I believe you. I don't think you do think about it. Empathy is a trained behaviour, It takes practice.
Poole A&E to close - Excellent
- Thread starter SirGalahad
- Start date
Sponsored Links
D
durhamplumber
Wtf is one of those
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,439
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
We need more NHS Closures and less GPs, it's what we voted for. 
Sponsored Links
How odd that no-one has mentioned this is part of a 147 million pound upgrade to Dorset NHS. Bournemouth hospital is having a large extension built, Poole hospital will still have an urgent treatment centre but will specialise in 'planned care', maternity will be moved to new larger facilities in Bournemouth, as will A & E, the new A & E will have 65% more capacity and 800 new jobs will be created.
The locals (and Galahad) are kicking off because people in Poole will have to travel to Bournemouth.
The two hospitals are 6 miles apart.
The locals (and Galahad) are kicking off because people in Poole will have to travel to Bournemouth.
The two hospitals are 6 miles apart.
What’s your local hospital Herme?Let's look on the bright side...
More tory voters may well be popping their clogs earlier than before...
And since Poole also voted to leave, it's a 'win, win' situation!
D
durhamplumber
What applies to me?...WTF is a ladys willy...apart from a stupid effing terminology?well it could well apply to you as well for not knowing
"It is not rocket science that longer journeys for critically ill people will lead to deaths. The Court of Appeal accepted that the plans could lead to up to 400 extra deaths of ambulance patients each year but were not considering the merits of the plans"
"The figure of 400 is an underestimate as it only relates to ambulance patients, and the vast majority of maternity and child emergencies do not attend A&E by ambulance."
Which bit of that did you not understand?
Ironically the UK government itself values the life of the average person in the UK to be worth £1.8m
That is the economic value to the economy, and that is the figure used to model whether a treatment is worthwhile or not...
So go do the maths and work out which is the better value for money...
And after that, have a think about how many people those 400 deaths a year will affect deeply on top of the individuals themselves...
I have no doubt that if it was one of your family or friends who died needlessly because of ideologically motivated 'bean counting', you'd be squealing the loudest!
So you're actually saying that that there should be an A & E every six miles? how much would that cost?
No, I don't buy it, this is rationalisation within an NHS trust and upgrading of facilities to the tune of 147 million, six miles? *** off.
Well that shows up your total ignorance!
But hey if you're not so concerned why don't you '*** off' to Poole and become one of the 400+...
And when you get stuck on the A35 in an ambulance no-one will give a '***' as to what happens to you!
Actually on second thoughts, no-one will give a '***' wherever you are
No it doesn't. If my local A & E (twenty miles away) had that sort of upgrade in facilities I'd be well pleased.
anyway, are you still here, I thought you said you were fuking off to a better country.
The 400 deaths is a miscalculation. The original number said that over a 4 month period 132 trips might have had a worse clinical outcome if the journey time had been increased (out of 21k). Multiply by 3 for a years worth and roughly 400 people who might have had worse outcomes. That's very different from would have died.
Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAUegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw2fpIVRCxCQ-C8CtEVElXIh
You can't take the 1.8 million value at face value either. There's different values at different ages for example. If you did want to follow up that line of logic you'd need to see why those 132 might have had worse outcomes. If it were because they were old and frail then it's possible that the NHS would come out ahead of they died in an ambulance rather than survive to take up beds. Which I doubt anyone would advocate, this isn't the US.
Then you've got the advantages to saving money. If it costs X to keep both hospitals open, is that the best way to spend it? Is a single bigger A&E better when you get there than two little ones (spoiler: yes) and if so how many extra lives would be saved? It's not simple.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2005
- Messages
- 4,064
- Reaction score
- 369
- Country
Thankyou fillyboy i was about to add this but you've already added 'the balanced viewpoint' on the previously biased post.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2005
- Messages
- 4,064
- Reaction score
- 369
- Country
Well that shows up your total ignorance!
But hey if you're not so concerned why don't you 'fuk off' to Poole and become one of the 400+...
And when you get stuck on the A35 in an ambulance no-one will give a 'fuk' as to what happens to you!
Actually on second thoughts, no-one will give a 'fuk' wherever you are
Why don't you fck off like you said you were going to you immature little toys out racist lover.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
