nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

“One in four emergency department attendances are alcohol-related,”- what criteria...

hatrickpatrick

...is used to make these statements?

As part of the now annual attack on Arthur's Day, a doctor has claimed that one in four A&E attendances is "alcohol related".

I'm not necessarily saying I don't believe the statistic, but I'm interested in how it's judged. Does it involve people who simply drink too much that they get sick or pass out and need to go to hospital as a result?

Or does it include, as these things often do, entirely indirect correlations? Someone was involved in a fight and broke their nose, they had been drinking, ergo it's "alcohol related"? Girl falls down the stairs in a club and had had a couple of drinks? Lad has a pint and stubs his toe on his way to bed that night?

I ask only because I've been in A&E on a weekend night myself (not alcohol related in my case at all) and I didn't meet anyone with alcohol poisoning. I did meet two girls who had tripped over a railing in a Dublin nightclub and possibly broken their ankle, and one guy who had been punched by another guy who may or may not have been drunk (or indeed, under the influence of some other substance), and I can't help wondering if such vague correlations to alcohol are included in statistics like "1 in 4". I'm generally suspicious of such statistics when they come from people who actually have a dog in whatever fight the statistic is brought up in TBH, and can think of many examples of utterly bullsh!t statistics over the last number of years, which if you look into the criteria, are incredibly shaky, and presented as fact in the media.
I'm not trying to sound overly cynical, but I have good reason to question most statistics I see in the newspapers these days.

Anyone know how this one works?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

rubadub

JustAThought wrote: »

Re the drink they could do the same with dunnes stores clothes , or blue jeans , or cigarettes, etc.

+1. Some stats are mentioned as though everything else is equal about people. e.g. they might say "smokers die 5 years younger" or something. But most people I know who go out of their way to exercise and eat healthily would not dream of smoking, so I would expect them to live longer.

bbam wrote: »

Only a bunch of idiot drunks fall for a scam like a drinks company inventing their own celebration day - perfect for the Irish so.

kneemos wrote: »

It'sa cynical marketing campaign and they know people are falling for it.
If your happy with a drinks product being promoted as a Paddy's Day style holiday then there's no problem .

They knew they were onto a winner. Did you see how long the other similar cynical marketing campaigns lasted? The moronic idiots lapped up the subsidised concerts put on by Heineken & Budweiser for years. 13 years of that Heineken crap went on, and people kept falling for it, what the fuck were they thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heineken_Green_Energy

Dravokivich

Jernal wrote: »

They do however encourage people to go to their local pub where, surprise surprise, the motus operandi is to drink. By this I don't mean drinking until you can't function I just mean drinking a bit. The average person in Ireland drinks far too much alcohol and puts themselves in an unnecessary higher risk category for various alcohol associated problems. This could be anything from becoming an alcoholic to liver disease. (It's far worse for people who drink and smoke! Two things which are very common on night outs in the pub.) The person themselves may not end up in A&E that very day. Over the long term, however, they become more and more likely to end up in hospital with alcohol related issues.

This is just fed from extremes. A lot of people enjoy drink without leading to a lifestyle "Over the long term, however, they become more and more likely to end up in hospital with alcohol related issues."

Its ridiculous to scapegoat Diageo and the Arthur's Day event on the basis of it.

kneemos

rubadub wrote: »

+1. Some stats are mentioned as though everything else is equal about people. e.g. they might say "smokers die 5 years younger" or something. But most people I know who go out of their way to exercise and eat healthily would not dream of smoking, so I would expect them to live longer.

They knew they were onto a winner. Did you see how long the other similar cynical marketing campaigns lasted? The moronic idiots lapped up the subsidised concerts put on by Heineken & Budweiser for years. 13 years of that Heineken crap went on, and people kept falling for it, what the fuck were they thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heineken_Green_Energy

It's being promoted as a national holiday type event , the music is just a necessary expense for them.

