user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
'The hospital' ... what hospital? Is there a pre-existing relationship here that is not being reported (e.g., he was an employee)?
AS REPORTED, no, this doesn't seem right. But I can't help feeling as if there is more to this story than you're telling us.
Enough cath. I'm getting sick of this. Every ballot I post you come on and say it's a lie. Look it up for yourself.
Cut this '*if* it's true' passive aggressive nonsense. Look, you'll never believe anything I post as long as it doesn't agree with your opinions. Fine, I don't give a damn, just leave the ballot to those who are willing to accept that things happen around the world that don't make their ideology look sterling.
OK, I checked the story.
Dammit, herzog ... stop being a weasel! You're getting almost as bad as George W Bush!
The man was NOT denied treatement because of his politics as you stated -- he was denied treatement because he had been harrassing hospital staff by sending them graphic images of aborted fetuses.
Now, whether he should be banned for that is one question ... doing a bait and switch to make it appear he was being banned for his politics is dishonest and wrong.
Have you been defending the Culture of Corruption for so long, herzog, that you feel no compunction to be limited by Truth?
Article at news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/hi/england/norfolk/ 4750647.stm
Read the damned thing and understand it before you jump to erroneous conclusions, herz. Don't play the victim unless you actually have reason.
Umm, read the quote in the ballot cath. Please, actually read these ballots before commenting and we can avoid issues like this.
And I have no doubt it was motivated by his politics. Had he sent bloody pictures of dead british troops in iraq to protest the war this would not have happened.
But I can't recall sending unpleasant pictures to anyone as being justification for denying that individual medical treatment.
And you'd have to be in some major denial if you didn't believe politics played a major role in this.
He was JAILED becaus eof his sending photos to teh queen.
He was denied servbice for all but life threatening services for harrassment of that hospital's staff.
I did read the quote herz. And you conveniently juxtaposed the first offense (photos to queen) with the second reaction (banning from hospital) and then attributed this solely to politics.
That is misleading and wrong.
Sending pictures of dead fetuses is akin to plots of assasination? You're losing it cath. You're going too far to defend this guy because A) he opposes abortion and B) this makes your beloved socialized medicine look menacing.
I suppose waving a sign opposing abortion in a crowded city square is borderline mass murder?
I can understand him being denied treatment at that PARTICULAR hospital, if that was the case. The staff have a right to go about their Jobs without harrassment or feeling uncomfortable.
To deny him treatment at ANY hospital would, of course, be unjustified.
I guess if I could be bothered to read the whole article, i would know which it was. But I cant, so I dont.
Leaving out sending graphic images to hospital staff is a huge ommission.
No, I do NOT believe it was politics. It sounds like a case of perceived harrassment to me.
Cath: are there any circumstances in which you could admit fault with socialized medicine? Denying treatment as a punishment apparently doesn't cut it, so what could they possibly do to warrant criticism from you?
And this is a perfect example of why I have started questioning every ballot you put up with 'shocking revelations.'
You are either being dishonest or are so ideologically blinded and feeling persectuted that your world view doesn't let you see how you are twisting reality.
Perhaps taking underprivileged minority orphans and using them as unwilling organ donors for everyone else, would that earn even a slight shake of the head from you?
Cath: was he protesting something he did not feel was just?
Was he physically harming anyone?
No. He was protesting something he did not approve of without using violence and for that he was sentenced to jail and denied medical treatment. Doesn't get any simpler than that.
Most people arrested during the mccarthy era were arrested for purgery, not for being a member of any communist party.
Does that mean their punishments were not political in nature? Purgery is a real crime of course, so clearly they deserved to go to jail and their beliefs had nothing to do with it, right?
I think what has happened here is that you've invested so much faith in socialized medicine that you can't possibly admit failure, not now. So you'll nitpick and find some way, any way, that this is acceptable, that such blatant government abuse of power to stifle free speech using socialized medicine as a weapon is somehow acceptable. Would you tolerate this if it happened in america, under bushs watch?
Ok, I read the article. As I suspected, for me, the crux of the story is whther the man has been banned from THAT particular hospital, or from the NHS entirely.
The article doesnt mention which it is, so IMO it is impossible to judge whether the man is being unfairly treated o not.
If its just that hospital, I think thats justified. He was effectively abusing hospital staff, and the NHS have made it very clear for a long time now that they wont tolerate abusive patients. The fact that they asked him to stop and he continued also matters. In this instance it appears to be a case of "shitting on your own doorstep".
I reiterate though, IMO more information is needed.
He pissed the hospital staff off to the extent that a magistrate felt he ought to serve a jail sentence, and as a result the hospital told him to go elsewhere for his treatment.
Sounds fair enough to me. And I don't see what it's got to do with politics, it's a simple case of harrassment... Atkinson the bit the hand that was in a position to feed him, serves the stupid bastard right.
No way,thats descpicable,so they'd let someone die just coz of their beliefs?Whats next,banning entry to your own apartment!?
It wasnt based on his politics..
cathexis i totally disagree with you. you say herzog left something out of the story. no he didn't.
this is right from the ballot description --
"Edward Atkinson, a 75-year-old anti-abortion activist, was jailed recently for 28 days for sending photographs of aborted foetuses to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, Norfolk."
in fact, herzog represented if fairly. he sent those pictures because he used that as a means to advance his beliefs, which are anti-abortion. peta does things like that all the time. peta will send out very graphic images to promotes its cause of animal rights. by the hosptial refusing hime care, in effect, they did so because of his views and more over, how he chose to promote his views. if i volunteered on a politicians campaign, for example, and i mailed out flyers about my candidate, could the hospital then get pissed at me and say "well we're for the other guy, so you offended us, so go to another hospital." that would be a similar comparison, now wouldn't it? in effect, this guy was telling this hospital how he felt (i assume they perform abortions??) and they in effect refused him medical care because of those views. herzog in now way misrepresented anything. why do you always arrive on his ballots and assume he did? prejudiced?
what i find funny is that if this was about an american hospital in the usa, certain users would automatically say its "true" and say "see how horrible your healthcare system is" or "see what bush has done." amazing that if its about us, it must be true and any effort on our part to clarify, or correct a falsehood, and we're shot down. interesting that if its across the pond, then its all easily explained away with "nothing to see here -- move along -- no story here."
You are either being dishonest or are so ideologically blinded and feeling persectuted that your world view doesn't let you see how you are twisting reality.
by Cathexis on May 15, 2006 7:12am
oh please. and you don't? yes, you do.
Kev: Where in herzog's description did he mention that Atkinson sent graphic images to hospital staff?
Where in herzog's description did it mention the hospital's assertion that they were reacting to harrassment?
No where.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment.
^ umm, right here. read it again. and then again if you need to --
Edward Atkinson, a 75-year-old anti-abortion activist, was jailed recently for 28 days for sending photographs of aborted foetuses to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, Norfolk.
apparently the times sees it the same way -- this is from timesonline. co. uk
apologies for cutting and pasting, but you can go to their site and read it as well.
One way to cut waiting lists: don't treat people with the wrong views
NOTEBOOK BY MICK HUME
IT IS BAD enough that you can be refused medical treatment on the NHS for eating, drinking or smoking too much. Now it seems that you can be denied an operation for protesting too much in support of your religious or political beliefs.
Edward Atkinson, a 75-year-old anti-abortion activist, was jailed recently for 28 days for sending photographs of aborted foetuses to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, Norfolk. That draconian sentence was not deemed punishment enough: the hospital has banned Mr Atkinson from receiving the hip replacement operation he was expecting.
Mr Atkinson sounds like an unpleasant crank, and I am as much in favour of legalised abortion as he is against it. But his treatment (or the lack of it) is a scandal. This is about admitting a man to hospital, not electing him to Parliament. Even unhip old bigots need replacement hips.
Ruth May, the hospital’s chief executive, claims that the ban is justified because the “offensive” publications he mailed caused “great distress” to her and her staff and thus contravened the NHS policy of “zero tolerance”. Some may already feel that such policies make it seem as if a hospital’s priority is to protect its staff against the patients, rather than protecting patients from illness. This case goes farther, equating the posting of offensive photos with punching a nurse on the nose.
Why on earth should hospitals be distressed by pictures of the sort of operations that they carry out? An aborted late-term foetus can certainly make a grisly spectacle, and there is no point trying to sanitise abortion. But neither need anybody be intimidated by the handful of zealots who like to wave around such bloody abortion porn.
In any case, that debate about abortion should have nothing to do with decisions about who gets hip replacements. Have hospital authorities been granted the power to turn away anybody who upsets them? It may come as a shock to delicate souls in the upper echelons of the NHS, but some elderly people can be cantankerous, obnoxious and express unfashionable opinions in an uninhibited way.
So what? Should the NHS introduce a policy of euthanasia for offensive old gits?
We should take the principle of universal health care seriously, and insist that medical staff make decisions about treatment on clinical grounds alone. After all, so far as science can deduce, a member of the British National Party or an Islamic fundamentalist is the same as you or I under the surgeon’s knife. Even loons who oppose animal experiments should be given the benefits of medical research that they would deny to others.
Many who normally shout about patients’ rights have fallen silent over the case of Mr Atkinson. But you need not be anti-abortion to protest against the notion that only obedient individuals with healthy lifestyles deserve NHS treatment. Perhaps those who would put their own feelings ahead of others’ needs should be advised that if you can’t stand the patients, get out of the hospital.
Sorry, cathexis. I agree with kev24. You overreacted. I don't think that any hospital should refuse treatment to anyone who is suffering no matter how big of an *** they are. Being anti-abortion is a political issue, btw.
Cathexis, is, of course, right on the money. The premise of the ballot is false. The old geezer was banned because of his behavior, not his beliefs.
Read for yourself:
"Hospital bars foetus photos man
A 75-year-old man has been denied hip treatment after health officials warned him about sending hospital staff pictures of aborted foetuses.
Anti-abortion supporter Edward Atkinson has been jailed for 28 days for sending offensive photos to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, Norfolk.
The hospital said Atkinson had been banned from treatment for anything other than life-threatening conditions.
An anti-abortion group backing Atkinson said the decision was "outrageous".
James Dowson, national co-ordinator of the UK Life League, said: "It is ridiculous. I think it is completely unfair. They are refusing to treat him. Would they refuse a murderer or a paedophile?"
'Zero Tolerance' policy
Atkinson, of Ely Road, Hilgay, Norfolk, had been on a waiting list for an assessment for a hip operation when he started sending in pictures of aborted foetuses.
The NHS Trust wrote to him asking him not to send such material to the hospital as it was distressing staff.
When he continued, the trust said he had broken its "zero tolerance" policy with regards to staff.
On Monday, Ruth May, chief executive of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, said in a statement: "The trust's view is that we have a duty of care to our staff.
"Our legal advisers were consulted and their opinion was that this man's actions contravened the NHS Zero Tolerance policy in cases of abuse or unacceptable behaviour towards our staff.
"We take such matters extremely seriously and because he continued to send extremely graphic material to us we exercised our right to decline treatment to him for anything other than life-threatening conditions."
On Thursday at Swaffham Magistrates Court, Atkinson was convicted of three counts of sending offensive literature or material to staff at the hospital between January and April this year.
The literature, sent via the post, contained colour images of a dead foetus and the video, hand delivered, was of an abortion. (BBC)
* * * *
The old fart has been banned from that hospital specifically for engaging in criminal harrassment of the staff. That is perfectly reasonable. I'm sure that hospital treats many, many people each year who are anti-abortion, but who are law-abiding.
I sincerely hope not, because my doctor is Republican.
I gotta agree with Cathexis here. If he's harassing the hospital, he shouldn't be admitted to that hospital unless it's an emergency.
It'd be one thing if he was simply protesting. Protesting is fine. That said, he seems to have crossed the line between protesting and harassment. Can y'all admit that line exists?
(btw, as long as he can get his operation at a different hospital, there should really be no problem.)
Nah, he'll get his treatment elsewhere. And in the meantime, he'll revel in the publicity he's got for his cause.
But what's this?
Herzog has awarded me -5 B&W brownie points for my ballot choice "Ballot question based on false premise", reason: NONSENSE ??
Looks like Mr Kneejerk Negative Karma here hasn't learnt to discern between political beliefs and ethical convictions, lol! :-)
^On some people's ballots, when you embarrass them with the truth, they call it "nonsense."
Cathexis- I really do not see how it is 'harrassment' to send graphic photos. Is it hurting or threatening to hurt anyone? No.
Cathexis- I really do not see how it is 'harrassment' to send graphic photos. Is it hurting or threatening to hurt anyone? No.
I would consider that harassment though.
The issue here isn't whether it is harrassment or not. That was decided by the British courts in the affirmative. The issue is: should an individual or institution that has been the victim of a criminal act by someone, be able to put distance between themselves and the criminal.
Soc: And that is a legitimate question for debate. My ire is at the misrepresentation that this was clearly a situation motivated by politics, through the juxtaposition of the first situation (jailed/ queen) and the second (denial of treatement, no other alleged offense mentioned, assumption it is tied in with first offense).
Soc: To that question, I'd say that repeated distributions, after being told to desist, could be construed as harrassment.
' Edward Atkinson, a 75-year-old anti-abortion activist, was jailed recently for 28 days for sending photographs of aborted foetuses to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, Norfolk.'
From my original ballot question.
Will you still persist in the insane notion that I'm somehow hiding what he did, or will you now admit that you were mistake, that you did not read the question and simply jumped to conclusions and were generally wrong? Of course not.
Speaking of jumping to conclusions, zog, your ballot question is worded as follows:
"Regardless of how you feel about abortion, do you think it's ok to medical care away as a punishment for having unpopular political beliefs?"
Firstly, you're assuming that Atkinson's motivation was political, not ethical. Please supply corroboratory evidence for this conjecture.
Secondly, you are assuming that he was refused medical care because of these "political" beliefs, although he was actually *jailed* for harrassment (and also given a five-year anti-social behaviour order... source: BBC).
Again, you'll have to provide proof that it was his "political" stance and not his refusal to stop sending graphic images of abortions to hospital staff that led to him being refused treatment by this particular hospital.
Until you can substantiate the veracity of your claims, I don't believe anyone really needs to address them.
Over to you, fella.
Personally, I think it depends on the situation, but should not be ruled out entirely. In this English case, it sounds out of line. However, when Foday Sankoh, leader of West Africa's Revolutionary United Front, needed treatment he could only get in the USA, and Clinton denied it, which resulted in Sankoh's death, I think that is perfectly justified. The Revolutionary United Front was an extreme political group that went around cutting hands off children and other heinous acts.
Yet again, that spineless coward herzog has run away from a ballot that challenges his crappy half-baked conjecture.
What a fucking loser.
It's a lie!
|
|
