Time to charge for abusing emergency services ?

["andy"]

a lot of A+E time is wasted by people who dont actually need to be there. our local paper earlier in the year had an article by a young reporter complaining about how A+E was busy one weeknight when he had gone.

The reason he had gone was something that didn't need emergency treatment (i think he had bruised his ankle playing football but could still walk on it) after many hours there they sent him away without any treatment telling him to rest (he moaned about this too) The comments section was mostly him being crucified because he could have gone on the NHS site for advice , rang 111 , gone to a walk in centre or gone to his own doctor but instead he went to A+E for a none emergency and then moaned about it being busy. madness.

not sure i agree on fines though , we need more awareness. There where plenty of people saying ''well where else should he have gone/what should he have done'' .

.

 

[phonemonkey]

As someone who works in the emergency services, I have a few issues with this proposal.

1. I don't think it it would influence the people you might intend to influence and is likely to adversely influence those you're not targetting. My experience is that it's those with symptoms we want to know about who express most concern about wasting our time, with those presenting with less clinically significant symptoms more likely to express the belief that the situation is critical. I don't want the elderly person with angina to have another thing to worry about when they have chest pain, and I certainly don't want them to not call in the ( even mistaken) belief that If their chest pain turns out to nothing to worry about they'll be charged.

2. Who would be responsible for paying the fine? We take a lot of calls from bystanders who have found someone collapsed in public. Sometimes, particularly late at night, or if the caller is a woman on her own, the caller does not feel safe approaching the patient. Oftentimes these calls are for people who are intoxicated. These people are often unaware a 999 call has been made for them. Can you charge someone for a service they didn't ask for? Particularly if they've had no opportunity to refuse that service prior to its delivery? So, do we charge the person who made the call? That doesn't seem fair either, they're trying to do the right thing, after all. Do we make callers put themselves in potentially unsafe situations by insisting they check we are needed before we will send help?

3. Who decides which calls were an abuse of our services and when is that decision made? Can you retrospectively charge someone for a service when they weren't informed of, and hadn't agreed to, such charges prior to delivery? I take 999 calls and I'm happy to assume responsibility for remotely delivering a baby. I'll manage a cardiac arrest until the crew arrives, and I'll supervise parents doing the Heimlich manoeuvre on their child. I accept those responsibilities but I'd be uncomfortable deciding whose emergency is an abuse of the system. If not me, then who? And when?

4. These services aren't free. They're free at point of use. It was intentionally set up like that to ensure equity of access for those in need. Thats something worth protecting in my mind.

5. Most of the calls I take are people who genuinely believe their reason for calling is an emergency. There is no malicious intent to the vast majority of calls. If those reasons for calling aren't an emergency those people should be educated and sign posted to more appropriate services, not punished.

 

[Energize]

Suuuuure... Of course it's a political left-leaning issue. It's got nothing to do with millions of ignorant, selfish, arrogant people who couldn't give a **** about anyone but themselves, it MUST be the fault of the lefties!

Such utterly pathetic lowbrow thinking.

I don't think I've ever seen someone miss the point by such a distance, you're off in another galaxy.

The point is the healthcare structure in the UK doesn't take the good ideas from the right, such as factoring in personal responsibility, it's too much about collectivism and it costs society as a whole more.

 

[Devilman]

I don't think I've ever seen someone miss the point by such a distance, you're off in another galaxy.

You were attempting to blame all the issues on the NHS being run by "the left".

Or are you denying what you wrote when you said this....

This is the fundamental problem with the NHS structure, it leans far too much to the left. There is no accountability for personal responsibility, society has to pay for other peoples recklessness.

I'll bold it for the cheap seats...

This is the fundamental problem with the NHS structure, it leans far too much to the left. There is no accountability for personal responsibility, society has to pay for other peoples recklessness.

Hell, I'll even underline it so the really stupid can notice it too...

This is the fundamental problem with the NHS structure, it leans far too much to the left. There is no accountability for personal responsibility, society has to pay for other peoples recklessness.

Now, do tell us exactly how that is "missing the point" when it is quite clearly the MAIN POINT of your comment.


*Edit*

I don't think I've ever seen someone miss the point by such a distance, you're off in another galaxy.

The point is the healthcare structure in the UK doesn't take the good ideas from the right, such as factoring in personal responsibility, it's too much about collectivism and it costs society as a whole more.

Yet again, trying to blame it all on "the left".. it's truly pathetic. Exactly which party has run down the NHS for the last 12 years with an idiologically driven policy of "Austerity", leaving the system barely capable of functioning?

 

[Energize]

You were attempting to blame all the issues on the NHS being run by "the left".

