condone DUI but the legal system directed by "our peers" is prominently done as a "profit and cost saving" excersise.
All IMO.
edited for missing comma and piss poor spelling.
This is just one example, albeit a not very good one. Also it should be noted in no way do I condone DUI but the legal system directed by "our peers" is prominently done as a "profit and cost saving" excersise.
All IMO.
edited for missing comma and piss poor spelling.
Edited by mik.ross on Friday 19th December 23:23
Edited by mik.ross on Friday 19th December 23:26
Chrispy Porker said:
Would putting police officers into hospitals help though. Hardly transferable skills.
Sums it up. Couldn't investigate that avoidable death, no transferrable skills. Dead granny, dies quietly, no blue lights, no problem, old vulnerable and worthless. Avoidable death, but doesn't involve high tech glamour and the perps sign the death cert.
eldar said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Would putting police officers into hospitals help though. Hardly transferable skills.
Sums it up. Couldn't investigate that avoidable death, no transferrable skills. Dead granny, dies quietly, no blue lights, no problem, old vulnerable and worthless. Avoidable death, but doesn't involve high tech glamour and the perps sign the death cert.
So your suggestion is lots of doctors and nurses and cleaners and support staff linked up and questioed whilst soco close ward down and forensicly examine it each time there is a death?
You clearly have lots of medical and criminal investigative knowledge. The problem is that people die it's inevitable. Unlike a car crash or a stabbing or a fight sometimes that death has no direct individual in a hospital who can be blamed. To try to put a causal link in place that would stand up to beyond all reasonable doubt in court is in nearly all cases impossible. The problem Is that mrsa and other problems are not things done on purpose they are illnesses viruses. Yes you could argue we should keep cleaner wards but then who do you prosecute? The cleaner. The manager? Can you prove beyond all reasonable doubt they caused that death?
When clear cases of negligence are found and criminal responsibility shown then yes I have no issues but I think that will be very very hard to prove or find in nearly all cases.
You need high levels of medical understanding to investigate medical issues. Few police officers like few posters here have that. The evidential criminal burden is also far to high to see much if any success at court unless you have deliberate acts by medical staff.
If it was as easy as suggested to arrest and convict do you not think that the police would have had those easy detections? Do you also not think that the knock on negative impact of criminal charges always hanging over doctors would mean they would play it safe all the time. Better to let you die than risk an operation or risky medical procedure. How many people would want to clean a hospital knowing they may face manslaughter charges.
As it is the civil courts allow people to take action and where the have a case they get recompense and the trust are brought to account on much lower burden of proof. The GMC may not be perfect but they do take action.
Using the police would be using a very large sledgehammer to crack a small nut and as the police are already unable to cope due to there not being enough of us what areas should the police stop dealing with. Assaults? All burglary?
Very little police time is spent on any traffic enforcement, even drink drive. Most drink drivers present themselves in front of you either by crashing or just by being the car in front as you drive along. My force pays no overtime to go looking for them and any 'road checks' are normaly self initiated or utilising officers already at work.
Heebeegeebee often makes this suggestion about police taking action.
I understand the motivations behind it but the burdens of criminal evidence make it nearly impossible to get convictions. Far better to re enforce the checks and balances in place or to set up a different body with different evidential burdens and sanctions that would have a positive impact.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
eldar said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Would putting police officers into hospitals help though. Hardly transferable skills.
Sums it up. Couldn't investigate that avoidable death, no transferrable skills. Dead granny, dies quietly, no blue lights, no problem, old vulnerable and worthless. Avoidable death, but doesn't involve high tech glamour and the perps sign the death cert.
So your suggestion is lots of doctors and nurses and cleaners and support staff linked up and questioed whilst soco close ward down and forensicly examine it each time there is a death?
You clearly have lots of medical and criminal investigative knowledge. The problem is that people die it's inevitable. Unlike a car crash or a stabbing or a fight sometimes that death has no direct individual in a hospital who can be blamed. To try to put a causal link in place that would stand up to beyond all reasonable doubt in court is in nearly all cases impossible. The problem Is that mrsa and other problems are not things done on purpose they are illnesses viruses. Yes you could argue we should keep cleaner wards but then who do you prosecute? The cleaner. The manager? Can you prove beyond all reasonable doubt they caused that death?
When clear cases of negligence are found and criminal responsibility shown then yes I have no issues but I think that will be very very hard to prove or find in nearly all cases.
You need high levels of medical understanding to investigate medical issues. Few police officers like few posters here have that. The evidential criminal burden is also far to high to see much if any success at court unless you have deliberate acts by medical staff.
If it was as easy as suggested to arrest and convict do you not think that the police would have had those easy detections? Do you also not think that the knock on negative impact of criminal charges always hanging over doctors would mean they would play it safe all the time. Better to let you die than risk an operation or risky medical procedure. How many people would want to clean a hospital knowing they may face manslaughter charges.
As it is the civil courts allow people to take action and where the have a case they get recompense and the trust are brought to account on much lower burden of proof. The GMC may not be perfect but they do take action.
Using the police would be using a very large sledgehammer to crack a small nut and as the police are already unable to cope due to there not being enough of us what areas should the police stop dealing with. Assaults? All burglary?
Very little police time is spent on any traffic enforcement, even drink drive. Most drink drivers present themselves in front of you either by crashing or just by being the car in front as you drive along. My force pays no overtime to go looking for them and any 'road checks' are normaly self initiated or utilising officers already at work.
Heebeegeebee often makes this suggestion about police taking action.
I understand the motivations behind it but the burdens of criminal evidence make it nearly impossible to get convictions. Far better to re enforce the checks and balances in place or to set up a different body with different evidential burdens and sanctions that would have a positive impact.
If someone is killed or seriously injured in a road crash, it is investigated, without exception, I would guess. The cause is established and prosecutions result if appropriate. Several thousand a year, for whic the police are resourced, trained and have access to specialist investigators.
Someone dies or is seriously ill in hospital because they have acquired an avoidable infection. What are the odds that that would be investigated?
In both cases the root cause of the death may well be negligence, carelessness or recklesness. What is the difference between a driver who ignores a double white line, and a cleaner who can't be bothered to wash their hands?
eldar said:
What is the difference between a driver who ignores a double white line, and a cleaner who can't be bothered to wash their hands?
Isn't it what Annie VXR said; that it's much, much harder to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the latter was responsible for the death?Anyway, does anyone here actually know how much money is spent on preventing drink driving and how much money is spent on preventing hospital acquired infections? If not, then it's a bit of a pointless argument.
Edited by SamHH on Saturday 20th December 11:01
SamHH said:
eldar said:
What is the difference between a driver who ignores a double white line, and a cleaner who can't be bothered to wash their hands?
Isn't it what Annie VXR said; that it's much, much harder to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the latter was responsible for the death?Anyway, does anyone here actually know how much money is spent on preventing drink driving and how much money is spent on preventing hospital acquired infections? If not, then it's a bit of a pointless argument.
Edited by SamHH on Saturday 20th December 11:01
If it were up to me, I wouldn't hesitate to slash the funding of drink drive campaigns (amongst others) in order that we have sufficient money to enable the screening of patients into all our NHS hospitals.
MRSA and C Diff isn't spread in private hospitals - the risk is negligable there. That's primarily because they screen all new patients, and have stricter hygiene compliance.
Article said:
Gordon Brown's pledge to have every patient screened for MRSA on admission to hospital has been postponed by nearly a year. Health officials fear some hospitals will be unable to tackle superbugs properly without substantial increases in staff and budgets.
The nationwide screening of more than 12 million patients a year who are admitted for surgery was due to begin in January 2009, but officials have now pushed back its launch until the end of next year, and may delay it even further if hospitals cannot find the cash to buy the tests
The nationwide screening of more than 12 million patients a year who are admitted for surgery was due to begin in January 2009, but officials have now pushed back its launch until the end of next year, and may delay it even further if hospitals cannot find the cash to buy the tests
deeps said:
As Eldar said, the majority of the manslaughters are to the elderly, and for some reason there is very little public outrage. No consolation if you're the victim though, and you could be next! You have a far far far greater chance of dying through a hospital contracted infection than being killed by a drunk driver!
Deaths from different things get different amounts of publicity and elicit different responses. It's natural and will always be so.SamHH said:
deeps said:
As Eldar said, the majority of the manslaughters are to the elderly, and for some reason there is very little public outrage. No consolation if you're the victim though, and you could be next! You have a far far far greater chance of dying through a hospital contracted infection than being killed by a drunk driver!
Deaths from different things get different amounts of publicity and elicit different responses. It's natural and will always be so.
The "different amounts of publicity" and "different responses" that we see between deaths from DD and deaths from C Diff, is where our priorities are exposed to be completely arse about face.
Turn those priorities around right now, and thousands of lives would be saved next year.
Edited by deeps on Saturday 20th December 20:00
deeps said:
Indeed, which is the whole point of the thread, let's hope it won't "always be so"!
I don't. Are you really saying that people should pay an equal amount of attention to all deaths? You don't think it's OK for people to be more interested in, say, someone who dies of bird flu than, say, someone who dies of lung cancer?Edited by SamHH on Saturday 20th December 20:56
SamHH said:
deeps said:
Indeed, which is the whole point of the thread, let's hope it won't "always be so"!
I don't. Are you really saying that people should pay an equal amount of attention to all deaths? You don't think it's OK for people to be more interested in, say, someone who dies of bird flu than, say, someone who dies of lung cancer?Edited by SamHH on Saturday 20th December 20:56
Manslaughter of the elderly. You can prove that can you?
Slash funding of drink drive enforcement.
Some people need a reality check about what the police should or should not be dealing with. Hospital deaths is unless there are deliberate acts not an area they should be sticking there noses into unless you want to see massive expensive investigations with no clear offender or outcome.
Prove beyond all reasonable doubt that action or lack of action lead to death. Prove it without some clever defence solicitor not being able to prove a break in the causal chain or showing that there was no guarentee that the person died would not have died.
The implications would be the nhs withdrawing from areas of surgery. Anything carrying a certain risk would be binned.
It is not workable under criminal law and will not achieve the desired outcome. Threatening doctors and cleaners with prison is not an effective way to motivate people.
As for slashing the policing budget to pay for it. You do what you think is best. Just you have to stop moaning about police not doing there job. We already struggle now and fall short in some areas.
Manslaughter and assault charges are not the way to clean hospitals and to improve patient safety.
I applaud the intent buy blaming the police for it it telling them to sort is just in my view some people looking to hit the police whenever they can and it being our fault people are dying of mrsa is a little below the belt.
Blame the farming industry for use of antibiotics. Blame smokers for getting I'll from
Smoking. Blame drinkers for drinking too much. Where do you stop? Less people die of illness and in hospital I would suggest now than ever before.
Slash funding of drink drive enforcement.
Some people need a reality check about what the police should or should not be dealing with. Hospital deaths is unless there are deliberate acts not an area they should be sticking there noses into unless you want to see massive expensive investigations with no clear offender or outcome.
Prove beyond all reasonable doubt that action or lack of action lead to death. Prove it without some clever defence solicitor not being able to prove a break in the causal chain or showing that there was no guarentee that the person died would not have died.
The implications would be the nhs withdrawing from areas of surgery. Anything carrying a certain risk would be binned.
It is not workable under criminal law and will not achieve the desired outcome. Threatening doctors and cleaners with prison is not an effective way to motivate people.
As for slashing the policing budget to pay for it. You do what you think is best. Just you have to stop moaning about police not doing there job. We already struggle now and fall short in some areas.
Manslaughter and assault charges are not the way to clean hospitals and to improve patient safety.
I applaud the intent buy blaming the police for it it telling them to sort is just in my view some people looking to hit the police whenever they can and it being our fault people are dying of mrsa is a little below the belt.
Blame the farming industry for use of antibiotics. Blame smokers for getting I'll from
Smoking. Blame drinkers for drinking too much. Where do you stop? Less people die of illness and in hospital I would suggest now than ever before.
Mr Annie, I think you're missing my point, this is not an anti-police thread, but merely an expression of my lack of understanding of the government's priorities.
What I am saying is:
Fact one: There are currently thousands of deaths every year in NHS hospitals due to C Diff.
Fact two: The vast majority of these deaths are avoidable.
These deaths do not happen in private hospitals.
