Surgery bans elderly patient over her carbon footprint

Surgery bans elderly patient over her carbon footprint

www.telegraph.co.uk

An elderly woman was ordered to find a new GP because the “carbon footprint” of her two-mile round trips to the surgery where she had been treated for 30 years was too large.

Avril Mulcahy, 83, was told to address the “green travelling issues” over her journeys from her home in Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex, to the West Road Surgery. The surgery wrote to Mrs Mulcahy, telling her to register with a new GP within 28 days.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.thesun.co.uk
www.dailymail.co.uk

It's pretty clear that the doctors were trying to get rid of her for personal reasons. She complained about one of them, but the fact that you can cite a carbon footprint as a reason to refuse treatment is the most ridiculous idea I've heard in quite some time.

Is this what healthcare will eventually come down to? Will we all be subject to the whims of government, bureaucratic red-tape, and restrictions from the EPA before we can get treatment? Inserting the government in between yourself and your healthcare is just a bad idea. Not only does it give the government more power than it needs over your life but you've removed the party that's most concerned about your welfare. You.

What incentive to the hospitals and doctors have for trying to keep you happy and pleased with your treatments? The government will just drop in another patient at their doorstep when you leave so if you make too much trouble for them they'll just show you to the door because you're not the one paying them for services.

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by dbates


This was the UK, so I'm not sure about their laws, but in the US they could terminate her as a patient without any cause whatsoever. They didn't even need to cite the green initiative as their reason, they could have just said, "at this time our practice has decided to no longer see you as a patient."

They have to give her 30 days to find a new practitioner, and they have to renew prescriptions and respond to emergencies during that time, but they don't need any reason at all.

2 mile round trips.....

That means the place is about a mile away

Wow.
That does seem a little insane, the closest hospital or doctor to me is 40 km away. About a half hour drive.
The closest hospital that actually does any type of major surgery is at least 250 km away. Over a 2 hour drive.
The hospital that does most of the surgeries in this province is about 400 km away. Over a 4 hour drive.

I realize the UK is a lot smaller than Canada, but still.....

How is it possible that there are that many doctor`s offices there

least its here in the UK so another doctors will have to take her on, but getting a doctor to come out and visit these days is getting harder and harder, my mum has to ring up the surgery and hope a doctor is free and explain the details of my dads problems and hope that the doc understands the description given by my mum and give the correct diagnosis/prescriptions since the NHS won't pay probably about £20/mile for a doc to get into a car

Ah what a lovely future we have to look forward too. Useing cabon to tell you, as a human are a waste of oxegen.How ironic.

People in the UK must be a different kind of people considering the things I hear about them tolerating over there.

reply to post by dbates


England and America are both Eugenics Central. Ridiculous!

The Green issue could be easily addressed with electric cars. The fact that we have not gotten off of electric cars shows that the green that really runs things is money.

reply to post by EarthEvolves

The Green issue could be easily addressed with electric cars. The fact that we have not gotten off of electric cars shows that the green that really runs things is money.

Kind of off-topic, but also silly enough that it deserved a response. "Electric" cars run off of electricity, which is mostly made by burning fossil fuels, just like in gasoline engines. Even if the energy comes from hydropower, windmills, or nuclear they still each have their own drastic environmental impacts.

So sorry, but the only way to address the green initiative is through energy conservation. Now, electric cars do often have "regenerative braking" which is a step in the right direction! Not a very big step, but at least it is a form of energy conservation.

In the UK they can terminate care of any patient without cause as well.

Likely that they just used the "carbon footprint" as an excuse so that they didn't tell her simply that they didn't want to deal with her anymore.

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
reply to post by dbates

 

England and America are both Eugenics Central. Ridiculous!

The Green issue could be easily addressed with electric cars. The fact that we have not gotten off of electric cars shows that the green that really runs things is money.

Before the Model T Ford, most cars in America were actually electrically powered. Then Rockefeller went to his good friend Henry Ford to see how to make more money from the new oil business he had going.

We're trying to go full circle, but the oil company lobbyists work very hard to ensure that electric car models that do make it to market don't do well.

