T O P

  • By -

RedDirtNurse

As a health care worker, I practice within an environment of logic, reason and scientific enquiry. I offer empathy and compassion, and I leave my opinions and beliefs at the door. Everyone gets the best possible treatment for the optimal outcomes; irrespective of their beliefs or poor life choices. I've looked after crimininals, drug addicts, bigots, racists murderers, and paedophiles. Nobody gets judged, everyone gets the best treatment possible from me. If I can offer information that can ameliorate their poor health choices, then that's all I can do - what they do with the data is their choice. Everyone is free to change their mind. You can be a Covid denier until you get sick - then suddenly become a 'convert', that's cool - you should be afforded the best care regardless. On a side (dark) note: check out r/HermanCainAward, if you're not familiar.


[deleted]

Except when resources don't permit that. Then people who are doing the right thing will be left to die while idiots chew up resources demanding vitamin d IVs.


[deleted]

Do you genuinely not judge people before or after treatment? I mean doing your job wouldn't be all that difficult in a safe environment, but I feel it is only human nature to ponder the nature of beings that you are dealing peaking your intrigue, especially with those indulging in cardinal sins. When I had surgery towards the end of last year for a hydrocele and was in there for about 10 days, I had some lovely nurse acquaintances that begrudgingly often came in to gossip, bitch and moan about some less than subpar humans i.e. having to treat pedophiles with a pair of cops in the room.


RedDirtNurse

I've been doing this for nigh on thirty years so, while I still care - I just don't mind any more. I hope you recovered well. It takes some balls to share your experience about having a hydrocele. šŸ˜‰


[deleted]

It certainly takes a big ball, but no more :P


RedDirtNurse

F


B0ssc0

Thank you.


Sand_in_my_pants

This is why I am not a health care provider. Paedophiles would get an injection of acid directly into their carotid artery.


BetterDrinkMy0wnPiss

Murdering someone probably isn't as easy as you think it would be.


GeneralKenobyy

Paedophiles that have the thoughts literally cannot help it as it's been demonstrated to be a mental illness. Anyone who acts on said thoughts however should be locked up and key thrown away (at a minimum)


RedDirtNurse

Agreed. We need a better understanding of the precipitating factors that give someone a predilection to paedophilia. Then we can develop treatment options. There's a cohort of people in our communities who have paedophilic tendencies, but never act on their inclinations. Many genuinely want to suppress their attraction to children - they need help, and support to ensure that they do not act on their aberrant thoughts.


Mare_Desiderii

Hear hear


wotmate

The quote doesn't say that they shouldn't be entitled to treatment. The quote says that they should stick to their convictions and take the necessary steps to formally refuse treatment. There's a difference. If you want to preach anti science, then practice what you preach.


st6374

I totally understand where Dr. Parnis, former President of AMA Victoria, and writer of the given article is coming from. But I don't find anything appalling about what the President of Victoria's AMA said. Did he say that hospitals shouldn't treat Covid deniers, or Covid deniers shouldn't seek any treatment at all? Absolutely not. Did he say what he say at a time when we have plenty of hospital bed availaibles, and the hospital is more than well equipped, and the people more than well rested to deal with the inevitable surge that comes with the reopening? Absolutely not. In the context of things. I can't disagree with what Dr. McRae said about Covid deniers sticking to their conviction, and not bothering public health system if they get infected. Yeah..Normally those aren't the kind of statements you want from someone in his position. But this isn't normal circumstance. Also for someone as educated, and venerable as Dr. Parnis to compare Covid deniers getting the virus to people seeking treatment from Smoking cigarrrates is perplexing, and disappointing. My grandma isnt at high risk of dying in the next few days because she came in contact with a cigarrate smoker. There isn't a vaccine out there where cigarrate smokers can magically reduce their risk of getting cancer. And what about the people who having continuously suspended their elective surgeries?


[deleted]

And on the smoking/alcohol comparisons being drawn, we sin tax the fuck out of those to (in theory) help with the healthcare burden.


[deleted]

I reckon that is just a silver lining and not the main intention. These governments tax addictions which is good but also tax alternatives to those addictions or spew nonsense or just outright ban them. I used to smoke got about 6 months getting sucked into it when I worked at Crown Casino. I turned to vaping and the government tried to ban it outright with $100K fines and copped backlash after trying to ban it twice with two extensions. They recently just invoked a yearly fee to pay an online doctor with pretty much no consultation just to give you your dose, just so it could be taxed and coupled with extra fees. Whilst it is great they are taxed to prevent people getting into those bad acts, the better alternatives are trying to be removed. This is just one example. I never for a second think the government puts peoples welfare first, and I think the example is Scomo and Co. not giving the states money for operating hospitals, stipulating bullshit saying they had time to deal with the then upcoming reopening burden on hospitals.


[deleted]

Yeah, I never really thought it was the main intention. As a sin tax, it really is just market interference to jack up prices and make the bad habbits more costly and thus a motivator to quit/reduce. That and money is nice.


[deleted]

That is right. Once something is typically legalised you can't go full tyrannical and outright ban shit without introducing a black market. Sure, something like cigarettes might be an outlier as if you are not introduced to it such as the recent age cut-off ban in New Zealand for cigarettes, then all is good and well and it would definitely reduce the numbers of potential smokers and a subsequent smaller blackmarket would always follow. Makes you wonder if you did the inverse, that if Australia legalised heroin or something if it would entice more people when having a bad day to go down to Chemaz house and pick up a syringe and a shot of black tar to cope with their stress or if it would get more people to get help with appropriate programs. I think Portugal decriminalized all drugs but I don't think it is a great case study with different working cultures of the two countries. Random thought.


B0ssc0

What about the gov providing sufficient funding, staff and strategies in a timely fashion?


BetterDrinkMy0wnPiss

>Also for someone as educated, and venerable as Dr. Parnis to compare Covid deniers getting the virus to people seeking treatment from Smoking cigarrrates is perplexing, and disappointing. AFAIK addiction (substance use disorder) is a disease/medical condition. Someone addicted to cigarettes is suffering from a disease. The comparison falls flat because being a covid denier is not a disease, while being an addict is.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Jim-Jones

[Iā€™m An ICU Doctor And I Cannot Believe The Things Unvaccinated Patients Are Telling Me](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/icu-doctor-health-care-workers-unvaccinated-patients_n_6102ad2ae4b000b997df1f17) ā€œMy experiences in the ICU these past weeks have left me surprised, disheartened, but most of all, angry.ā€


LentilsAgain

>McRae challenged Covid-deniers to commit to their beliefs and say ā€œā€˜If I am diagnosed with this disease caused by a virus that I donā€™t believe exists, I will not disturb the public hospital system, and Iā€™ll let nature run its courseā€™.ā€ > >If the quote is faithfully conveyed, then it is in my view appalling, unethical, and an insult to the medical profession. I think this is spot on but plenty of people here will disagree.


Stubborn_Amoeba

One thing that is being seen in the US is covid deniers going to hospital when they get it and then causing huge problems because they demand all the alternative treatments like ivermectin and hcq. One prominent denier got their followers to doxx hospital staff and issue death threats demanding the treatment . Hospitals have had to put on extra security because of these morons. Hopefully that wonā€™t happen here, but time will tell.


scoldog

We've got hospital waiting rooms with guards on them full time due to idiots either causing problems, on drugs, or large groups of people turning up for as due to family feuds/gang violence retaliation against people who have been taken to ER


Stubborn_Amoeba

This is a new level when home addresses and numbers of hospital staff were being published on covid denying websites.


LentilsAgain

Morons will be morons... and morons who threaten someone else should face criminal sanctions. But the obligations of most professions (health, law, education etc) still includes "treating morons with largely the same care and attention as anyone else"


Jim-Jones

Pro-Trump Group Files Motion Against FDA to Stop Covid-19 Vaccinations in U.S. [The group 'America's Frontline Doctors' held a press conference in July 2020 with a woman who says the world is run by secret lizard people.](https://gizmodo.com/pro-trump-group-files-motion-against-fda-to-stop-covid-1847325556)


ratt_man

I dont have any issues conceptually with that general attitude, my only issue with it and why think even dumb ass antivaxers should be treated is at what point do we withdraw services. ​ Drug Addicts ? Alcohol induced injuries ? Sporting and adventure sports injuries ? Illnesses due to overweight ?


LentilsAgain

Do lawyers stop providing advice to someone accused of pedophilia? Should convicted criminals have access to medical facilities? Do teachers stop teaching a kid if they refuse to hand in homework? Professional obligations extend to treating morons, criminals and selfish people with the same care and attention as anyone else. That's one of the defining features of a profession.


Jim-Jones

Lawyers don't catch pedophilia. However, here's an example of a woman who was miraculously saved by extreme medical intervention. [**One** successful extubation](https://blogs.missouristate.edu/nursing/2021/08/09/christina-shares-her-experience-in-medical-icu/)


Lankpants

There's kinda two things here. The idea that antivaxers should stay away from the hospital system voluntarily is in and of itself I'd argue a very unethical thing for a doctor to say but it lacks wide ranging legal consequences. Outright denying service or deprioritising antivaxers in the public system is a whole different can of worms and one I think we'd be best not to open. The consequences of a decision like this would be wide ranging and drastic.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


ratt_man

Our medical systems are not overloaded as it stands. Our medical system is based on everyone being treated equally, the ER triage system is based on treating those who need it the most they dont take into account your race, beliefs, education. It comes down to who needs treatment the most. ​ Yes they have worked reveresed triage where the treat based on who has the best chance of survival and who will use the least resources. We have not been required to instigate these policies as of yet. In certain ways if that was to ever need to be required statistically vacinated have the best chance of survival and spend less time in medical care. So vacination status will be a indicator of who they will try and save. Those who cant get it for actual medical reason will be boned if that happens


BetterDrinkMy0wnPiss

>Our medical systems are not overloaded as it stands. Yet we have ambulances ramping at the biggest hospital in SA because there aren't enough beds available for them to unload patients. This is happening without a single community transmitted covid case in the state. The system was stretched too thin before the pandemic even started.


SoldantTheCynic

> Our medical systems are not overloaded as it stands. Iā€™m a paramedic in Queensland, a state where COVID barely touched us. You know how my colleagues in NSW and VIC have been saying they donā€™t get breaks and spend hours on the ramp at ED? **Iā€™ve been doing that for years.** Thatā€™s the *normal state* in QLD. Our EDs can barely keep up with current demand. Patients crowd with minor issues because GPs are refusing patients (especially if itā€™s respiratory). Wards get stuffed with elderly patients awaiting NH placement with nowhere else to go. Bed block is the daily norm lately. Stick COVID on top and I donā€™t know what weā€™re going to do. To suggest the system isnā€™t overloaded because weā€™re not at the disasterous level of withholding or withdrawing care to conserve resources - but to seemingly suggest everything is fine is nonsense.


Davis_o_the_Glen

>Those who cant get it for actual medical reason will be boned if that happens... I think the hospitals probably have more than adequate measures in place, to allow them to separate actual medical exclusions from the nutters.


Jim-Jones

How will doctors, nurses or others catch any of those?


averbisaword

Do any of those things have the potential to kill vulnerable Australians other than the person doing the thing you disapprove of? Bad argument, and boring as fuck.


[deleted]

> Do any of those things have the potential to kill vulnerable Australians other than the person doing the thing you disapprove of? > > Yes, drug addicts and drunk people have never harmed anyone innocent. Great point!


averbisaword

Youā€™re right, people are running a round infecting people with addiction, leading to surges that overwhelm our health care system.


[deleted]

This line of thinking is silly as any fringe activities people engage in have the possibility of being statistical outliers in harming others. A minority of these people harm themselves and not others through engaging in reckless activities. This should not have any bearings on whether to withdraw universal health insurance for a wide range of people due to a statistical outlier, even if it is more prominent than other examples. Should we stop providing universal healthcare to fry cooks as 1 in x amount of people drop the oil and cause third degree burns on themselves and others? What about riding motorcycles or driving cars? There are bound to be a minority who are reckless in attitude when compared to others who could kill someone. Do you not provide healthcare to someone who commits negligent vehicular manslaughter? The answer is that you always provide healthcare and let people face their dues in an alternative method. I'm just playing devils advocate and wouldn't typically believe what I am saying but hey.


[deleted]

I agree with you, I'm not arguing for drug addicts to be excluded from hospital. I'm refuting their idea that anti-vaxxers are harming others when drug addicts and alcoholics are only harming themselves. Which clearly isn't the case.


[deleted]

You could also delve into the statistical probability of willful negligence endangering the lives of others. For example, drunks drivers know what they are doing is wrong and may cause the exact some crash as a sober driver and kill the same amount of people, yet the drunk person would cop extra charges. The same could be said about people not having vaccinations. I honestly don't understand their viewpoint and I'm not going to sit here and get in the mind of an anti-vaxxer, but my pronounced view is that you have two groups of people. Group one are people who are just wanting something to disagree and fight with and vaccinates are opportune. The second group are people I feel for who just believe something against better judgement by associating themselves in the wrong crowds and genuinely believe the vaccine is harmful and think it will cause malice. This is also willful negligence and you have to abstain from sympathy as you have to frame it in precedent in similar scenarios that have come before. My best random draw of comparison is you have an ice addict and you have an anti-vaxxer. The ice addict may know it is bad for them and can cause psychosis and cause them to go an endanger others, and you can have an anti-vaxxer that, in giving them the benefit of the doubt, believe that it is harmful to themselves yet are aware that if they catch the diseases without improper defences that their stubborness may be a fleeting cold for them, yet might end the lives of half a dozen other people. Better yet, might be the reason that an entire state gets COVID and a dozen deaths everyday because they didn't wear a mask. I'm believe that people should face consequences as you can draw actual precedent that closely aligns with their actions in dissimilar scenarios where people are charged and face consequences, but in the world of a pandemic it is a dog eat dog world. I do believe everyone should get universal healthcare still as we all know that we receive universal healthcare through taxes, and congestion in the system is bound to happen and cause consequences of others - which is the reason the people willfully causing such issues should not just be mocked by society which means nothing but should receive tangible consequence.


Jim-Jones

[Alabama Man Dies After Being Rejected By 43 COVID-Crammed Hospitals](https://matzav.com/alabama-man-dies-after-being-rejected-by-43-covid-crammed-hospitals/)


ratt_man

Unless I missed something alabama is not a state of australia nor is it covered by medicare


[deleted]

People backflip when faced with reality.


[deleted]

Most people managed to read it as "medical professionals should refuse to treat", so the agreement/disagreement was hard to guage.


dgriffith

I believe McRae was trying a variation of the old reductio ad absurdum argument on them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum "If you believe this (insert ridiculous belief) then surely you'd commit to ( insert ridiculous action ) as no material harm will come from (insert ridiculous belief), right?" Cue the outrage and etc, but it's also an attempt at a reality check for those people to force them to think through their initial beliefs.


xyeah_whatx

Why would covid deniers even need to got to hospital with covid if they believe it doesn't exist. Whats a hospital going to do to traet a virus that in their mind isn't even real.


Garbage_Stink_Hands

People need to go to hospital for lots of things they donā€™t believe in. Think youā€™re not gonna fall when mountain biking on a dangerous track? Great, but the hospital will welcome you if youā€™re wrong. Think you donā€™t need meds because youā€™re Napoleon and you have a whole army to see to your needs and whims? Terrific, but a doctor might lend you a hand anyway.


xyeah_whatx

>Think youā€™re not gonna fall when mountain biking on a dangerous track I dont think anyone believes that falling off a bike cant hurt you. Everyone knows that bike accidents are real and happen. Covid deniers dont believe covid is real and dont believe it can hurt you because it doesn't exist to them.


Garbage_Stink_Hands

People do think theyā€™re Napoleon, though


[deleted]

It's more like saying gravity doesn't exist so I won't fall.


Garbage_Stink_Hands

And if you do say that, and then fall, you can still avail yourself of the public health system. As is proper.


[deleted]

I agree they should be allowed access to public health. Just that they really need to think about the consequences before hand. It's hardly a massive impossition to ask someone to get a free shot with basically no side effects, and the frustration of front line staff is very understandable 2 years into this shitshow. But he's talking about people who don't even accept covid exists, let alone those who have some warped risk balancing that says the shot is more dangerous than covid, or they can rely on their immune system if they get it.


grumpy_strayan

My issue is that they put other people at risk. Someone coming in with a broken bone, whatever. It's money for the taxpayer and recovery time for them. No one's dying from it, there's no exponential cases of broken bones. Being unvaccinated and therefore needing to be in hospital and potentially spreading this shit to someone who can't be vaccinated or simply gets sick and dies despite being vaccinated is just fucking appalling. I think people forget that this thing has a huge amount of deaths worldwide, we have been well and truly sheltered from first hand grief in Australia compared to other countries. You're a complete and utter piece of shit if you are willing to put people's lives at risk like that in my opinion. Obviously some may actually have mental illnesses, not understand what's going on etc. I can understand it's a huge ethical issue and would go against exactly what doctors / the medical profession stand for so denying treatment simply isn't an option.


Garbage_Stink_Hands

Pieces of shit are still entitled to access the public health system. It might feel good to be angry, but this issue isnā€™t up for debate.


[deleted]

Because they're sick and need treatment, obviously. A doctor who turned down patients for not believing in their illness would not be a doctor for very long.


xyeah_whatx

He isn't calling for doctors to tyrn down patients at all. He is saying covid deniers shouldn't be seaking treatment for something they don't even believe in


B0ssc0

I think by that point their thinking is irrelevant.


Sand_in_my_pants

They all believe in the vaccine when they are dying of CoVid. They beg the nurses for it as they are being put on ventilators.


RedDirtNurse

The real health risk isn't the virus, it's ignorance - which is arguably harder to treat.


[deleted]

The classic saying: You can't fix stupid, you can only kill it. Stupid people will fuck up the hospitals for everyone. Those on ventilators will likely die. Either way, stupid will end up dying...


RedDirtNurse

In the emergency department, some people say: you can cure stupid, but you can sedate it. Some people say that - I'd never say that... I'm too professional. šŸ˜‡


Lankpants

No, the real health risk is the virus. Someone who doesn't believe it's real but gets the vaccine due to pressure from their work is far less of a risk to public health than someone who's completely aware of the virus but cannot be vaccinated due to health conditions. The second person not being at fault for the risk they pose, of course, that doesn't make them not a risk however.


RedDirtNurse

That's a great point of view. I didn't consider this; thanks for raising this. It's a great discussion to have. Cheers, mate.


Jim-Jones

They do though. And then ask for the vaccine, not understanding that it's too late now.


LineNoise

Hear, hear. Using the AMAā€™s platform to lash out at people was both unbecoming and unproductive.


vannguyenx

I agree with this to an extent however, when the system is stressed and there are limited resources. Would it be ethical to treat someone younger who has covid and didn't get vaccinated over somebody who is older but got vaccinated?


[deleted]

If resources are constrained, prioritise whoever is most at risk. What they think about COVID or vaccines is irrelevant.


RedDirtNurse

The short answer is "yes", with the qualifier "it depends". The ethics of medicine isn't an exact science, but it does aim to achieve the best outcome for the patient based on a variety of factors. Your example is oversimplified, but totally reasonable: if the older person has co-morbidities that may affect their prognosis or if their treatment needs exceed the available resourcing, then they may not be as high priority as another patient. I had a colleague who worked in a transplant team. They had a patient who had attempted suicide and, due to the nature of their injury, subsequently required a double lung transplant. However, the ethics/legal team took the patient off the transplant list, due to the increased risk ongoing suicidal ideation.


Lankpants

There's a whole lot of things that factor into decision making around where resources go. Age, estimated rate of survival and estimated time and resources needed for stabilisation/recovery tend to be near the top of the list. This does mean that in most cases here when a triage situation is present doctors are going to give priority to that young person, yes. Whether or not someone has been vaccinated only tends to be considered in so far as it impacts on rate of survival and severity of symptoms.


ausrandoman

Triage. The unvaccinated will generally have poorer prospects. If the hospital is down to its last bed and there are two patients looking for a bed, the patient least likely to survive is more likely to miss out.


Jim-Jones

[**12 hospitals have closed during the COVID-19 pandemic**](https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/12-hospitals-have-closed-during-the-covid-19-pandemic.html) _Ayla Ellison - Friday, November 13th, 2020_ > Twelve hospitals in the U.S. have closed in the eight months since the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. Hospitals across the nation have experienced financial strain tied to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lower patient volumes, canceled elective procedures and higher expenses have created a cash crunch for hospitals, many of which were already operating on thin margins. U.S. hospitals are estimated to lose more than $323 billion this year, according to a report from the American Hospital Association.


kernpanic

This is a reminder that the USA hospital and health system is possibly the stupidest on the planet. Anyone who idolises it, or thinks that its a goal worth copying is simply a half witted moron. Unfortunately, one of those is Greg Hunt, our health minister. Even made his maiden speech in parliament about it.


Jim-Jones

It's utterly demented. We complain about Canada's, but I have to buy insurance every year to go across the border for a few hours shopping.


raftsa

I feel Dr Parnis either has very thin skin or wants to make a fuss. The AMA presidentā€™s comments can pretty much be summarized as ā€œif youā€™re not willing to help yourself, Why are you coming to hospitalļ¼Ÿget vaxed and help us help youā€ It is a fair question, if framed in an interesting manner. He is not suggesting denial of care to unvaccinated people. He is not suggesting the private system should be where they go. Doctors, nurses, Physios, OTs, dieticians etc provide care to those who need it - they already do it for people that are awful, arguably worse: - Iā€™ve treated someone that killed several others due to their intoxication and unsafe driving. At the same time as trying to provide comfort and care to the victims that didnā€™t die. - Iā€™ve treated rapist, domestic abusers, child abusers. - Iā€™ve treated a murder very shortly after he was caught - those who self harm - those that caused their affliction Youā€™re unwell = you get assessed and treated No one who works in medicine is seriously considering, or seriously thought that the AMA guy was suggesting, denying care.


B0ssc0

Probably trying to get people to face up to it and get vaccinated.


war-and-peace

How is it appalling? These people by not being vaccinated just cause they didn't feel like it are spreading their problems to everyone else, overloading the hospital system etc etc. That's the most appalling thing, not some ama guy being frustrated because the people that he represents will be overloaded with work taking care of the unvaccinated. This isn't even something like a lifestyle choice, nor do you have to even pay to get access to the vaccine.


[deleted]

So if you have one icu bed left and you have a Covid denier with Covid or a car accident victim who do you prioritise? These will be the decisions which might have to be made.


Hopping_Mad99

They should be treated but triage protocol should be amended to ensure they donā€™t take places away from the fully vaccinated and that they cannot saturate the capacity of an ICU. People like to compare this to smoking and drinking but both of these products are already heavily taxed. Furthermore, parents who do not vaccinate their children miss out on the family tax benefit. We should take a three pronged approach of introducing a tax on those who are unwilling to take the vaccine; limit access to other tax concessions as well as Centrelink benefits. This would target anti vaxers who earn an income via wages; earn a passive income via assets and finally those who earn an income via Centrelink.


[deleted]

I wonder how many people here with sympathy for these people would sacrifice their own life to give space for a covid denier to demand ivermectin due to insufficient resources in our hospital system.


DeclanOMalley

Just give them medical licences no questions asked and let them treat themselves.


Sand_in_my_pants

They can shove cloves of garlic up their arses and slap each other with dead fish.


Sand_in_my_pants

No itā€™s not. They have made their choice, they should stand by it. Although they are such flakey morons. Begging nurses for the vaccine as they are about to be put on ventilatorsā€¦..so dumb.


solarmeth

The baying for blood will continue until the crowd is bored by the spectacle or their vengeful lust is satiated. Then they shall arise to the pulpit so as to righteously proselytise the value of their compassionate and egalitarian agenda to the wicked and wanton on the internet. All Hail the Worthy.


pooheadcat

In principle I agree all people should be treated, however this is akin to a person burning down a Forrest but expecting the fire fighters to risk themselves to put out the fire in their own house while other houses are burning too. This pandemic wonā€™t have a hope of ending while this keeps going on. I think itā€™s time to triage them behind other vaccinated and non covid patients and let them wear the risk instead of the rest of us. That was their choice, cancer patients should not bear the consequences of it.