Should the NHS refuse treatment for people that haven’t had the vaccination?

[LAX54]

And this is the problem - if people refuse the vaccines of their own volition, then they take the risk something may happen, and not heap it onto the general, weary, population

If they refuse the vaccine, for no 'good' reason, then they should waive the rights for Hospital treatment, harsh ? yes, but fair to everyone who have the well being of everyone else in mind ?

mods note, split from this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/the-return-of-local-restrictions-guidance.217830/

 

[roversfan2001]

If they refuse the vaccine, for no 'good' reason, then they should waive the rights for Hospital treatment, harsh ? yes, but fair to everyone else

Absolutely not. I don't know why this idea of refusing people medical treatment is so popular, but it is very concerning.

 

[LAX54]

Absolutely not. I don't know why this idea of refusing people medical treatment is so popular, but it is very concerning.

Because they are saying I would rather have the illness, and subject the Hospital staff to more risks, as I am better than anyone else , if there is a valid medical reason, then there is no issue, its just the selfish and those that think it is a DNA altering / Chip inserting programme !

 

[nedchester]

If they refuse the vaccine, for no 'good' reason, then they should waive the rights for Hospital treatment, harsh ? yes, but fair to everyone who have the well being of everyone else in mind

Disagree, they should get hospital treatment otherwise who else do you discriminate who becomes ill by self-infliction? Smokers? People involved in fights? Sports injuries?

No, my point is if those who haven't been vaccinated shouldn't restrict the rest of us but they absolutely should get NHS treatment.

 

[roversfan2001]

Because they are saying I would rather have the illness, and subject the Hospital staff to more risks, as I am better than anyone else , if there is a valid medical reason, then there is no issue, its just the selfish and those that think it is a DNA altering / Chip inserting programme !

Should we refuse people medical treatment after a car crash if they’ve been speeding then? Denying people access to healthcare because they’ve made a foolish decision is a slippery slope.

 

[Bantamzen]

Because they are saying I would rather have the illness, and subject the Hospital staff to more risks, as I am better than anyone else , if there is a valid medical reason, then there is no issue, its just the selfish and those that think it is a DNA altering / Chip inserting programme !

Well by now hospital workers will have been offered both doses, so their risk is greatly reduced. The same is true of most of the vulnerable people, indeed I'm not vulnerable & 51 but am only 2 weeks away from dose two. So that really only leaves the under 50s at risk in the coming weeks, and currently 32+ are being offered their first dose. So really the risk is only really present in the least vulnerable groups, and that risk is tiny.

This is the danger of turning of people not taking up the vaccine. No matter what you feel on a personal level, they are not generating anything like the kind of risk being touted. In a few more weeks the UK will have way over half the adult population protected, we have been at the forefront in developing treatments and we have even had a hand in the vaccination development / testing. I think it might be time to accept that we are coming over the worst, and people not choosing to have it are not the demons they are made out to be.

 

[Dent]

Because they are saying I would rather have the illness, and subject the Hospital staff to more risks, as I am better than anyone else

They are not really saying that, that is a strawman which you have invented.

 

[Darandio]

Because they are saying I would rather have the illness, and subject the Hospital staff to more risks, as I am better than anyone else , if there is a valid medical reason, then there is no issue, its just the selfish and those that think it is a DNA altering / Chip inserting programme !

What about ethnic minority groups that still don't trust this or other vaccines? Historically they have been under-represented in vaccine trials and research and therefore understandably are uneasy about coming forward.

But from my (probably selfish) point of view that is not my concern and we certainly shouldn't hold back on easing restrictions purely on the basis that people who refused the vaccine are being hospitalised.

But deny them treatment purely because they refused? Don't be silly.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Does this mean that I can drive at whatever speed I like on the M62 on Thursday between just West of Huddersfield and just South of Brighouse to spend less time (in the car) in Kirklees?

 

[bramling]

If they refuse the vaccine, for no 'good' reason, then they should waive the rights for Hospital treatment, harsh ? yes, but fair to everyone who have the well being of everyone else in mind

Can’t really agree with that. “I don’t want the vaccine” is absolutely a good reason as far as I’m concerned, indeed I’m sitting on my vaccine invite which came this week. It’s a calculated judgement between any potential issues which might arise from the vaccine over time, and whether I feel I actually need it based on risk profile. It’s no different to venturing in a disused railway tunnel - there’s the low risk that I could have an accident of some sort and require medical attention, and an even more minute risk that the tunnel collapses on me.

Were I older than the balance might tip more in favour of the vaccine. It would be interesting to know if the people taking up the space in these hospitals are older or younger.