[Deleted User]

Jernal wrote: »

. The average person in Ireland drinks far too much alcohol and puts themselves in an unnecessary higher risk category for various alcohol associated problems. This could be anything from becoming an alcoholic to liver disease. (It's far worse for people who drink and smoke! Two things which are very common on night outs in the pub.) The person themselves may not end up in A&E that very day. Over the long term, however, they become more and more likely to end up in hospital with alcohol related issues.

Most things we do increase our chances of ending up in A&E or hospital. Driving, playing sports, eating nice food etc etc should all these be taken over by the nanny state and controlled to "save us from ourselves" in the same way people are always harping on about how it should be done with drink?

At the end of the day, the vast majority of people cause no harm at all by drinking and its totally unfair to punish the majority because of the few who do. We already pay way too much for drink in this country, its costs a fortune to go on a night out and when you want to go out and enjoy yourself regularly its a serious drain on the pocket.

Turtwig

River Thankful Tights wrote: »

Most things we do increase our chances of ending up in A&E or hospital. Driving, playing sports, eating nice food etc etc should all these be taken over by the nanny state and controlled to "save us from ourselves" in the same way people are always harping on about?

At the end of the day, the vast majority of people cause no harm at all by drinking and its totally unfair to punish the majority because of the few who do.

They don't increase the likelihoods very significantly. Well, maybe the food part does. While everyone should be given autonomy over what they want to do, there is the practical situation of cost. Our drinking culture means our health services get bombarded with expenses and that's where the libertarian argument must be balanced. Should we then include a policy of people with alcohol related issues being charged more by the State for medical expenses? That's just a suggestion, but it's not always about a nanny state. Alcohol is costing the tax payer a lot of money. So to follow from your last sentence is it totally unfair to punish tax payers for people exposing themselves to significant risks of costly health conditions. Judging by the general demographic of the Irish tax payer the argument could be made that it is fair as it seems like a significant proportion want to take those risks. However, even still you're looking at the State punishing innocents for actions other take.

[Deleted User]

Jernal wrote: »

They don't increase the likelihoods very significantly. Well, maybe the food part does. While everyone should be given autonomy over what they want to do, there is the practical situation of cost. Our drinking culture means our health services get bombarded with expenses and that's where the libertarian argument must be balanced. Should we then include a policy of people with alcohol related issues being charged more by the State for medical expenses? That's just a suggestion, but it's not always about a nanny state. Alcohol is costing the tax payer a lot of money. So to follow from your last sentence is it totally unfair to punish tax payers for people exposing themselves to significant risks of costly health conditions. Judging by the general demographic of the Irish tax payer the argument could be made that it is fair as it seems like a significant proportion want to take those risks. However, even still you're looking at the State punishing innocents for actions other take.

What about the significant amount of money taken in in taxes on alcohol, every time I buy a drink a large proportion of it goes to the government, as does the tax from the people working in pubs and take always, vat on the food, taxes from the taxi I get home etc etc. This is all on top of money taken from the income tax and other taxes of people who do not want to see further regulation of alcohol, actually most people would like less regulation i.e. Longer opening hours, lifting the ban on drinks promotions, cheaper prices, below cost selling remaining etc.

tritium

Jernal wrote: »

One in four is common because lots of conditions and ailments are that common. We as humans, tend to be rubbish at estimating actual statistics and probabilities because they're not intuitive. The classic example probability wise is the birthday problem, in a group of 38 people it's almost 100% likely that two people will share the same birthday. Now you can cheat this by deliberating biasing your sample to have 38 people all born on different days. However, intuitively you probably think such cheating isn't necessary. It is! In any soccer match, two players from either squad will share the same birthday.

Statistics are similar. The reason why one in four is a particularly prevalent ratio is because for most things people have familiarity with 20-25% of any sample will demonstrate those characteristics. In other words, if you're familiar with something it's because lots of people already have exposed you to it. Even if quantitatively it doesn't feel like it to you. Probably best someone with more familiarity of statistics and human intuitions elaborates on this.