Read my edit, you are totally not getting what I'm saying, you want a balanced healthcare system that takes good ideas from the left and right to be functional, when the structure leans too far in one direction good concepts are lost. You seem to be taking this really personally.

 

[Devilman]

Read my edit, you are totally not getting what I'm saying, you want a balanced healthcare system that takes good ideas from the left and right to be functional, when the structure leans too far in one direction good concepts are lost. You seem to be taking this really personally.

You need to re-read your entire last few posts, because it is VERY clear where you think the problem lies.

From comments you have made such as "it leans far too much to the left" and "doesn't take good ideas from the right" It is pretty clear you think the main issue is one of political leaning.

Or are you now denying that your comments regarding the political leaning(s) were meant to portray that feeling? If so, why did you type them at all? Clearly it forms part of your own mental narrative.

 

[Energize]

I don't get why you're so upset?

I'm talking about the structure of the organisation, nowhere have I said the problem is left wing people. The structural problems allow a complete lack of personal responsibility, don't you think it would be a good idea to have a more balanced health care system which takes some ideas from the right like personal responsibility?

 

[Devilman]

I don't get why you're so upset?

I'm talking about the structure of the organisation, nowhere have I said the problem is left wing people. The structural problems allow a complete lack of personal responsibility, don't you think it would be a good idea to have a more balanced health care system which takes some ideas from the right like personal responsibility?

No, you are talking about the political leanings of people within the organization and using to to try and blame the entire NHS for it.

It is a shallow and weak attempt to throw **** at people you perceive as "lefties" while continuing to claim those on "the right" have the good ideas.

Just look at what you have written.

"it leans far too much to the left" - You do understand that a social healthcare system such as the NHS is pretty much a creation of "The Left" ? Do tell me how many right-wing countries have a free-at-point-of-user Social healthcare system?
"doesn't take good ideas from the right" - Because good ideas do not come only from one side or the other. Shall we take the 12 years of Austerity that has stripped the NHS to the bone as a "good idea" because it came from the right?

You are blinkered to your own bias and are painting it into every post you make.

 

[inogen]

I don't get why you're so upset?

I'm talking about the structure of the organisation, nowhere have I said the problem is left wing people. The structural problems allow a complete lack of personal responsibility, don't you think it would be a good idea to have a more balanced health care system which takes some ideas from the right like personal responsibility?

The idea that "the right" has inherent personal responsibility is utter bull****.

Some of the most stupid people I know who give no ****s about themselves or anyone else are right wing idiots.

 

[Energize]

No, you are talking about the political leanings of people within the organization and using to to try and blame the entire NHS for it.

I am not talking about the people within the organisation I am talking about the structure of the organisation. You come across as a fanatical ideologue.

"it leans far too much to the left" - You do understand that a social healthcare system such as the NHS is pretty much a creation of "The Left" ? Do tell me how many right-wing countries have a free-at-point-of-user Social healthcare system?

Err the UK?

The idea that "the right" has inherent personal responsibility is utter bull****.

Some of the most stupid people I know who give no ****s about themselves or anyone else are right wing idiots.

Right wing ideologies place greater emphasis on the individual rather than society. Of course some right wing people are idiots what relevance does that have?

 

[Devilman]

I am not talking about the people within the organisation I am talking about the structure of the organisation. You come across as a fanatical ideologue.

You come across as someone who can only substantiate your claims by making ad hominem attacks on others.

Err the UK?

Considering the UK was (up until this brexit stupidity) considered one of the leading countries for equality, human rights, workers rights, animal rights, food standards and many more would suggest you do not understand the UK's political stance at all. - We are predominantly in the middle of the spectrum, with occasional right or left leanings.
It is only since the likes of Farage started openly spouting bull**** to incite xenophobia and hatred of immigrants has the UK taken a sudden - and disturbing - lurch to the right.

Right wing ideologies place greater emphasis on the individual rather than society. Of course some right wing people are idiots what relevance does that have?

Placing greater emphasis on the individual does not automatically translate into those individuals having more personal responsibility. You are conflating the two so as to assert that people from "The Right" are more personally responsible. - Lets examine that for a moment...

Personal

adjective

1. belonging to or affecting a particular person rather than anyone else.
2. of or concerning one's private life, relationships, and emotions rather than one's career or public life.

Now, call it simplistic if you like but... it seems pretty obvious to me that the notion of "Personal Responsibility" is something is something that is individual, to each person. - So to suggest that one group of people have a greater level of "Personal Responsibility" than another based upon nothing but their political leanings, is both entire false (in both cases, it is entirely down to each individual) and again demonstrative of your political bias.

You need to step away from the whole "Left = bad, Right = good" mentality and look at things objectively.