 

[Yew]

If they refuse the vaccine, for no 'good' reason, then they should waive the rights for Hospital treatment, harsh ? yes, but fair to everyone who have the well being of everyone else in mind

Perhaps we should refuse hospital treatment to those who don't support the correct political party, or who undertake acts we deem unseemly?

The idea of denying people medical treatment that we have the ability to give, is abhorrent, and I cannot see how it would not be misused by the political classes.

 

[DelayRepay]

The idea of denying people medical treatment that we have the ability to give, is abhorrent, and I cannot see how it would not be misused by the political classes.

Indeed. I cannot imagine many NHS staff would be comfortable having to go through a checklist to ensure eligibility before treating someone who was sick. In practice they wouldn't - it would go against all professional and ethical standards to turn away someone who was seriously ill, regardless of circumstances.

And if we start denying treatment, it's a slippery slope. Isn't the whole point of the NHS to offer universal healthcare. Lots of people end up in hospital as a consequence of decisions they've made or frankly their own stupidity. If the NHS started denying treatment on that basis, well, it wouldn't be the NHS any more, would it?

 

[Bantamzen]

Perhaps we should refuse hospital treatment to those who don't support the correct political party, or who undertake acts we deem unseemly?

The idea of denying people medical treatment that we have the ability to give, is abhorrent, and I cannot see how it would not be misused by the political classes.

Absolutely. As previously mentioned, we might expand to deny NHS services to people climbing rocks, riding bikes, playing sport. We could even go down the rabbit hole of limiting access to people that smoke, vape, drink, eat fast food, sugar....

The problem here is that people have become used to knee-jerk, poorly thought through reactions. It might seem to some to be logical to effectively force the vaccine onto people by denying healthcare access, but it would have serious consequences that could not only impact the health on different demographic groups, but would likely create a two-tier society (think the original Demolition Man). It should have been obvious from the approach taken by the government last year that trying to scare people into consider options is not the way to go.

We need to remain civilised, and democratic with this. The vaccine is optional, and the only way to help people make a decision to have it is to have a adult conversation, discuss the pros and cons, and let people make their own risk assessments. As we have seen in this country, most people will opt to have it. There is no need for a re-emergence of "Project Fear" to coerce people into compliance. We are approaching the point we can, and should stop pressuring society.

 

[island]

The idea of denying people medical treatment that we have the ability to give, is abhorrent, and I cannot see how it would not be misused by the political classes.

Indeed. I cannot imagine many NHS staff would be comfortable having to go through a checklist to ensure eligibility before treating someone who was sick. In practice they wouldn't - it would go against all professional and ethical standards to turn away someone who was seriously ill, regardless of circumstances.

I hate to break it to you both, but this is done routinely and daily in the NHS in at least two contexts, the first being cost, and the second being the determination of whether particularly invasive treatment should be continued when the patient would have very low quality of life (particularly relevant in the contexts of babies and the elderly).

 

[nedchester]

Absolutely. As previously mentioned, we might expand to deny NHS services to people climbing rocks, riding bikes, playing sport. We could even go down the rabbit hole of limiting access to people that smoke, vape, drink, eat fast food, sugar....

The problem here is that people have become used to knee-jerk, poorly thought through reactions. It might seem to some to be logical to effectively force the vaccine onto people by denying healthcare access, but it would have serious consequences that could not only impact the health on different demographic groups, but would likely create a two-tier society (think the original Demolition Man). It should have been obvious from the approach taken by the government last year that trying to scare people into consider options is not the way to go.

We need to remain civilised, and democratic with this. The vaccine is optional, and the only way to help people make a decision to have it is to have a adult conversation, discuss the pros and cons, and let people make their own risk assessments. As we have seen in this country, most people will opt to have it. There is no need for a re-emergence of "Project Fear" to coerce people into compliance. We are approaching the point we can, and should stop pressuring society.

Agreed. But as I have said before if there is a spike of infections and hospitalisation amongst the unvaccinated the rest of us should not be restricted.

 

[DelayRepay]

I hate to break it to you both, but this is done routinely and daily in the NHS in at least two contexts, the first being cost, and the second being the determination of whether particularly invasive treatment should be continued when the patient would have very low quality of life (particularly relevant in the contexts of babies and the elderly).

Slightly different though - cost is for the benefit of the country as a whole. We cannot offer unlimited funds to the NHS so they have to use their budgets to offer maximum benefit. And the second point is about acting in the patient's best interests (even if the patient disagrees).

Even then though, they would not turn the ambulance back at the door. They would still offer some treatment even if it was just pain relief. The exampls you give are rather different to saying, 'sorry, you are the victim of your own decisions so please go away'.

 

[yorksrob]

Do we require alcoholics to show that they've given up booze before providing a liver transplant ? I've seen reference to this on TV in relation to America, but can't remember if this is the case here.

 

[J-2739]

Agreed. But as I have said before if there is a spike of infections and hospitalisation amongst the unvaccinated the rest of us should not be restricted.

That's true. I feel as if we have reached the point where the purpose of any potential resistrictions would be to protect certain people from their own choices, to the bereavement of the rest of the population, which I think is wrong.

 

[Ianno87]

We were told at the start of lockdowns that, in extremis, patients hospitalised due to Covid would have to be prioritised by doctors if capacity wasn't sufficient.

In such circumstances is it ethical to deny treatment to somebody who has been vaccinated (in the highly unlikely case the vaccine isn't effective), or has yet to be offered the vaccine, in order to prioritise somebody who has been offered and declined it?

 

[Bantamzen]

We were told at the start of lockdowns that, in extremis, patients hospitalised due to Covid would have to be prioritised by doctors if capacity wasn't sufficient.

In such circumstances is it ethical to deny treatment to somebody who has been vaccinated (in the highly unlikely case the vaccine isn't effective), or has yet to be offered the vaccine, in order to prioritise somebody who has been offered and declined it?

I doubt the choices would ever be quite that binary.

 

[Ianno87]

I doubt the choices would ever be quite that binary.

Yes - there will be many, many factors at play in the decision already.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Of course not. The whole point of the NHS is that its universal.
You go down that path and you start to go down the not treating someone because they broke their leg whilst playing football line of thinking!

I doubt the choices would ever be quite that binary.

Which is actually part of the problem when talking about hospital capacity being full or nearly full.
Very rarely does a hospital being full mean people are turned away (it can happen and ambulances and the like are diverted to other hospitals, but it is rare), what usually happens is that as a hospital gets fuller the standard of care and attention that is able to be given to patients decreases.

 

[westv]

A totally ridiculous idea that should be filed in the nearest bin.

 

[Cdd89]

One argument I heard recently (from someone in the NHS!) concerns how unvaccinated individuals should be handled should they present themselves for treatment at hospital. The argument was made that they should be admitted on the condition that they consent to immediate vaccination (if they are not conscious they will be vaccinated without consent), and treated in isolation at least until the first dose has taken effect. The argument would be that to do otherwise puts other patients at risk. It was argued that declaring this policy would dramatically increase uptake of the vaccine.

I wouldn’t be comfortable with the above, but there are clearly difficult ethical questions as we hope to move away from a testing-based system of green-amber-red ward management. Should unvaccinated individuals be randomly integrated with vaccinated individuals in hospitals, or moved into separate wards with greater bed spacing? What duty of care is owed to the unvaccinated in taking precautions to ensure that they are not likely to be caught up in a Covid outbreak? Do vaccinated patients have the right not to be placed near someone unvaccinated? It’s a really fuzzy issue on which I have heard surprisingly little discussion.

 

[MalaiseForever]

Absolutely not. Healthcare is a human right and should be provided to all based on clinical need.

 

[Yew]

I hate to break it to you both, but this is done routinely and daily in the NHS in at least two contexts, the first being cost, and the second being the determination of whether particularly invasive treatment should be continued when the patient would have very low quality of life (particularly relevant in the contexts of babies and the elderly).

I don’t know if I was unclear, or you’re feigning ignorance, but denying treatment for medical reasons that mean the treatment is likely to be ineffective is entirely different to denying effective treatment as punishment, which sounds more like something from a Russian Gulag.

 

[Failed Unit]

Hmm thin edge of the Wedge.

Smokers with Lung cancer - Nope they chose to smoke.
Eating related disorders (such as obesity) - A lot of lifestyle issues here.
Broken bones - You chose to play sports that risk broken bones

We could start getting into arguments - you didn't exercise therefore no treatment.

Every day we have thousands of people that are in hospital for preventable treatments - it is a hard one on where to draw the line.

 

[londonteacher]

A suggestion that might please both sides but I don't agree with. What about charging people after treatment if it turns out to be self-inflicted? E.g. refusing a vaccine but then getting ill because of it.

 

[Pete_uk]

Silly idea.


No

 

[Bantamzen]

A suggestion that might please both sides but I don't agree with. What about charging people after treatment if it turns out to be self-inflicted? E.g. refusing a vaccine but then getting ill because of it.

No. We pay for the NHS through taxation.