That's not quite the same thing- in effect your talking about a contagion effect. However the 1in 4 statistic is often applied to independent or very loosely correlated (in the case of multiple events with a single causative element) happenings.

BTW the birthday paradox is powerful, but not quite that powerful. At about 50 people we get 99% probabilities. For two football (soccer) teams its about 50%

keeponhurling

lkionm wrote: »

Yeah id say they are 'related'. I have never been to ae but id say they are pretty rough looking on the weekend with stupid injuries that wouldn't have happen if they stayed in for a wankathon.

.

I think we could have a rival to Arthur's Day !

Safer, cheaper, less commercial, ticks all the right boxes......

Potatoeman

Jernal wrote: »

They don't increase the likelihoods very significantly. Well, maybe the food part does. While everyone should be given autonomy over what they want to do, there is the practical situation of cost. Our drinking culture means our health services get bombarded with expenses and that's where the libertarian argument must be balanced. Should we then include a policy of people with alcohol related issues being charged more by the State for medical expenses? That's just a suggestion, but it's not always about a nanny state. Alcohol is costing the tax payer a lot of money. So to follow from your last sentence is it totally unfair to punish tax payers for people exposing themselves to significant risks of costly health conditions. Judging by the general demographic of the Irish tax payer the argument could be made that it is fair as it seems like a significant proportion want to take those risks. However, even still you're looking at the State punishing innocents for actions other take.

You could make the same case for fatty foods, dangerous hobbies even unemployment benefit or funding education when you have no kids.

hatrickpatrick

bbam wrote: »

In fairness OP if you ever spent Amy time in A&E late in a Friday or Saturday night you wouldn't wonder about these numbers. From the twice I ha to be there in weekend nights I'd have said it was nearer 75% of attendees were drunks. Fights, falls, accidents and pukers. Very frustrating for genuine people seeing these idiots clogging up the system.
As for the Arthur's Day ****e. Only a bunch of idiot drunks fall for a scam like a drinks company inventing their own celebration day - perfect for the Irish so.

This is the problem: "fights, falls and accidents" could happen with or without alcohol, and establishing that alcohol was a contributing factor as opposed to a coincidental one is almost impossible - insuspectthatthese statistics assume that any accident / fall / fight involving a drunk person counts as "alcohol related" regardless of contribution.

Example: one of my friends wears these absolutely ridiculous high heels which he can barely stand in, drunk or sober. Now if she happens to have had a pint or two and slips on a wet floor, falling down the stairs in coppers, is this automatically "alcohol related" even if she was very far from "drunk" and, crucially, would probably still have fallen if all other factors were the same but minus the two pints?

This is essentially what I'm getting at. I can accept statistics which strictly limit themselves to directly alcohol related incidents such as puking or passing out from drink. Beyond that, there are a myriad of factors which contribute fights and falls - overcrowded clubs, high heels, slippery floors, bad tempered muppets, other recreational drugs, and pure bad luck / clumsiness.

When such are automatically included in the definition of "alcohol related visits to a&e", the credibility of such studies suffers substantially, at least in my opinion.

mikom

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm generally suspicious of such statistics when they come from people who actually have a dog in whatever fight the statistic is brought up in TBH,

The dog was drunk and aggressive.................

Turtwig

tritium wrote: »

That's not quite the same thing- in effect your talking about a contagion effect. However the 1in 4 statistic is often applied to independent or very loosely correlated (in the case of multiple events with a single causative element) happenings.

BTW the birthday paradox is powerful, but not quite that powerful. At about 50 people we get 99% probabilities. For two football (soccer) teams its about 50%

My apologies,

I honestly have no idea where the 37 figure came from.

Yeah you're right it's about 50. Still two squads.

I accept that many correlations are dubiously weak and suffer from poor samples. The point I was making -as you pointed out was a contagion- things we are familiar with tend to have a significant prevalence on society anyway.

River Thankful Tights wrote: »

What about the significant amount of moment taken in in taxes on alcohol, everytime I buy a drink a large proportion of it goes to the government, as does the tax from the people working in pubs and take always, vat on the food, taxes from the taxi I get home etc etc. This is all on top of money taken from the income tax and other taxes of people who do not want to see further regulation of alcohol, actually most people would like less regulation i.e. Longer opening hours, lifting the ban on drinks promotions, cheaper prices, below cost selling remaining etc.

I'm reasonably sure that if every study and report done on this states the tax return is eclipsed significantly by health costs. One think went as a far to suggest it's in the order of a billion! I'd take that with a pince of salt but certainly half a billion would seem reasonable. Unless of course Diageo have conducted studies. Which, to be honest, if they're smart they really should have.

Potatoeman wrote: »

You could make the same case for fatty foods, dangerous hobbies even unemployment benefit or funding education when you have no kids.

Yes you could. It's an entire different discussion and certainly some libertarian qualities are attractive.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When such are automatically included in the definition of "alcohol related visits to a&e", the credibility of such studies suffers substantially, at least in my opinion.

The studies generally explicitly state what they're regarding as "alcohol related". It's just the media outlet rarely reads them, parrots a press release and then groups that together with other studies. Leading to possible confusion, but that's pretty much the status quo for science reporting.

I prefer the example of "stress" much harder to quantify and some reports link studies that used starkingly different criteria for stress. (I'll see if I can find a link.

)

dizzywizlw

Levy Alcohol producers and pubs collectively for the cost in its entirety.

[Deleted User]

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is the problem: "fights, falls and accidents" could happen with or without alcohol, and establishing that alcohol was a contributing factor as opposed to a coincidental one is almost impossible - insuspectthatthese statistics assume that any accident / fall / fight involving a drunk person counts as "alcohol related" regardless of contribution.

Have you ever been to an A&E in the evening during the weekend? People fight, fall and have accidents all the time. When they intoxicate themselves with a substance that suppresses the central nervous system, they're going to fall and have accidents a lot more. Now, we also know that (certain) people will fight. The problem is that a lot more people will fight when they're boozed up, who would never dream about throwing a punch at any other time in their lives.

Pop into your local A&E this weekend and you can do your own tally, sure.

[Deleted User]

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Levy Alcohol producers and pubs collectively for the cost in its entirety.

And use the proceeds to create drunk tanks.

[Deleted User]

Jernal wrote: »

I'm reasonably sure that if every study and report done on this states the tax return is eclipsed significantly by health costs. One think went as a far to suggest it's in the order of a billion! I'd take that with a pince of salt but certainly half a billion would seem reasonable. Unless of course Diageo have conducted studies. Which, to be honest, if they're smart they really should have.

I have no trust whatsoever in these studies as they are carried out by the anti-alcohol brigade using very dubious statistics that are never backed up with hard evidence. Just like the title of the thread 1 in 4 A&E attendances are alcohol related, where is the proof that the real reason they are there is directly because of alcohol. I don't believe for one second that the real figure would be anywhere near 1 in 4.

They also never take into account things like income tax from people employed in pubs, brewerys and other areas which create employment directly through alcohol sales and therefore there figures are wrong and used as a way to lobby the government and make people think things are worse than they are.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Have you ever been to an A&E in the evening during the weekend? People fight, fall and have accidents all the time. When they intoxicate themselves with a substance that suppresses the central nervous system, they're going to fall and have accidents a lot more.

I can go out and break my arm playing football, a sport I'm choosing to take part in knowing I could get injured. Yet if I have a couple of drinks and maybe miss a step and trip and fall and break my arm I should be treated differently?

Davyhal

I definitely believe this statistic to be correct, but I believe that they are using the term "Alcohol-Related" in the loosest sense of the word.... for example, this weekend I was out with a friend at a gig and we we only had two drinks each, and afterwards we were attacked by four drunken eejits.... our trip to a&e, while we were not drunk, would be considered Alcohol Related by these statistics as the idiots who attacked us were drunk and we had alcohol in our system too.

ShagNastii

Seeing a few threads today, It's incredible how passive and apologetic people are towards alcohol, excessive drunkenness and Ireland's attitude to both.

A lot of people looking at it from the outside in. Might be 1 in 4 could be 1 in 8 for all we know.

But ask any health care worker, social care worker or even barman for that matter about their experiences with alcohol they'll tell you the countless people they encounter who's lives are utterly consumed by drink and it's ill effects.

Turtwig

River Thankful Tights wrote: »

I have no trust whatsoever in these studies as they are carried out by the anti-alcohol brigade using very dubious statistics that are never backed up with hard evidence. Just like the title of the thread 1 in 4 A&E attendances are alcohol related, where is the proof that the real reason they are there is directly because of alcohol. I don't believe for one second that the real figure would be anywhere near 1 in 4.

They also never take into account things like income tax from people employed in pubs, brewerys and other areas which create employment directly through alcohol sales and therefore there figures are wrong and used as a way to lobby the government and make people think things are worse than they are.

I'm not sure what the HSE's motivation would be for exacerbating alcohol issues. Their reports suggests 28% of injury attendances to A&E were alcohol related. The age demographic fits, 18-29. The timeline fits, most of these injuries occurred between midnight and 6 a.m.

Criteria they used.

Health Promotion Unit, Dept. Health and Children. wrote:

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of alcohol and injuries, with a specific focus in the A & E Departments in acute hospitals. The six hospitals were selected to achieve a wide geographic and demographic distribution across the country - Mater Misercordiae University Hospital in Dublin , Beaumont Hospital in Dublin, University College Hospital Galway, Sligo General Hospital, Letterkenny General Hospital and Waterford Regional Hospital.

Data was collected using a standard 25 minute questionnaire, which included the type and cause of the presenting injury, drinking in the six hours prior to the injury, quantity and frequency of usual drinking habits, frequency of high consumption times during the last year, indicators of alcohol problems and alcohol dependency and demographic characteristics.

Unless they lied about the results I can't see anything wrong with their methodology. So there's little reason to suggest the figure is fabricated. Only possible issue I can see is that the people who provided consent for the study may have been leaning towards the regret of drink or anti-alcohol bandwagon.

Patients were sampled
during a given 20 hour shift (10am to 6am), for 8 consecutive weeks, with
day to night shifts rotation after every week so that, over the 14 month
period of the study, each shift had been sampled an equal number of
times. In each site there was equal representation of each shift for each
day of the week. All patients meeting the criteria (injured within 6 hours
and over 18 years) were approached after they had been triaged in A & E
and invited to participate in the study. Written, informed consent was
obtained for each subject. The number of eligible subjects who declined or
were unable to complete the interview was recorded and included in the
2500 sampled patients

I can go out and break my arm playing football, a sport I'm choosing to take part in knowing I could get injured. Yet if I have a couple of drinks and maybe miss a step and trip and fall and break my arm I should be treated differently?

Possibly. It depends on your ethics. If sports people are at a disproportionately high risk to costly injury e.g treatment requiring daily sessions of chemotherapy is it fair to suggest non sports people and the state foot the bill for the risk they take? Insurance companies would certainly charge them way higher premiums because of their increased risks. Thankfully, sport is generally an overall benefit for the persons health. I hope this illustrates the point though.

MonaPizza

Jernal wrote: »

One in four is common because lots of conditions and ailments are that common. We as humans, tend to be rubbish at estimating actual statistics and probabilities because they're not intuitive. The classic example probability wise is the birthday problem, in a group of 38 people it's almost 100% likely that two people will share the same birthday. Now you can cheat this by deliberating biasing your sample to have 38 people all born on different days. However, intuitively you probably think such cheating isn't necessary. It is! In any soccer match, two players from either squad will share the same birthday.

Statistics are similar. The reason why one in four is a particularly prevalent ratio is because for most things people have familiarity with 20-25% of any sample will demonstrate those characteristics. In other words, if you're familiar with something it's because lots of people already have exposed you to it. Even if quantitatively it doesn't feel like it to you. Probably best someone with more familiarity of statistics and human intuitions elaborates on this.

Are you say that out of a random sample of 38 selections from 365, there is a 100% probability of a duplicate?

[Deleted User]

Jernal wrote: »

I'm not sure what the HSE's motivation would be for exacerbating alcohol issues. Their reports suggests 28% of injury attendances to A&E were alcohol related. The age demographic fits, 18-29. The timeline fits, most of these injuries occurred between midnight and 6 a.m.

Criteria they used.

Unless they lied about the results I can't see anything wrong with their methodology. So there's little reason to suggest the figure is fabricated. Only possible issue I can see is that the people who provided consent for the study may have been leaning towards the regret of drink or anti-alcohol bandwagon.

So basically anyone who had consumed alcohol would be recorded as having an alcohol related injury.

I could have drank myself silly, gone to cross the road at a designated location and a car could run a red light and hit me. When asked i the A&E was I drinking in the last hours I would say yes a lot and of course this would then go down as an alcohol related injury.

They need to weed out the real alcohol related injurys from those where there was alcohol consumed but did not have an baring on the situation. This of course gets difficult in a lot of situations i.e. if someone slips on a wet floor when drinking, its perfectly understandable to slip on a wet floor when sober but it will be guaranteed to go down as a drink related injury when in fact its not possible to prove either way.

Jernal wrote: »

Possibly. It depends on your ethics. If sports people are at a disproportionately high risk to costly injury e.g treatment requiring daily sessions of chemotherapy is it fair to suggest non sports people and the state foot the bill for the risk they take? Insurance companies would certainly charge them way higher premiums because of their increased risks. Thankfully, sport is generally an overall benefit for the persons health. I hope this illustrates the point though.

I picked a simple example but I could have said brain injury's from boxing or rugby which would require long term and expensive treatments along with the possible repercussions of mental health issue related to the injury's and you will never hear anyone complain about the state footing the bill.

Anyway for this discussion I'm sticking to the simple comparison of a broken arm. Why should two people partaking in their pass times arriving at A&E with the same injury be treated differently? My opinion is that everyone should be treated the same once they are not being violent etc, violence towards healthcare workers should not be tolerated but if a person has alcohol related injury's and are not causing trouble they should have the same right to treatment as anyone else.

tritium

MonaPizza wrote: »

Are you say that out of a random sample of 38 selections from 365, there is a 100% probability of a duplicate?

Birthday paradox- if I have n people randomly entered in a room what is the probability that two share the same birthday. For 38 people its north of 70%. At 50 people it hits a near certainty (99%). Of course you need 366 for absolute certainty.

[Deleted User]

tritium wrote: »

Birthday paradox- if I have n people randomly entered in a room what is the probability that two share the same birthday. For 38 people its north of 70%. At 50 people it hits a near certainty (99%). Of course you need 366 for absolute certainty.

367 to account for a leap year.

Turtwig

MonaPizza wrote: »

Are you say that out of a random sample of 38 selections from 365, there is a 100% probability of a duplicate?

That 37 figure is going to haunt me for a long time.:o Out of 50 selections there's almost, not quite wholly, a 100% probability of a duplicate. It's a pretty cool "bet" to play on someone. "I bet there's somebody in the Man U and Man C squads that share the same birthday. Pick any two random things where the population is 50 or greater and you'll have to be very unlucky to lose it. Of course, don't ever take a person's money. Just use it to illustrate to them how intuitions are misleading and can be dangerous when betting.

dizzywizlw

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

And use the proceeds to create drunk tanks.

And to clean streets, pay for counselling etc. Nope, the drinks industry is too hard pressed as it is.:rolleyes:

tritium

River Thankful Tights wrote: »

367 to account for a leap year.

Doh, pesky leap years. Yes my bad

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I was in the a+e dept with my dad Saturday evening. My dads been in and out of hospital the past few months and usually the nurses are lovely but I found them pretty rude and abrupt in a+e and remarked about it to my dad, since all the other nurses we met were lovely.

About 30 mins into being there, I realised its no wonder they're snappy and abrupt with people.

Some man started roaring like, actually screaming his head off, nurses ran out to the waiting area, where there was a very drunk man with cut wrists and blood everywhere. More roaring and then the guards arrived so as the nurses could try and help this man.

A while later, while we were waiting to go to a ward, this nurse shouts "call the guards" and runs past the stalls, saying "he's after going for me, he's after realising he can't feel his fingers and he's after going for me". That nurse still had to go Back in and attend to the ungrateful asshole.

When they were bringing my dad for his X-ray, we had to wait until they got him back into the room, as he had ran out of the room and was making a fuss in the corridor and they considered him a danger to other patients. This was only about 8:25 on sat night, so I'm sure it only got worse as the night went on. If you can't hold your drink you shouldn't be drinking. It isn't fair on those that have to clean up your mess.

[Deleted User]

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I was in the a+e dept with my dad Saturday evening. My dads been in and out of hospital the past few months and usually the nurses are lovely but I found them pretty rude and abrupt in a+e and remarked about it to my dad, since all the other nurses we met were lovely.

About 30 mins into being there, I realised its no wonder they're snappy and abrupt with people.

Some man started roaring like, actually screaming his head off, nurses ran out to the waiting area, where there was a very drunk man with cut wrists and blood everywhere. More roaring and then the guards arrived so as the nurses could try and help this man.

A while later, while we were waiting to go to a ward, this nurse shouts "call the guards" and runs past the stalls, saying "he's after going for me, he's after realising he can't feel his fingers and he's after going for me". That nurse still had to go Back in and attend to the ungrateful asshole.

When they were bringing my dad for his X-ray, we had to wait until they got him back into the room, as he had ran out of the room and was making a fuss in the corridor and they considered him a danger to other patients. This was only about 8:25 on sat night, so I'm sure it only got worse as the night went on. If you can't hold your drink you shouldn't be drinking. It isn't fair on those that have to clean up your mess.

In fairness if he is presenting at A&E with slit wrists there is more serious issues at play than drink. Yes he was drunk but it has to be taken in a different context when serious metal issues are obvious at play also.

[Deleted User]

River Thankful Tights wrote: »

I have no trust whatsoever in these studies as they are carried out by the anti-alcohol brigade using very dubious statistics that are never backed up with hard evidence. Just like the title of the thread 1 in 4 A&E attendances are alcohol related, where is the proof that the real reason they are there is directly because of alcohol. I don't believe for one second that the real figure would be anywhere near 1 in 4.

They also never take into account things like income tax from people employed in pubs, brewerys and other areas which create employment directly through alcohol sales and therefore there figures are wrong and used as a way to lobby the government and make people think things are worse than they are.

I can go out and break my arm playing football, a sport I'm choosing to take part in knowing I could get injured. Yet if I have a couple of drinks and maybe miss a step and trip and fall and break my arm I should be treated differently?

The point is that you're hardly going to be playing football, falling around the place intoxicated. If you're walking down the path at night sober, there is very little chance that you will be knocked down. Now if you're falling out onto the road every few steps, or shouting up the road at mates, oblivious to traffic, then the liklihood of you getting injured obviously goes way up. I don't understand the amount of people posting in this thread who cant seem to grasp this concept...

[Deleted User]

River Thankful Tights wrote: »

In fairness if he is presenting at A&E with slit wrists there is more serious issues at play than drink. Yes he was drunk but it has to be taken in a different context when serious metal issues are obvious at play also.

The point being that people who are intoxicated are far more likely do stupid things like this, and as in this story, the stupidity doesnt end when they arrive in hospital still severely intoxicated.