 

[Energize]

You need to step away from the whole "Left = bad, Right = good" mentality and look at things objectively.

I specifically said the healthcare system needs ideas from the left and right. You are just taking this personally because of your political stance so there doesn't seem to be any point in discussing this further with you. You need to understand that the moderate right is about free market economies which the UK is for the most part, referring to far right extremists doesn't help your argument that the NHS shouldn't adopt some ideas from the right. Human rights are a core part of the right side of the political spectrum, classical liberalism is a right wing philosophy that puts huge emphasis on individual freedoms and was the founding principal of the United States. You need to stop thinking of the right as racists and xenophobes.

 

[Devilman]

I specifically said the healthcare system needs ideas from the left and right. You are just taking this personally because of your political stance so there doesn't seem to be any point in discussing this further with you. You need to understand that the moderate right is about free market economies which the UK is for the most part, referring to far right extremists doesn't help your argument that the NHS shouldn't adopt some ideas from the right. Human rights are a core part of the right side of the political spectrum, classical liberalism is a right wing philosophy that puts huge emphasis on individual freedoms and was the founding principal of the United States. You need to stop thinking of the right as racists and xenophobes.

I am not taking it personally at all, I am merely pointing out the obvious bias you display in your posts from the moment you stepped into the thread. Explain how it is that post after post you fail to address any of the numerous points I have made to you?

And now you want you claim "you see no point in discussing it further" when you have failed to discuss it in the first place.. you came in, vomited your opinion into the thread and then failed to address any of the points I raised with regard to your repeated assertion that the issue is due to "The Left" and "Not listening to the Right".

You in fact seem to be the one taking it personally, since I am bringing your obvious political bias into question and you clearly don't like to accept anything other than your own world view on a situation.


Also.. with regard to this comment...

You need to stop thinking of the right as racists and xenophobes.

When they keep behaving like racists and xenophobes, they will correctly be labeled as such. A spade is a spade. A fork is a fork. Maybe if they stopped supporting politicians (Trump for example) and public speakers (Farage for example) alike whom deliberately use inciting, divisive rhetoric they would not be labeled as such?

While I do not believe for a moment that "Everyone from the Right" is xenophobic or a racist, it does seem to be specifically right-wing trait, wouldn't you say? - It's not often you hear "Lefties" talking loudly about how immigrants and people from different ethnic or religious backgrounds are "ruining their country".

Or do you really believe the behaviour currently on display from the US Presidency downwards is actually trying to instill the ideal of Personal Responsibility? (The US long considered to be more right-wing than the UK)

 

[EdButler]

As someone who works in the emergency services, I have a few issues with this proposal.

1. I don't think it it would influence the people you might intend to influence and is likely to adversely influence those you're not targetting. My experience is that it's those with symptoms we want to know about who express most concern about wasting our time, with those presenting with less clinically significant symptoms more likely to express the belief that the situation is critical. I don't want the elderly person with angina to have another thing to worry about when they have chest pain, and I certainly don't want them to not call in the ( even mistaken) belief that If their chest pain turns out to nothing to worry about they'll be charged.

2. Who would be responsible for paying the fine? We take a lot of calls from bystanders who have found someone collapsed in public. Sometimes, particularly late at night, or if the caller is a woman on her own, the caller does not feel safe approaching the patient. Oftentimes these calls are for people who are intoxicated. These people are often unaware a 999 call has been made for them. Can you charge someone for a service they didn't ask for? Particularly if they've had no opportunity to refuse that service prior to its delivery? So, do we charge the person who made the call? That doesn't seem fair either, they're trying to do the right thing, after all. Do we make callers put themselves in potentially unsafe situations by insisting they check we are needed before we will send help?

3. Who decides which calls were an abuse of our services and when is that decision made? Can you retrospectively charge someone for a service when they weren't informed of, and hadn't agreed to, such charges prior to delivery? I take 999 calls and I'm happy to assume responsibility for remotely delivering a baby. I'll manage a cardiac arrest until the crew arrives, and I'll supervise parents doing the Heimlich manoeuvre on their child. I accept those responsibilities but I'd be uncomfortable deciding whose emergency is an abuse of the system. If not me, then who? And when?

4. These services aren't free. They're free at point of use. It was intentionally set up like that to ensure equity of access for those in need. Thats something worth protecting in my mind.

5. Most of the calls I take are people who genuinely believe their reason for calling is an emergency. There is no malicious intent to the vast majority of calls. If those reasons for calling aren't an emergency those people should be educated and sign posted to more appropriate services, not punished.

What an awesome post, it certainly opened my eyes to new perspectives. Shame it got swallowed by keyboard warriors trying to get one-over each other.