It's time that we banned all lobbying from Government - it's VERY thinly veild bribery anyway, and the US is actually one of the most corrupt Governments on the planet. If we actually allowed our politicians to work free of lobbyists, I think it would be amazing what would be achieved.

Time that we made accepting ANYTHING from a lobbyist a Federal Crime, just like it is in many other countries.

In China, if politicians were bribed as easily as they were in the United States, they would be shot.

reply to post by dbates


Well this doesn't surprise me at all to be honest! Can you imagine in the future if you get stuck out in the countryside after having an accident.

Injured party: 999 "I've got a boo boo, think both my legs are broken! I need an ambulance"

999 operator: "Okay that shouldn't be a problem, where are you?"

Injured party: "I'm in 'insert remote location here', it really hurts please be quick!"

999 operator: "Ohhhh, I see! Well I'm afraid we can't come out that far, Is there anyway you can drag yourself a few hundred feet closer?"

Injured party: "WTF? What are you talking about?"

999 operator: "Sorry we don't tolerate foul language!" SLAM... Dooooooo....

On a side note, Mod I'm not up on the T&C as you obviously will be, but I thought you had to give your opinion on the subject when creating a thread? I've seen people told off for that in various threads... If it is the case, shouldn't you be setting an example?

reply to post by mee30

On a side note, Mod I'm not up on the T&C as you obviously will be, but I thought you had to give your opinion on the subject when creating a thread? I've seen people told off for that in various threads... If it is the case, shouldn't you be setting an example?

Maybe you should post more threads, and you would be aware of the requirements in each forum? In the Breaking News Forum, the "opinion" goes in a specific block that automatically populates the 2nd post of the thread. Go try it for yourself. And yes, the Mod is certainly more up on the TandC than you, so why would you presume to criticize and then wind up looking stupid?

reply to post by getreadyalready


Ahhhh I see, well my bad. But I did say I wasn't up on it as he obviously is... And I also said "if it is the case"... I do apologize for not knowing that they change the format from thread to thread.

To the mods, please accept my apologies.

Actually something like this may not be all that far fetched in the U.S.

With Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services,

I can already see her attempting to implement some kind of carbon footprint
requirement under ObamaCare.

I would not be surprised to hear about that soon enough.

It's right up their alley.

Originally posted by dbates


It's pretty clear that the doctors were trying to get rid of her for personal reasons. She complained about one of them, but the fact that you can cite a carbon footprint as a reason to refuse treatment is the most ridiculous idea I've heard in quite some time.

Is this what healthcare will eventually come down to? Will we all be subject to the whims of government, bureaucratic red-tape, and restrictions from the EPA before we can get treatment? Inserting the government in between yourself and your healthcare is just a bad idea. Not only does it give the government more power than it needs over your life but you've removed the party that's most concerned about your welfare. You.

What incentive to the hospitals and doctors have for trying to keep you happy and pleased with your treatments? The government will just drop in another patient at their doorstep when you leave so if you make too much trouble for them they'll just show you to the door because you're not the one paying them for services.

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I think it's interesting that you say " Inserting the government in between yourself and your healthcare is just a bad idea" but then go on to ask about what incentives do doctors have under such a system. Could the same argument be made in the current US 'private' system where insurance companies have no incentive beyond legal restrictions to actually treat patients as well.?

I'm not defending 'government health care', but I do think it's interesting that you appear to be trying to use this incident to try and make a larger point about theoretical American 'government health care'. I suppose it's a reasonable starting point for a conversation, but without some serious work put in to looking at the actual possible direction the American system might take, it seems like broad and vague speculation meant to troll for people who will star anything they see as being against 'obamacare'.

Anyway, that's my opinion and I'm sure I'll be trashed as an Obamabot for sharing it, so please do have a good day.

Of all the stupid things this site will report today - this surely takes the cake.

I hope the greenies are happy with themselves.

Someone should make a FoI request of that practice, requesting that they supply the doctors names, daily distance traveled to the surgery, and mode of transportation.

Under UK law as the surgery is an NHS surgery, they will have to supply the requested information within 20 working days, or give a valid reason why they are declining said information under the FoI Act (hint, there aren't many valid reasons they can use). If they decline without a valid reason or fail to respond within 20 days, they are in breach of the FoI act.

