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

[Mag_seven]

There is a great danger of creating another version of apartheid not based on skin colour but vaccination status.

I think its been created!

 

[87electric]

It just goes to show how deplorable humans can think and act towards one another. I thought Britain held a "Blitz spirit" in a crisis? Maybe that was just the media propaganda of its time.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I knew the “everyone will be a lot nicer to each other after this” chat in May 2020 was pie in the sky

 

[jumble]

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 ?

lets look at an alternative scenario to show why this type of discrimination is not right

Person A
On benefits and has never contributed NI in their life and is grossly obese
They have a condition that now needs treating that the doctors believe is a direct result of the obesity.

Person B
Earns a ton of money and pays huge NI contributions
Does not want to be vaccinated as their parents both died of blood clots

Who should be treated by the NHS if they fall ill ?
A might say Me and not B because they refused to be vaccinated
B might say Me and not A because they did not follow their diet

This is why we let third parties decide such things

 

[AlterEgo]

Everyone who has contributed to National Insurance should be treated irrespective of their vaccine status. What for instance say has a broken arm got to do with your vaccine status anyway? There is a great danger of creating another version of apartheid not based on skin colour but vaccination status.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Merseysider]

I don't see how it would be feasible to say that people who make poor life choices can be excluded from getting treatment

Nicely put.

I would say no, they shouldn’t be excluded from getting treatment. Some people simply lack the critical thinking skills necessary to see past whatever anti-vax propaganda comes their way, sadly.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I wonder if everyone pushing for not treating unvaccinated people realises that such an order would be untenable under the hippocratic oath?

 

[VauxhallandI]

I wonder if everyone pushing for not treating unvaccinated people realises that such an order would be untenable under the hippocratic oath?

Yep, always got that one in the back pocket when the mask brigade at the surgery come out in force. Some people (mainly near the medical environment amazingly enough) simply lack the critical thinking skills necessary to see past whatever anti-reality propaganda comes their way, sadly.

 

[35B]

Everyone who has contributed to National Insurance they should be treated irrespective of their vaccine status. What for instance say has a broken arm got to do with your vaccine status anyway? There is a great danger of creating another version of apartheid not based on skin colour but vaccination status.

So where does that leave sufferers from conditions where adherence to advice is an important part of their treatment? Classic examples would be liver disease and abstention from alcohol, or surgery where obesity is a serious complicating factor?

As an aside, NI doesn't pay for healthcare - it is (allegedly) set aside to fund pensions. Which is a different can of worms.

 

[MikeWM]

So where does that leave sufferers from conditions where adherence to advice is an important part of their treatment? Classic examples would be liver disease and abstention from alcohol, or surgery where obesity is a serious complicating factor?

I agree that any healthcare system has to ration treatment in some way. There's really no way around that.

In both of these cases though, not following the advice will affect the outcome or success of the treatment. That's rather different from a person with Covid who has chosen to be vaccinated, or not. Unless there are studies that equally ill Covid patients, given the same treatment, have different outcomes depending on whether they were previously vaccinated or not - which seems unlikely, but I'm not aware of any such studies either way.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Nobody should be discriminated against, or refused treatment when it comes to NHS treatment, except for some types of cosmetic surgery.

 

[The Ham]

Nobody should be discriminated against, or refused treatment when it comes to NHS treatment, except for some types of cosmetic surgery.

Indeed, whatever justification that any of us could come up with for not treating those who differ from us then there's likely to be someone who has just as good a reason for us or someone we love not to be treated.

There will be times that we don't like it or that it will impact on the speed that we get treatment (although certainly not the quality of care given to us by the NHS staff), however we can be certain that we'll always have the ability to get the care that we need.

 

[DustyBin]

Indeed, whatever justification that any of us could come up with for not treating those who differ from us then there's likely to be someone who has just as good a reason for us or someone we love not to be treated.

There will be times that we don't like it or that it will impact on the speed that we get treatment (although certainly not the quality of care given to us by the NHS staff), however we can be certain that we'll always have the ability to get the care that we need.

Exactly. I know this is a discussion forum(!) but some things really don’t warrant discussion, and this is one of them in my opinion.

 

[danm14]

I wonder if everyone pushing for not treating unvaccinated people realises that such an order would be untenable under the hippocratic oath?

The Hippocratic Oath (or indeed any other oath) is not taken by doctors in the UK, it's a common misconception. Countries that do use the "Hippocratic Oath" are actually using an oath written in the 60s that bears little resemblance to the original. The actual Hippocratic Oath is incompatible with modern medicine.

The actual Hippocratic Oath prohibits assisting in suicide (permitted in several countries, albeit not the UK) and abortion (permitted in the UK). It also indirectly prohibits chemotherapy (administering a poison).

(That's not to say I disagree with you, I completely oppose making vaccination mandatory or imposing any restrictions whatsoever on the unvaccinated)

 

[LOL The Irony]

The Hippocratic Oath is not taken by doctors in the UK, it's a common misconception. Countries that do use the "Hippocratic Oath" are actually using an oath written in the 60s that bears little resemblance to the original. The actual Hippocratic Oath is incompatible with modern medicine.

I read that it depends. They still have to partake in the not harming you part though.

 

[VauxhallandI]

The Hippocratic Oath (or indeed any other oath) is not taken by doctors in the UK, it's a common misconception. Countries that do use the "Hippocratic Oath" are actually using an oath written in the 60s that bears little resemblance to the original. The actual Hippocratic Oath is incompatible with modern medicine.

The actual Hippocratic Oath prohibits assisting in suicide (permitted in several countries, albeit not the UK) and abortion (permitted in the UK). It also indirectly prohibits chemotherapy (administering a poison).

(That's not to say I disagree with you, I completely oppose making vaccination mandatory or imposing any restrictions whatsoever on the unvaccinated)

Interesting, thank you.

Not sure where they stand on refusing patients treatment. It would make an interesting case.

 

[35B]

I wonder if everyone pushing for not treating unvaccinated people realises that such an order would be untenable under the hippocratic oath?

Just following the digression, and without comment on the ethics of limiting treatment for any specific condition or in response to any specific conditions, I just checked the text of the Hippocratic Oath, and the original would not oblige any doctor to attend any patient, but only limit what treatments they may offer - often summarised as "first do no harm":

I swear by Apollo Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture.

To hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents; to make him partner in my livelihood; when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his family as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they want to learn it, without fee or indenture; to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to my own sons, the sons of my teacher, and to indentured pupils who have taken the Healer’s oath, but to nobody else.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.[7] Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein.

Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets.

Now if I carry out this oath, and break it not, may I gain for ever reputation among all men for my life and for my art; but if I break it and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me.[6] – Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

As @MikeWM suggests, this raises a number of extremely interesting philosophical challenges for the conduct of modern medicine.

 

[LOL The Irony]

As @MikeWM suggests, this raises a number of extremely interesting philosophical challenges for the conduct of modern medicine.

Yes but refusing to treat someone would be breaking the do not harm part as you are allowing them to come to harm.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes but refusing to treat someone would be breaking the do not harm part as you are allowing them to come to harm.

The point is, in modern medicine in Western democracies many parts of the oath are necessarily broken anyway.

 

[HST274]

Yes but refusing to treat someone would be breaking the do not harm part as you are allowing them to come to harm.

A train is running down the tracks at full speed- do you let it kill 10 people or switch it to kill one. Doing nothing is not murder- in the same way saying no to care is not harming them, the illness is. Just my opinion.
I also disagree that people should be refused healthcare.

 

[VauxhallandI]

A train is running down the tracks at full speed- do you let it kill 10 people or switch it to kill one. Doing nothing is not murder- in the same way saying no to care is not harming them, the illness is. Just my opinion.
I also disagree that people should be refused healthcare.

Which train line is this hospital built on? Sounds like a must visit.

 

[LOL The Irony]

A train is running down the tracks at full speed- do you let it kill 10 people or switch it to kill one. Doing nothing is not murder- in the same way saying no to care is not harming them, the illness is. Just my opinion.
I also disagree that people should be refused healthcare.

The runaway trolley problem - which is solved by derailing the trolley (in this case, means treating the patient as best you can, even if just palliative care).

 

[Scotrail12]

No and I think it's pretty sick to believe otherwise.

 

[HST274]

The runaway trolley problem - which is solved by derailing the trolley (in this case, means treating the patient as best you can, even if just palliative care).

Is that an option?

 

[nw1]

I knew the “everyone will be a lot nicer to each other after this” chat in May 2020 was pie in the sky

What worries me is that the post-Covid 'brave new world' may be a worst-of-all-worlds mix of neoliberalism and excessive Government control (on individuals, rather than multinational corporations), a kind of demonic offspring of the Soviet Union and Margaret Thatcher. That seems to be the prevailing trend across the Western world at the moment, with the poorest looking to take the brunt of post-Covid cuts - as always.

Basically the 'right/authoritarian' quadrant of that graph which has left/right on one axis and libertarian/authoritarian on the other.

Just hope people realise this at the ballot box. If a left/libertarian party organised itself and stood in the UK, I suspect it might get quite a few votes at the next election. The lack of such a party is why I suspect so many are disillusioned with politics and politicians right now; I would vote for one of the current parties if we were to have an election tomorrow, but not because I admire it - just because it's significantly less bad than the alternative.

 

[Ediswan]

Is that an option?

No. The Trolley Problem is an excercise in ethics, not engineering.

 

[MikeWM]

What worries me is that the post-Covid 'brave new world' may be a worst-of-all-worlds mix of neoliberalism and excessive Government control (on individuals, rather than multinational corporations), a kind of demonic offspring of the Soviet Union and Margaret Thatcher. That seems to be the prevailing trend across the Western world at the moment, with the poorest looking to take the brunt of post-Covid cuts - as always.

Yes, totally agree. We've already been moving in that direction for some considerable time, and Covid is being used as an excuse to massively accelerate the process.

 

[Watershed]

What worries me is that the post-Covid 'brave new world' may be a worst-of-all-worlds mix of neoliberalism and excessive Government control (on individuals, rather than multinational corporations), a kind of demonic offspring of the Soviet Union and Margaret Thatcher. That seems to be the prevailing trend across the Western world at the moment, with the poorest looking to take the brunt of post-Covid cuts - as always.

Basically the 'right/authoritarian' quadrant of that graph which has left/right on one axis and libertarian/authoritarian on the other.

Just hope people realise this at the ballot box. If a left/libertarian party organised itself and stood in the UK, I suspect it might get quite a few votes at the next election. The lack of such a party is why I suspect so many are disillusioned with politics and politicians right now; I would vote for one of the current parties if we were to have an election tomorrow, but not because I admire it - just because it's significantly less bad than the alternative.

Unfortunately I get the feeling that a significant proportion of the population falls into the authoritarian camp, regardless of political 'colour'. And there isn't really a credible party - let alone one worth voting for in our FPTP system - on the libertarian side of the axis.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Is that an option?

Nothing isn't an option if you catch my drift.

 

[35B]

Yes but refusing to treat someone would be breaking the do not harm part as you are allowing them to come to harm.

And much depends there on how "doing harm" is defined. I would dispute that the injunction "first do no harm" requires positive action in all possible cases; it is a significant stretch (at the least) to turn a negative statement into a positive obligation.