Ok Rehctub, if we look at this thread's subject of shark attacks, at what point do we say no, and who will be the ones saying no?

Do the people on the beach say no, after a surfer is brought in mauled? Does the ambulance service say no, they won't pick up a mauled surfer?
Does the ED staff say no they won't treat such an idiot as a surfer?

If they do decide to say no to the surfers, will they then decide it is only fair then to extend the no to all role who attempt dangerous sports, any sport at all?
Will that lead on to the smokers, drinkers, drug takers.... the aged?

Where do we draw the line, and why?
A slippery slope indeed...

Ok, fair point Suze, so perhaps it's time we start charging for services provided by the tax payer, with the exemption of the elderly and organized sports.

Don't you think the Government has already thought of that? For example, charging for use of public hospital facilities and staff?

However, what should we do if someone says they can't pay, or don't have any money?
Do we say no, you can go away because we won't treat your life-threatening condition unless you can pay?

Who decides which people we say no to? Will it be the ambulance officers, the hospital admission staff, the nurses, or the treating doctors?
What if it is the children of people who say they can't pay?
Aren't the children just as vulnerable as the elderly in these circumstances?

No, as a civilized society we must continue on as we are now, charging all those who can pay, and looking after the basic medical needs of those who can't pay, for whatever reason.

Absolutely agree Suse.
Even looking at it in a fiscal sense our system is the most efficient.
Look at the US. They pay much more for their health and emergency services than us but their outcomes are far worse than ours.

Disease and ill fortune can effect any one of us and I am proud and honoured to live in a society that puts so much effort into saving the injured and distressed. Even if it is their own fault.

.....Disease and ill fortune can effect any one of us and I am proud and honoured to live in a society that puts so much effort into saving the injured and distressed. Even if it is their own fault.

So I just hope Mikk that you're are one of the 3 out of every 10 who actually pay more in tax than they draw, because if you're not, then you have no right to make such a claim.

The blunt reality is, we don't have the funds to fund everything on our publicly funded 'wish list' so choices will have to be made as to where we make the required cuts.

Dear Rehctub,

Why should organised sports be an exception and be paid by those who are not involved? Surely they can take their own insurance!

---

Dear Suse,

"Who decides which people we say no to?"

If that's the kind of society you want, then those who are voluntary members of your society (and their children) should never be refused medical treatment, even if they cannot afford it. However, privileges always come with obligations, so such members of your society would also be obliged to follow the "beach closed" signs.

However, those who never agreed in the first place to participate in your society, should neither be required to obey your signs, nor be given medical treatment if injured, probably against their will anyway.