If it is going to take them > 20 days to assemble the information, the FoI act makes allowance for this, but they have to contact you, giving the reason why its taking > 20 days, and an estimated completion date.

They can only make a nominal charge to cover postage for FoI requests.

Edit - Corrections: Its 40 days, not 20 as stated above, and they can also make a small charge if any documents need printing or duplicating.

First, a little background. I actually LIVE on West Road, just down the road from the surgery in question. Less than a quater mile away, is another surgery. When we in the UK say surgery, we mean a local General Practitioners surgery. These are the places where one goes to get regular contact with a medical professional who can give referals to consultants at a hospital, and send patients on to be assesed by doctors with specific skill sets, like ear, nose and throat specialists, experts in upper respiratory health, brain surgeons, orthapedic doctors and so on and so forth.

The general practice is usually the first place one goes when one is suffering from a medical concern, and is a portal to getting the treatment one needs, wether that be a simple perscription from your GP for a chronic complaint like asthma or arthritis, or to be sent on to hospital for a closer and more specific examination.

The reason there are so many, is that our health service provision is designed (apparantly) so that people need not travel over much, in order to access health care. Many people in this country are old, and cannot go great distances to secure medical advice. This is also why we have call centres in the UK which are supposed to be manned by nurses and medically trained staff, to offer superficial advice on non-emergancy health concerns.

Now, Westcliff is actually FOUR miles from West Road in Shoeburyness, where I live. I know this because I have friends who live in Westcliff, and I walk to thier place more often than not. Its fifteen minute bus ride, or a forty five minute stroll depending on which you fancy doing. So a round trip is not one or two miles, it is more like eight to ten, depending on which roads you take. On the bus, one must change at Southend-On-Sea bus station, from the bus which takes you from Westcliff, to a bus which takes you down Southend seafront, to Shoeburyness. The ride is swift, but if you mis-time your trip, you can end up waiting a while for the bus, making the total journey time more like forty minutes even by bus.

Right in Westcliff, there are actually several GP practices. There are three right here in Shoeburyness, and Westcliff is a more built up area, with many times as many residents, and therefore many times more people requiring services. This means that there are probably more GP practices there than there are in my own neck of the woods. Just walking through there on the way to my friends house, I pass two of them on my route, so there MUST be more there.

Now, while I believe it is a patients choice, who thier doctor ought to be, I have the following to say about this ladies choice of GP. First, the practice that this lady has been banned from on this spurious technicality, is in fact one of the worst in my area. The practice management team are surly and stand offish, the doctors arrogant and clueless, incapable of listening to what a patient tells them, and thusly inclined to poor service and standards of care. Also, because there are much closer, and better GP surgeries close to this ladies home, there is no logical reason why she should choose the poor service and awful outcomes for which the practice here in West Road, Shoeburyness is known.

However, as much as I cannot understand how a person could CHOOSE to be involved with that practice, I can also say that for anyone to be banned by a doctor from using thier practice based on thier carbon foot print is utterly and totaly beyond reason. If this lady has no problem paying her way between her home and her chosen doctor, then that is her business, and not for some dozy practice manager with a hard on for weilding power to change. The choice a person makes with regard to who it is that looks after thier health on a regular basis, ought to reside with the patient. It is important to be comfortable with ones GP, because these are the people who see your warts, your rashes, your chicken pox, the inside of your skull sometimes. Before he left his practice, I had the same doctor for twenty five of my twenty seven years, and I trusted him with my life, and would have counted him among my friends in the parish.

It is not for anyone to choose who they connect with on that level, bar the patient. Often, a doctor will be the one constant in a persons life, especially for an elderly person, as very often age related illnesses can see a patient in and out of the doctors office very frequently. I would trust no one to choose for me, and would be appalled if someone refused to see me purely based on carbon issues, especially since I happen to know that very often the doctors themselves will drive easily walkable distances to get from thier homes to thier practices. However, in this specific case, purely based on results, and forgetting for a moment the fact that the right to choose is important, I believe the lady in question would be much better off elsewhere anyway.