Should this man

[cj]

The forum debate on this subject proved to be far more stimulating for me than any newspaper report or television coverage/discussion on the issue, and made me analyse and question my initial reaction and thought processes. So thanks, guys!

[Ruthie-Baby(old a/c)]

thanks for resurrecting this topic - v interesting!

just cast my vote and it's almost 50:50...

[graham]

Absolutely! I've just read the thread through from start to finish - and indeed recorded my vote.

As far as the hip operation is concerned, I see that there are are two issues which in my view are unrelated.

1. The guy needs an operation which it is his right to have as quickly and as conveniently as possible. The doctors are treating the hip (not the guy's personality) and the hip does not really have much in the way of opinions to express - especially concerning foetuses. By the hippocratic oath, doctors are bound to preserve life and the quality of life.

2. The man is clearly an anti-abortionist. There are those with very strong views on the issue - both for and against. We often find ourselves in a situation when we disagree with others - indeed when we are appalled and deeply shocked by what they say and do.

The problem arises when we carry over our intense dislike of an individual's words and actions into totally unrelated things - e.g the colour of their hair or the way they walk or their love of poetry. In my view, this can lead to persecution of minorities such as that of the Jews in Nazi Germany or the persecution of suspected paedophiles by Portsmouth vigilantes. It is all to easy to allow an emotional dislike to colour one's own response; irresponsible newspapers (the Daily Mail?) have found this as an easy means to increase circulation, while dictators (Hitler?, Pericles?) have used it as a means of gaining power by stirring the emotional prejudices of unthinking masses.

I agree wholeheartedly with all Mid A 15 has said and caution against letting prejudice override intellect.

David, I completely respect your opinion on this as it is calm, measured and, dare I say, very Christian. However ( ), the main point, I believe, is still being missed. The man is entitled to and will recieve his operation. The subject of the original article was that he was being denied treatment at a specific hospital. The reason for this denial was not SPECIFICALLY due to his opinions on abortion, which he is obviously entitled to. The reason for the denial of services was that he did, with intent to upset, offend and without due care towards who may see them, mail images of aborted foetuses to hospital workers, many of whom appear to have had nothing to do with abortions. Furthermore, this was not an isolated incedent, but rather persisted over considerable periods of time. Although doctors are duty bound to treat everyone, regardless of their opinions on very emotionally charged subjects, there rightly should be a line whereby they have the right to refuse service (and medical care is a service) to those who have caused them real harm. In this case the person concerned was not treated unfairly because of his opinions on abortion, but because he specifically targetted hospital workers with the intention of causing them emotional distress. In such a case it is appropriate for all concerned that the man seek treatment elsewhere.

While I can understand the concerns of others with regards the possibility that NHS treatment could become selective, this seems to me to be a cut and dry case. I would agree that doctors should not refuse treatment to someone who uses bad language towards them or insults them during a visit as there could be many reasons that are not immediately apparent for such behaviour. But when the attacks are so premeditated and malicious there has to be some give in the system. The man could still obtain his operations at another hospital. I do not see a problem with this situation.

[Mid A 15]

Absolutely! I've just read the thread through from start to finish - and indeed recorded my vote.

As far as the hip operation is concerned, I see that there are are two issues which in my view are unrelated.

1. The guy needs an operation which it is his right to have as quickly and as conveniently as possible. The doctors are treating the hip (not the guy's personality) and the hip does not really have much in the way of opinions to express - especially concerning foetuses. By the hippocratic oath, doctors are bound to preserve life and the quality of life.

2. The man is clearly an anti-abortionist. There are those with very strong views on the issue - both for and against. We often find ourselves in a situation when we disagree with others - indeed when we are appalled and deeply shocked by what they say and do.

The problem arises when we carry over our intense dislike of an individual's words and actions into totally unrelated things - e.g the colour of their hair or the way they walk or their love of poetry. In my view, this can lead to persecution of minorities such as that of the Jews in Nazi Germany or the persecution of suspected paedophiles by Portsmouth vigilantes. It is all to easy to allow an emotional dislike to colour one's own response; irresponsible newspapers (the Daily Mail?) have found this as an easy means to increase circulation, while dictators (Hitler?, Pericles?) have used it as a means of gaining power by stirring the emotional prejudices of unthinking masses.

I agree wholeheartedly with all Mid A 15 has said and caution against letting prejudice override intellect.

David, I completely respect your opinion on this as it is calm, measured and, dare I say, very Christian. However ( ), the main point, I believe, is still being missed. The man is entitled to and will recieve his operation. The subject of the original article was that he was being denied treatment at a specific hospital. The reason for this denial was not SPECIFICALLY due to his opinions on abortion, which he is obviously entitled to. The reason for the denial of services was that he did, with intent to upset, offend and without due care towards who may see them, mail images of aborted foetuses to hospital workers, many of whom appear to have had nothing to do with abortions. Furthermore, this was not an isolated incedent, but rather persisted over considerable periods of time. Although doctors are duty bound to treat everyone, regardless of their opinions on very emotionally charged subjects, there rightly should be a line whereby they have the right to refuse service (and medical care is a service) to those who have caused them real harm. In this case the person concerned was not treated unfairly because of his opinions on abortion, but because he specifically targetted hospital workers with the intention of causing them emotional distress. In such a case it is appropriate for all concerned that the man seek treatment elsewhere.

While I can understand the concerns of others with regards the possibility that NHS treatment could become selective, this seems to me to be a cut and dry case. I would agree that doctors should not refuse treatment to someone who uses bad language towards them or insults them during a visit as there could be many reasons that are not immediately apparent for such behaviour. But when the attacks are so premeditated and malicious there has to be some give in the system. The man could still obtain his operations at another hospital. I do not see a problem with this situation.

Graham,

Without wishing to rake over old ground discussed previously, the man in question (Mr Atkinson) served a prison sentence for his crass actions.

Surely as society has punished him he has paid his debt, the slate is clean and he is therefore entitled to treatment in his local hospital?

If I was a victim of crime and took further action against the perpetrator once they had served their punishment I would be prosecuted.

In my opinion that is effectively what the hospital are doing to Mr Atkinson.

[Scone Lover]

I won't go into long arguments one way or the other.

I am a Catholic so you would think that I would support the patient's aims. I do believe that abortion can be too easily done and with too little thought for the emotional consequences. I do not in any way shape or form agree with what this total moron did. What was he trying to achieve with his campaign except to get noticed?

That said he should have his hip operation as is his right. I do not think he should have the operation anywhere near the local trust. I think he should be operated on elsewhere and be given no warning where and when so that he can not do the same to this NHS Trust.

The man may be a total T*** pot but he does have a right to surgery when he needs it. Everybody has that right. What he does not have the right to do is to victimise the hospital staff in anyway shape or form. The hospital does have every right to refuse to treat the man but if they do, then the hospital must make alternative arrangements.

[midget]

I think you've got it right here SL

[graham]

Surely as society has punished him he has paid his debt, the slate is clean and he is therefore entitled to treatment in his local hospital?

If I was a victim of crime and took further action against the perpetrator once they had served their punishment I would be prosecuted.

Again. I understand your point completely. However, I would suggest that the hospital has not taken action the man subsequent to his imprisonment; they are simply maintaining a ban that was placed prior to his conviction that, as some have suggested in earlier posts, protects both hospital employees and the man himself. A prison sentence does serve the man's debt to society but it doesn't mean that doctors will necesarilly feel comfortable around him - If your neighbour burgled your house, went to prison and then moved back in next door, would you feel comfortable?

I think we all agree that he is entitled to treatment at a local NHS hospital but not this one. It's a logical solution and I think that arguing for him to be treated at the hospital in question is kinda pushing the boundaries of forgiveness a little far. It is intriguing though, that this case has resulting in such different views!!!

[cj]

We've all seen the signs up, from doctors' waiting rooms to the Post Office, warning that abuse of staff will not be tolerated. One could argue that sending explicit images of this sort was emotional/psychological abuse, especially to those who do not work work within that area, and therefore the hospital has a right and a duty to protect its staff from people who display this sort of behaviour. Sending him elsewhere for the procedure would seem the logical next step.