Charging drunks for A&E admissions.

oneweb

I vaguely recall there being some discussion of this topic in the news a while back.

Essentially there was talk of charging drunks for the costs involved in their treatment in Accident and Emergency.

IMO, it's a good idea. It's not fair on people who have genuine injuries/emergencies to suffer more because there are others who have injured themselves in alcohol-related incidents.

Having waited 7 hours (it wasn't a serious case) in A&E, I had witnessed some disgraceful goings-on. At least two pissed couples causing havoc and several others generally going on about the fact they want seeing to.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this?

Tusky

I agree, but a beter idea would be to have to consent to give blood ! that way the hospital gets plenty of extra blood for ppl who need it....

SouperComputer

depends on what you define as a drunk.

Dont like the idea of being charged because I had three pints and someone thought it would be a good idea to jump on me!

Dingatron

I voted yes but brings me back to the time I was mugged coming out of a niteclub in Dublin. To cut a long story short I was pissed and 3 guys beat the crap out of me, stole money, watch, wedding ring etc. (sobered up pretty quick then.) Anyway because I was smelling of drink etc I feel I got a rough deal off the gaurds and the A&E. Gaurds didn't want to know and A&E was simular until they realised I was in a serious way. I had been bitten by one of the guys trying to get my ring. Had to get aids tests for the next 6 months before given the all clear. But all in all anyone causing hassle with drink on board deserves to pay and also fined. They have air rage on planes so why not A&E rage?

Moriarty

Anyone who caused harm to themselves while drunk should be charged the full whack. Making them give blood wont work, as they wouldnt be able to give it at the time with the amount of alcohol invariably in their blood. Fat chance that theyll come back a day or two later to do it.

Repli

Was there not always charges in the A&E dept.. we had to pay something in james connolly blanchardstown when i broke my hand a few years ago..
Anyway i think they should be charged if they do somethin stupid like try to swim across the liffey r somethin.. but if you get jumped on for no reason after a night out it's not fair to pay charges..

CuLT

Originally posted by Repli
Was there not always charges in the A&E dept.. we had to pay something in james connolly blanchardstown when i broke my hand a few years ago..
Anyway i think they should be charged if they do somethin stupid like try to swim across the liffey r somethin.. but if you get jumped on for no reason after a night out it's not fair to pay charges..

If the guy claimed to be a "wallet inspector" then I'm afraid you've been mislead .

I say YES! BAN CASTOR TROY from A&E... as it were...

Silent Bob

Alcohol related incidents yeah, as in if you were off your trolley and the guards had to pick you up because of the way you were acting. Also if you weren't brought to A&E but spent the night in the clink you should have to pay for that too...

OTOH if you were assaulted and happened to be drunk, but caused no trouble to anyone in A&E (i.e. you were a serious case) then I don't think you should have to pay.

Spacedog

Drunks have a sickness, An addiction to a drug which our government overtaxes and capitalises on. Money from alcohol tax revenues should be ALL put towards preventing alcohol abuse and the social problems cuased by it. Taxes payed by all of us should pay for private hospital quality health care (example Canada). having 2 doctors on duty in A&E in James St. Hospital on a saturday of a bank holiday is desgusting. But to point the finger at Alcholocs and blame them for standards in hospitals is oversimplifing the issue. I understand drunken yobs act the prick in A&E and there needs to be proper security, I just don't think it's too much of a problem considering the millions of euros spent on drink in this country every year.

woosaysdan

screw them ****s to the wall their injuries are self inflicted

Moonbeam

There are charges for A&E,
In some hospitals u pay it there and hten others send you out the bill,

rubadub

yeah i got a bill from A&E.

if it was free do you think people in car crashes should get free treatment too. nobody forces you to get in a car/get drunk but it is legal and you are normally more prone to accidents in both cases.

how much alcohol in your bloodstream is drunk?

breathalzye all patients and go with the car figures??

Victor

Almost everyone is charged €40/50 in A&E. If there is any material treatment needed then that is funded in the normal way (through your insurance or publicly on a "join the list basis")

bug

I think its a good idea but for the wrong reasons.

I'll explain... I think that the idea of introducing charges for those who injure themselves whilst drunk comes from the idea that they hold up the A&E with bodies that shouldn't be there.
Does that mean that people who can't afford it are going to get injured under the influence and then stay at home? The problem is alcohol and the health service combined, basically your not going to tackle the problem by charging drunk injured people for coming into A&E. That money will just go back to the government and possibly not directly to the A&E depts in hospitals. There are two separate issues here, the current state of the health service and alcohol over-indulgence in Irish society.

Saruman

The only time in A&E you are not charged is if you show up with a letter from your GP, since you have paid his fee then you are not charged again.

bug

so then are they talking about increased charges for injured ppl under the influence in A&E or what??

Spacedog

The truth of the matter is that if you want decient helthcare in this country you need a premium health insurence plan. It's wrong but it's the way to will be and there's nothing we can do about it. Alcoholism occurs because of underlaying social problems in society. Louts in underfunded A&E departments is a warning sign of this social decline. Now, you can patch the problem by persecuting the victims of alcohol abuse. or you could attempt to improve the social situation by requiring drink companies to claim responsability for the drug they deal and the government who profits from it. I'm going for a Pint!

po0k

I see you've all taken oneweb's post to mean that injured drunks should have to pay....I've a feeling he/she meant it more in the way of pissheads coming in to A&E depts monged out of it and lying around the place to get their stomachs pumped and sober up before buggering out the door in the morning.

If someone drinks so much that they need to be pumped they should be left to their own devices.
Should've known their limits. Now they'll have to either pay for the "service" or die of alcohol poisoning. I have no sympathy for people who get overly drunk and expect to have someone help they sober up.

Of course, the poor sod who has a few, is a bit merry and gets jumped by knackers should be treated like a site worker who's broken their foot with a sledge or a driver who's had a crash.

yellum

Originally posted by Spacedog
The truth of the matter is that if you want decient helthcare in this country you need a premium health insurence plan.

A + E Depts don't give a toss if you have health insurance or not. You are dealt with by the severity of your case and if you were there first.

I had the luxury of working as a porter in an A+E Dept for 2 years. Drunks cause major hassle. They are a massive drain on hospital services.

They get drunk, trip on a step bang their head, get rushed in by ambulance. Then because its a head injury they need the almost constant attention of a nurse. They need x-rays and a CT Scan. These take time and cost a lot of money. All the time this is happening they bastards are fighting you and decide they want to go back to the oub or go home.

Theres enough crap going down in a+e besides dealing with this. There are a few cases of this a night.

Another major drain is Road Traffic Accidents. They can take up a lot of personnel and a whole load of x-rays need to be done to each person in the RTA. If more than two RTAs come in, in the space of an hour the A+E can literally come to a halt if its at nighttime. Many a+e depts are far too understaffed and underresourced.

Theres a lot of timewasters too that come in instead of calling their GPs. RTAs and drunks should have to pay for the full cost of using a+e resources. Right now they probably just cost a standard fee and thats not on. They should get the full bill.

Stark

Had to get aids tests for the next 6 months before given the all clear.

What's the story with the 6 months anyway. Does it take them 6 months to incubate enough HIV antibodies to get a positive test or do they just make you wait 6 months to "discourage you from getting hiv in the first place".

I mean when giving blood, they seem to be able to diagnose it fairly quickly.

Or is 6 months the waiting period before they can give you a safe all clear, and if it turns out you're positive in the meantime, they can give you immediate notification?

Pigman II

Forget about money. If it was up to me I wouldn't treat em at all and just leave them for dead (and yes I've known cases personally). A few scare-stories might get rid of the drink-'culture' we have in this country.

swiss

Originally posted by Pigman II:

Forget about money. If it was up to me I wouldn't treat em at all and just leave them for dead (and yes I've known cases personally). A few scare-stories might get rid of the drink-'culture' we have in this country.

I was going to try to explain *why* we can't simply leave people out to possibly die because they are drunk. However, I hope you'll eventually figure out exactly why for yourself.

Back on topic, if a person is clearly responsible for his/her own condition, then I recommend charging them the full whack. If they're being unco-operative then sedate them (if it's practicable) - and charge them for the sedative. I can go out without getting absolutely buckled (although I did get *cough* quite merry when I last went out) but if I were then I would only have myself to blame should I have to go to hospital to have my stomach pumped for example. I should expect to be charged for this.

Hopefully this would help to dissuade people from getting so extremely drunk on quite so many occasions. At least people might start to think "I'd better not have as much as I had to drink before - the hospital trip cost me over 200!".

yellum

They find it very hard to sedate people that have drink on them. It can be quite risky. Also those with head wounds are a high risk if they are sedated, they can easily die.

I have lovely stories about trying to "mind" a raging portugese guy with no english for 12 hours one night. The guy was violent and had a head wound. The hospitals anti-restraint policy for non psychiatric patients too was such a bonus.

Charge the drunks full costs plus an additional percentage. Fine the pubs or off licences that fed them that much drink as well. They're making the tobacco companies contribute money to for smoking related diseases, make the drink companies pay as well.

Victor

Originally posted by k.oriordan
What's the story with the 6 months anyway. Does it take them 6 months to incubate enough HIV antibodies to get a positive test or do they just make you wait 6 months to "discourage you from getting hiv in the first place". I mean when giving blood, they seem to be able to diagnose it fairly quickly. Or is 6 months the waiting period before they can give you a safe all clear, and if it turns out you're positive in the meantime, they can give you immediate notification?

Part of it will be the incubation period (obviously you will not prove positive the day of infection), part of it is to make sure you haven't continued with risky activities, part of it is just good practice.

therecklessone

Originally posted by yellum
RTAs and drunks should have to pay for the full cost of using a+e resources. Right now they probably just cost a standard fee and thats not on. They should get the full bill.

You're a picture of compassion, aren't you?

Drunks I can agree with, but RTAs? So if I end up in hospital because somebody else plows into me some night, then I should pay the full cost. What next? The parents of a disabled child being told they have to pay the full cost of their child's education because it is too heavy a burden on resources?

Dingatron

Part of it will be the incubation period (obviously you will not prove positive the day of infection), part of it is to make sure you haven't continued with risky activities, part of it is just good practice.

Correct. I like the bit about risky activities! I've since made sure not to get the sh1t kicked out of me when coming out of niteclubs:D

hells angels

Thats a load of bóllox the government have plenty of money FFs what else are they goin to spend it on certainly not the schools or youth centers thats for sure...i mean are they not takin enough of us already...wake the fúck up!!!

hells angels

Plus im broke so if i get hurt when drunk i die...you's wouldn't want me to die...would you's???:(

cournioni

The government should pay for it. How many jets do they have?

RainyDay

I presume that all those who think drunks should be charged at A&E would agree with charging smokers the full whack when their cancers require treatment, and charging overweight people full whack when they have heart attacks/strokes etc?