 

[Eurofighter]

It annoys me too but yeah some poor old woman might be scared to call the fire brigade or something. Just incase. I think for blatant multiple repeat offences they should be punished by prison or community service rather than a fine.

 

[pastymuncher]

I think in some cases fines/charges should be paid. Instances like idiots going out in a boat with no safety equipment, going out when they shouldn't due to weather, selfish morons going up our mountains with no equipment apart from maybe a mobile phone or going up when the weather forecast is bad and ignoring it. All of these types of cases are people who expect to be rescued when things go wrong with no thought to anybody apart from themselves. No regard to the lifeboat crews or dozen or more members of mountain rescue teams who often have to go up our mountains in abysmal weather with often no real idea of where these idiots exactly are putting their lives at risk to rescue people who shouldn't be there in the first place. Often a SAR bird (search and rescue helicopter) is involved as well at a cost of several thousands of pounds. There definately should be charges for things like this. People often go out to sea in a boat with no training and no safety equipment and no clue as to what they are doing. We have had people rescued from our mountains wearing just shorts, T-shirt and trainers with just a mobile phone and many many cases of people who have ignored weather forecasts only to get caught in a blizzard. These are all wrong and something needs to be done about it. People need to re-learn that their actions have consequences, sometimes fatal.

One other thing I would like to see mandatory charges for is missed doctor/hospital/dentist appointments. Often it's hard to get a appointment in the first place so people booking appointments and not turning up for them without contacting the doctors/hospital/dentist beforehand is a huge problem. I live in a fairly large village of around 1000 people and our doctors surgery has a notice on the receptionists desk stating how many missed appointments there have been in the previous week. Usually it's in the mid twenties although I have seen as many as 46 missed appointments in a week which is shocking. There needs to be a charge for a missed appointment if you haven't phoned to cancel and I would set it at £10 per missed appointment, maybe increase the charge if they keep on missing appointments.

 

[cheesyboy]

I don't see how society benefits from levying a charge on individuals for needing emergency services, regardless of the reason for the need.

We moan about Elf 'n' Safety, and demonise younger generations for being soft, yet we also want to criticise them for taking risks and doing the sort of stupid **** we all did in some form once upon a time.

 

[Energize]

I am not taking it personally at all, I am merely pointing out the obvious bias you display in your posts from the moment you stepped into the thread. Explain how it is that post after post you fail to address any of the numerous points I have made to you?

You haven't made any posts discussing the NHS structure you just keep referring to political ideology which I'm not going to engage with.

 

[Haggisman]

One other thing I would like to see mandatory charges for is missed doctor/hospital/dentist appointments. Often it's hard to get a appointment in the first place so people booking appointments and not turning up for them without contacting the doctors/hospital/dentist beforehand is a huge problem. I live in a fairly large village of around 1000 people and our doctors surgery has a notice on the receptionists desk stating how many missed appointments there have been in the previous week. Usually it's in the mid twenties although I have seen as many as 46 missed appointments in a week which is shocking. There needs to be a charge for a missed appointment if you haven't phoned to cancel and I would set it at £10 per missed appointment, maybe increase the charge if they keep on missing appointments.

This I agree with - or some kind of deposit system where you pay e.g. £10 to secure your appointment, which is then refunded when you attend.

a lot of A+E time is wasted by people who dont actually need to be there. our local paper earlier in the year had an article by a young reporter complaining about how A+E was busy one weeknight when he had gone.

The reason he had gone was something that didn't need emergency treatment (i think he had bruised his ankle playing football but could still walk on it) after many hours there they sent him away without any treatment telling him to rest (he moaned about this too) The comments section was mostly him being crucified because he could have gone on the NHS site for advice , rang 111 , gone to a walk in centre or gone to his own doctor but instead he went to A+E for a none emergency and then moaned about it being busy. madness.

not sure i agree on fines though , we need more awareness. There where plenty of people saying ''well where else should he have gone/what should he have done'' .
.

This is both a fault of the individual and the system. When my partner was suffering from severe dehydration due to hyperemesis, we visited A&E because she urgently needed IV fluids. The woman in front of us was there because "I've poked myself in the eye"...

The woman behind the desk did not look impressed, and told her there was an 8 hour wait!

I say it's also the fault of the system, because actually, we didn't need to be in A&E either. We should have been able to go straight to the early pregnancy department where they were all set up to provide IV fluids to women with hyperemesis, but because of some bureaucratic nonsense, my partner had to be referred from A&E first.

 

[TheVoice]

It's relatively rare for people to be charged/prosecuted for abusing the 999 system as it is, so financially charging people for using the emergency services (regardless of circumstances) is unlikely to happen.