They are happening in NHS hospitals, not mainly because of staff negligence, but because the funds to screen new patients are not being made available. If the funds were made available, the deaths would not occur. Why is this not manslaughter?
Meanwhile, a problem that has a 10 fold less death rate is given funding and publicity like there's no tomorrow.
I simply don't understand that.
What I am saying is:
Fact one: There are currently thousands of deaths every year in NHS hospitals due to C Diff.
Fact two: The vast majority of these deaths are avoidable.
These deaths do not happen in private hospitals.
They are happening in NHS hospitals, not mainly because of staff negligence, but because the funds to screen new patients are not being made available. If the funds were made available, the deaths would not occur. Why is this not manslaughter?
Meanwhile, a problem that has a 10 fold less death rate is given funding and publicity like there's no tomorrow.
I simply don't understand that.
deeps said:
Mr Annie, I think you're missing my point, this is not an anti-police thread, but merely an expression of my lack of understanding of the government's priorities.
What I am saying is:
Fact one: There are currently thousands of deaths every year in NHS hospitals due to C Diff.
Fact two: The vast majority of these deaths are avoidable.
These deaths do not happen in private hospitals.
They are happening in NHS hospitals, not mainly because of staff negligence, but because the funds to screen new patients are not being made available. If the funds were made available, the deaths would not occur. Why is this not manslaughter?
Meanwhile, a problem that has a 10 fold less death rate is given funding and publicity like there's no tomorrow.
I simply don't understand that.
You obviously don't understand if you believe that the funding for drink drive campaigns would even make a dint in cutting the number of deaths in hospitals. As Annie said most deaths in hospitals will be unavoidable. Others are but even then they are down to human error and although you can bang on about how it was avoidable in those cases, we all make mistakes no matter how careful we are being.What I am saying is:
Fact one: There are currently thousands of deaths every year in NHS hospitals due to C Diff.
Fact two: The vast majority of these deaths are avoidable.
These deaths do not happen in private hospitals.
They are happening in NHS hospitals, not mainly because of staff negligence, but because the funds to screen new patients are not being made available. If the funds were made available, the deaths would not occur. Why is this not manslaughter?
Meanwhile, a problem that has a 10 fold less death rate is given funding and publicity like there's no tomorrow.
I simply don't understand that.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
eldar said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Would putting police officers into hospitals help though. Hardly transferable skills.
Sums it up. Couldn't investigate that avoidable death, no transferrable skills. Dead granny, dies quietly, no blue lights, no problem, old vulnerable and worthless. Avoidable death, but doesn't involve high tech glamour and the perps sign the death cert.
So your suggestion is lots of doctors and nurses and cleaners and support staff linked up and questioed whilst soco close ward down and forensicly examine it each time there is a death?
Or do you mean, like the police line up and close down roads each time there's one of the vastly fewer number of mostly accidental road deaths? Brainstorm's manual says breathe in, Brainstorm's manual says breathe out, good job too or every BiB would turn even bluer.
We should have 'Dirt Kills' campaigns and Sinkcams in wards, with plastic police and retired officers in covert locations ready to nip out and nick anybody who's a fraction over the Germ Limit. Doctor Calming and Nurse Calming features on wards around sinks would help too, slow the buggers down and they might wash more thoroughly. Clearly young staff present more of a risk, so start Germ Awareness courses for first offenders, plus radio adverts advising on cleanliness limits with the slogan "It's Dirty For a Reason". Get young patients doing pieces to-camera "Heal me Dirty and there's an 80% chance I'll die, heal me at twenty (paces) and there's an 80% chance I'll live".
Surefire winner innit.
I've yet to go to an accident that was not easily avoidable and someone was not clearly at fault.
Every fatal I have attended has someone clearly to blame. I have attended far too many and will attend far more.
Using criminal law in medicine is never practical or easy. To try using deaths on hospital to beat the police up about there efforts to reduce road death is a little below the belt in my view.
Accidents rarely happen crashes with an offender happen all the time. b
Every fatal I have attended has someone clearly to blame. I have attended far too many and will attend far more.
Using criminal law in medicine is never practical or easy. To try using deaths on hospital to beat the police up about there efforts to reduce road death is a little below the belt in my view.
Accidents rarely happen crashes with an offender happen all the time. b
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff