The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Owning our own health > Comments

Owning our own health : Comments

By Peter Baume, published 8/3/2006

Time to take ownership of our own health and the services we expect.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
Rex has touched on a very interesting issue. Should the health system be paying for the treatment of conditions caused by illegal activities? The links between early marijuana use and psychosis and the impacts of Heroin and other drug abuse are very well documented.

The community has made it very clear that it does not sanction this activity and has made it illegal. So a drug user has ignored the community's measures to protect the user, potential users, and the community itself. And users have made their purchases in a manner that precludes any legal recourse to recover damages from the supplier.

The supplier provides no proof of identity or evidence of the transaction, no warnings on the consequences of use, no list of ingredients, no contact details in the event of a warranty claim and pays no tax on the profits.

So why are we continuing to pick up the tab for people who have made no effort to assist the community in helping themselves?

Clearly, if we want to reduce the size of the health budget, then putting those who have failed a blood test at any time in the previous 10 years on a full user pays health system will do it.

If we want to deliver the best care to those who deserve it, when they need it, then user pays health care for drug users will do the job.

If we really want to shut down the illegal drug industry then removing free medical care for their customers will do the job quicker than anything else. And if we want to keep our community free of drugs then annual blood testing of people who have failed a test in the past will do the job.

This should not apply to nicotine addicts or alcoholics because the suppliers are known, liability can be traced and the community has collected large sums in tax from the sale of the products that can, at least partially, fund the resulting medical expenses. But we have no obligation to pay for the treatment of the consequences of unlawful activity.
Posted by Perseus, Friday, 10 March 2006 12:19:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A little draconian, isn't it, Perseus? The logical extension is that if someone smashes himself up in a stolen car, he should be left on the road to bleed to death. Many might think this reasonable enough, but would we think it reasonable to do the same to someone hit by car while jaywalking?

A more consistent response would be to let injuries and illnesses take a back seat for treatment when they can be attributed to risks the sufferer could reasonably be expected to have known. This would see BASE jumpers, for example, treated for their injuries with much the same urgency as junkies, and those whose problems are beyond their control given priority.

Just a suggestion, but not one I'd like to try to enforce.
Posted by anomie, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 6:51:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter. Thank you for pointing out that prevention is better than treatment.
There is of course much more money to be made from treatment and this may be why the focus is not on prevention.
Posted by Peace, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 9:51:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy