Don't Get Too Close.... - Page 2

grego · 09-05-2005, 20:30

He certainly shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, I think treatment should be forced on him.

Margaret Pilkington · 09-05-2005, 20:38

according to the article, he cannot be forced to have treatment as this contravenes his human rights!

chav1 · 09-05-2005, 21:04

cant he be treated under the mental health act under diminished resposabilty or whatever its called

anyone who wants to carry a deadly dissease cant be right in the head

Margaret Pilkington · 09-05-2005, 21:08

Apparently not.
When he is really feeling ill he turns up at hospital and they start treatment for him......but as soon as he begins to feel better he signs himself out.
The treatment for TB has to be continued for a full 6 months.......each time he gets a partial treatment it increases the liklihood of the disease becoming resistant to treatment.

chav1 · 09-05-2005, 23:00

while i was in hospital a drug addict kep sneaking off the ward to go for drugs and always ended up coming back more ill than he was origionaly

eventualy they told him that if he didnt want to get better and did it again they would not treat him again and would give his hospital bed to somone who wanted to get better

he snuck off again and went to get drugs and got himself in a mess but this time he died in the taxi he got to take him to bolton hospital

there should be a 3 strike rule where anyone who refuses treatment or quits treatment 3 times is left simply to die

if they can turn people away who are waiting for heart treatment because they smoke surely thay can refuse to treat this guy

WillowTheWhisp · 09-05-2005, 23:15

We were listening to a debate on the radio today about this and some silly woman from a civil liberties group was defending his rights not to be forced to have treatment etc. Someone asked her how she would feel if he lived next door to her and was infecting her family and she changed tack saying that maybe he should be quarantined for the sake of the rest of us but she still did not feel that he should be forced to accept treatment.

I cannot understand why he has (more than once!) given up before the end of a course of treatment. Is he mentally deficient? Am I allowed to say that or is that also non-PC?

ossyclogger · 10-05-2005, 07:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I cannot understand why he has (more than once!) given up before the end of a course of treatment. Is he mentally deficient? Am I allowed to say that or is that also non-PC?

If you mean that the bloke is a complete nut case, of course you can say it. If we can't force him to have treatment he should be quarantined at the HQ of the civil liberties brigade.

garinda · 10-05-2005, 08:39

He should be quarantined.

There is a vast difference between TB and HIV. You can basically prevent the spread of HIV and protect yourself by not exchanging body fluids with an infected person. Something that can't be done if this person spreading his TB arround when he is sat opposite you on the bus and sneezes.

But what about Christian Sciientists, who regualrly die and let their children die rather than have certain medical treatment such as blood tranfusions or transplants? Should we enforce medical treatment on these people as well as TB sufferers?

ossyclogger · 10-05-2005, 08:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

But what about Christian Sciientists, who regualrly die and let their children die rather than have certain medical treatment such as blood tranfusions or transplants? Should we enforce medical treatment on these people as well as TB sufferers?

Only if they are spreading contagious diseases around. I don't aggree with their beliefs, but I defend their right to have them.

garinda · 10-05-2005, 08:58

So it's ok for us as a society to allow children to die because of their parents beliefs, but we could protect them from TB by quarantining infected individuals who refuse treatment?

Strange old world, medical ethics.

cashman · 10-05-2005, 09:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

So it's ok for us as a society to allow children to die because of their parents beliefs, but we could protect them from TB by quarantining infected individuals who refuse treatment?

Strange old world, medical ethics.

don't think the parents beliefs should be taken into account with life threatening illness, the child should be given treatment,then when its old enough make its own choice.

lettie · 10-05-2005, 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

So it's ok for us as a society to allow children to die because of their parents beliefs, but we could protect them from TB by quarantining infected individuals who refuse treatment?

Strange old world, medical ethics.

It certainly is a strange old world is that of medical ethics. As a general rule medical ethics won't let a child die for want of a transfusion, but this depends on the age of the child. If a child is very young and therefore incapable of making an informed choice about the treatment, I have known them to be made a ward of court and a court decision is made for transfusion against the parent's wishes. If the child is older ie teenager and can be said to be 'Gillick' competent (taken from the Victoria Gillick case) and the child fully understands and accepts that the lack of treatment may result in his/her death but still chooses not to be treated, then that's his/her decision..

It certainly is a funny old world and these things don't happen very often, but are headline hitters when they do.

garinda · 10-05-2005, 16:01

Thanks for that information Lettie, that is slightly more comforting than l thought it was.

Victoria Gillick, that nasty old bag is a test case for youngsters having the right to make an informed choice? The same mother of 11, who tried to stop Doctors from prescribing contraceptives to teenagers?

Like l said funny old world.

cashman · 10-05-2005, 16:06

thats a bit more re-assuring lettie,but what worries me could the time taken to make the child a ward of court result in a unfortunate fatality?

lettie · 10-05-2005, 16:10

When a life hangs in the balance Cashman, these things are done with alarming speed. The same as for the court ordered Caesarian sections that hit the news a few years back, judges are woken in the night to make the decisions.