Are Speeders as bad as Drug users?
Discussion
In another thread it was suggested by someone that drug users in a hospital didn't deserve to be prioritised for treatment at a hospital.
Another poster suggested the same could be said for speeding drivers who are injured.
So whats the consensus....
Imagine a drug user, who happens to have taken some "bad/off" drugs which means he requires medical care, the effects of the drugs mean he is disorientated, confused and difficult to treat.
However lets assume for the purposes of this comparison that his drug use has not impacted on anyone else - he uses the drugs in his own house, pays for them with his own money that he has earnt etc. The only problem is he requires medical assistance. Due to the fact that illegal drugs are involved a police presence is required.
On the other hand....
We have a guy who has had an accident in his car, speed was the main contributor to the accident, he went far to fast (above the speed limit for that road)into a corner, lost control and had an accident - which again involved no-one else. He also requires medical assistance, and due to the circumstances the police are required to attend.
So in the hospital should either be given "priority" treatment or should they both be shoved to the back of the queue - they are both law breakers after all........
(BTW - I'm not advocating smack head drug users, and agree with alot of the comments in the other thread, just interested to see how people percieve the two scenarios)
Cheers
Dan
Another poster suggested the same could be said for speeding drivers who are injured.
So whats the consensus....
Imagine a drug user, who happens to have taken some "bad/off" drugs which means he requires medical care, the effects of the drugs mean he is disorientated, confused and difficult to treat.
However lets assume for the purposes of this comparison that his drug use has not impacted on anyone else - he uses the drugs in his own house, pays for them with his own money that he has earnt etc. The only problem is he requires medical assistance. Due to the fact that illegal drugs are involved a police presence is required.
On the other hand....
We have a guy who has had an accident in his car, speed was the main contributor to the accident, he went far to fast (above the speed limit for that road)into a corner, lost control and had an accident - which again involved no-one else. He also requires medical assistance, and due to the circumstances the police are required to attend.
So in the hospital should either be given "priority" treatment or should they both be shoved to the back of the queue - they are both law breakers after all........
(BTW - I'm not advocating smack head drug users, and agree with alot of the comments in the other thread, just interested to see how people percieve the two scenarios)
Cheers
Dan
sleep envy said:
dan1981] said:
So in the hospital should either be given "priority" treatment or should they both be shoved to the back of the queue - they are both law breakers after all........
to treat people based on how they have ended up requiring medical help is an appalling thoughtAlso there's a big difference between driving according to the conditions, breaking the speed limit and driving like a twunt despite conditions. NB the latter could be done within the posted speed limit, so the speed limit surely can't be used as a benchmark and let's face it, we're all human and are fallible, everyone makes mistakes from time to time.
The oxygen thieves in that case, judging by the description were down and outs who evidently depend on taxpayers, (legitimately or otherwise), to fund their habit.
So in summary, No.
The oxygen thieves in that case, judging by the description were down and outs who evidently depend on taxpayers, (legitimately or otherwise), to fund their habit.
So in summary, No.
What about injured drunks then? Or snowboarders? Or cyclists riding on the road instead of a designated cycle path (where one was available)?
There's no way of drawing the line as regards degree of "fault", unfortunately. All A&E staff can do is prioritise on the basis of severity of injury/condition.
Someone I know was left lying in an A&E corridor for 5 hours, in agony with a broken back, while the staff treated head injuries (a few cuts) among a gang of drunks who'd had a scrap. Head injuries are given priority. Even if there's just lots of blood and no immediate danger to the patient.
It is pretty galling to see people with "own fault" injuries being seen ahead of decent, clean people who've just been unlucky. But I expect it'd be equally galling to see someone die when they could've been saved if you'd treated them first, except you didn't because they were off their head on something or other so they'd brought their injury on themselves.
I see why it's done that way, but if you're on the "decent" side of things then it can be pretty upsetting to see a drunk or a drug addict being seen first when you/someone close to you is lying in pain and seemingly being ignored.
There's no way of drawing the line as regards degree of "fault", unfortunately. All A&E staff can do is prioritise on the basis of severity of injury/condition.
Someone I know was left lying in an A&E corridor for 5 hours, in agony with a broken back, while the staff treated head injuries (a few cuts) among a gang of drunks who'd had a scrap. Head injuries are given priority. Even if there's just lots of blood and no immediate danger to the patient.
It is pretty galling to see people with "own fault" injuries being seen ahead of decent, clean people who've just been unlucky. But I expect it'd be equally galling to see someone die when they could've been saved if you'd treated them first, except you didn't because they were off their head on something or other so they'd brought their injury on themselves.
I see why it's done that way, but if you're on the "decent" side of things then it can be pretty upsetting to see a drunk or a drug addict being seen first when you/someone close to you is lying in pain and seemingly being ignored.
SGirl said:
It is pretty galling to see people with "own fault" injuries being seen ahead of decent, clean people who've just been unlucky. But I expect it'd be equally galling to see someone die when they could've been saved if you'd treated them first, except you didn't because they were off their head on something or other so they'd brought their injury on themselves.
And you can't expect health care staff to make decisions based on anything other than clinical evidence.A friend of mine at uni collapsed on a night out and was hauled off by the BiB as a drunk. What they didn't realise was that he'd only had a couple of pints and was actually ill. He still got a caution for drunk and disorderly when they let him out, but was lucky it wasn't more serious.
mechsympathy said:
SGirl said:
It is pretty galling to see people with "own fault" injuries being seen ahead of decent, clean people who've just been unlucky. But I expect it'd be equally galling to see someone die when they could've been saved if you'd treated them first, except you didn't because they were off their head on something or other so they'd brought their injury on themselves.
And you can't expect health care staff to make decisions based on anything other than clinical evidence.A friend of mine at uni collapsed on a night out and was hauled off by the BiB as a drunk. What they didn't realise was that he'd only had a couple of pints and was actually ill. He still got a caution for drunk and disorderly when they let him out, but was lucky it wasn't more serious.
mechsympathy said:
And are they as bad as fat people with heart disease, or smokers, or injured football players? Or whatever other "risky" activity you care to mention.
Had this discussion on biker forums regarding the wearing of 'adequate' protective clothing...At what point do you decide someone has taken 'too much' of a risk? for arguments sake:
- Riding a bike in Full 1-piece BSI approved leathers + BSI approved armour + BSI approved Boots + BSI approved Lid + BSI approved gloves
- Riding a bike in BSI approved Leather jacket with Jeans + BSI approved Boots + BSI approved Lid + BSI approved gloves
- Riding a bike in ordinary textile jacket BSI approved Boots + BSI approved Lid + BSI approved gloves
- Riding a bike in Casual clothing + BSI approved Lid + BSI approved gloves
- riding exceptionally well
- riding mediocre
- inexperienced but not bad rider
- bad rider
- dangerous rider
WHO would even know, let alone posess the right to judge all the above and then dictate medical care on that basis? when in an emergency situation.
In theory, as a rule, I would say that text-drivers and satnav-fvckér-arounders (whilst driving) were worse than speeders.
But less deserving of medical care?
Plotloss said:
I think in order of attractiveness.
Speeders
Drug Users
Bikers
The fat
what about common people who wear nylon sports clothing?Speeders
Drug Users
Bikers
The fat
And gingers?
Oh and Prius owners - really it should be like the USA where you don't get treated unless you have proof (or exemption in the case of Prius owners).
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff