Don't Get Too Close.... - Page 3

cashman · 10-05-2005, 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by lettie

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.

sorry lettie have got H.B.C. on the brain was thinkin of speed in that context lol

Acrylic-bob · 10-05-2005, 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by chav1

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

I would have thought that it was perfectly possible to have this half-wit sectioned under the Mental Health Act, since he is demonstrably a danger both to himself and others.

But then we forget the unwritten 11th commandment

Thou Shalt Not Cause Offence: Other people are perfectly entitled to behave like complete and utter selfish ars*h*les, but thou shalt not point this out to them lest thou cause offence.

lettie · 10-05-2005, 17:10

I would also have thought that it was possible to have this jerk sectioned under the mental health act. Proving that he is a danger to himself and others would be no problem. I think the proving of an unsound mental state would be difficult though. When people refuse to be treated it may simply be a case of because 'I don't want to.' Unfortunately I don't want to does not reflect an unsound mind and this is where the problem would lie. If he had made an admission that he was phobic of treatment, then a section would be possible. Two qualified health professionals have to sign on the dotted line in order to procure a mental health section. It is quite clear in the act that the mental health has to be causing a danger. One of the signitories is usually the GP the other is normally the Psychiatrist on call at the time of the section. They may be unable to prove that this is a mental health case, as it is actually his physical health that is causing the problem. I have a feeling that this man is very careful in what he says to health professionals and would never admit anything which may be construed as poor mental health. Although in my book, he is obviously disturbed.

WillowTheWhisp · 10-05-2005, 23:05

Isn't it Jehovah's Witnesses who don't permit blood transfusions? I don't know if the same applies to Christian Scientists. Don't know much about them. I do know that it's very important to the JWs and they would rather die than accept a blood transfusion which according to their beliefs would damn them for eternity. Given their belief I can see where they are coming from in refusing the treatment and although I would want my own children to have blood transfusions when necessary (as indeed one has) I don't think I could put anyone through the trauma of believing they had condemned their child to eternal hell by forcing a transfusion upon them. It's a difficult situation and just shows what different perspectives we view things from. I know a JW family who lost the mother due to their non acceptance of blood transfusions and I felt so sorry for those children at the time but they believe they'll be reunited with her in Heaven. If she'd had a transfusion their beleif would have been that they would never see her again after death and that means far more to them.

chav1 · 10-05-2005, 23:07

yes willow jehovas witnesses are expected to watch their children die rather than allow a blood transfusion

of course daddy loves you now go die like a good little boy you dont want jehova to be mad at daddy do you ...?

laws should protect children from parents like these

religion and law should be sepearate issues to prevent brain washed parents from killing children

we cant smack a child but if a religeion says a child must die it is accepted

Driller · 10-05-2005, 23:09

CLICK HERE[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Busman747]T.B. is a killer disease and is on the increase in this country. In Britain some 7,000 people are diagnosed each year and around 350 die from T.B. It can be passed on by coughing, sneezing or just being around an infected person who is talking.........

A man from Leicestershire was diagnosed as a T.B. carrier in 2002. If he had a 6 month course of antibiotics he would have been rid of the infection but he CHOSE not to take the treatment.....An order was issued by Magistrates forcing him to attend hospital but the doctors were unable to give treatment without his permission so he was allowed out again.

In 2003, he was arrested in connection with a serious crime but the police (quite rightly) refused to interview him because of Health and Safety Rules so he was released without charges brought against him.

Shortly after, he took a short term course of antibiotics so the police rearrested him and he was jailed for three months but on his release again stopped medication....and became infectious again.

He has infected at least 12 people of which some may die and all 12 will have passed on the infection to friends and family, this guy is still walking the streets.

Because of our archaic laws he cannot be "forced" to accept treatment, nor can he be incarcerated for others safety and if the government now try to review the public health laws it is feared that Human Rights Legislation would prevent imposing compulsory treatment.

Check out the full report and vote on whether this man should be prevented from spreading this disease...

chav1 · 10-05-2005, 23:14

apart from quoting nothing but the text from busmans post did you have anything to actualy add...?

Driller · 10-05-2005, 23:16

In 2003, he was arrested in connection with a serious crime but the police (quite rightly) refused to interview him because of Health and Safety Rules so he was released without charges brought against him.
The police "quite rightly" refused to interview him? for a serious crime? where do you get this "inside" information from ? the Daily Mail or The Express I suspect.( or maybe the Sun )

chav1 · 10-05-2005, 23:20

it appears to be from the mail on sunday

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/...n_page_id=1770

are they a reputable paper i have never read that particular newspaper..?

Driller · 10-05-2005, 23:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by chav1

apart from quoting nothing but the text from busmans post did you have anything to actualy add...?

whatever..I'm abit thick

chav1 · 10-05-2005, 23:24

wasnt having a go man just left me kinda puzzled why you had bothered to quote all that text and not add a follow up lol

Driller · 10-05-2005, 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by chav1

it appears to be from the mail on sunday

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/...n_page_id=1770

are they a reputable paper i have never read that particular newspaper..?

Very reputable if you like to have something to wind you up first thing in the morning.. all doom and gloom

Driller · 10-05-2005, 23:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by chav1

wasnt having a go man just left me kinda puzzled why you had bothered to quote all that text and not add a follow up lol

Of course not..no prob

Gobsmacked · 10-05-2005, 23:27

They use the term "quite rightly" because to do so would have put the police officers and solicitor at risk. If you read carefully you would have seen that. Or perhaps you prefer to read a less challenging newspaper.

cashman · 10-05-2005, 23:27

the mail which i buy on saterday only cos its the best weekly tv book is full of more crap than whinney hill tip if that answers the question