Do you think access to free healthcare for criminals should be withdrawn or limited?

[-]

AutobotJessa@reddit

No. They are still people they deserve it. Even scum like you deserve healthcare

Reply

[-]

Please don't assume I want this. I worded it to get exactly your kind of visceral response. But it's already in place. Many UK care homes have a blanket ban on registered sex offenders and many offenders are on for life. What happens when they get dementia?

Reply

[-]

AutobotJessa@reddit

Imo deliberately wording a question like that just as bait is also scummy behaviour.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

The question wasn't misleading, at no point did I say I agreed with the practice, people just assumed.

Reply

[-]

AutobotJessa@reddit

I never said anything about it being misleading... You yourself stated your (now deleted question) was written to be bait. My only point now is that is, imo, scummy behaviour.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

On your last point, I 100% agree. I think the kids must have deleted the question. I certainly didn't.

Reply

[-]

Maleficent-Many8517@reddit

Don't let yourself be fooled, mate. Most of these commenters are lashing at you because they are emotionally charged in this topic. I myself would not give any healthcare at all to the worst of the worst of offenders (rapists, murderers). However, if you committed something minor (shoplifting, scam, etc), something that hasn't permanently crippled a person then sure, you get healthcare.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

Upvoted for your honesty, though I disagree with you in any sort of denial.

Reply

[-]

Maleficent-Many8517@reddit

Outside of the fact that it is currently a right, why should the worst offenders not be denied healthcare?

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

Because then the sentence for offender A and B is differentiated by their health. So a sick kid who steals an apple effectively gets a harsher sentence than a healthy one.

Reply

[-]

Maleficent-Many8517@reddit

You are arguing against universal denial of healthcare, which I am opposed to as well. I specifically said that we should only deny healthcare to people who murdered and raped. If you steal £100 in groceries, you should still be guaranteed healthcare.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

But still the sentence is harsher for a rapist with cancer than one without...is that fair? I know the easy answers is "well rape is not fair to the victim"; but that is irrelevant when comparing two rapists; both harmed their victim to the same extent, but one is sentenced to die in agony whilst the other gets some years inside and then to live to a ripe old age. Interestingly my particular point is that rapists are being limited in their choice of end of life care (care homes having blanket bans of sex offenders without any risk assessment)...but murderers are not.

Reply

[-]

MrReadilyUnready@reddit

You've got it the wrong way mate. You're the one basing it on emotions. The rest of us understand that even scumbags deserve healthcare as it's a right in this country.

Reply

[-]

Maleficent-Many8517@reddit

He just called him a scum for a take he didn't even say.

Reply

[-]

bishibashi@reddit

They’ll still get care, just won’t be much choice of provider.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

So in terms of the question, "limited" is ok, "withdrawn" is not?

Reply

[-]

bishibashi@reddit

All of our access is limited in one way or another. I do agree that if there’s something approaching a blanket ban on anyone on the register getting care places something needs to change, but I have no idea of the scale of the problem and you haven’t provided any data, so 🤷‍♂️

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

No one's collecting the data, so that's kinda hard. There are a few articles that recognize the problem, and on searching for care for an elderly male relative our family has certainly encountered blanke bans.

Reply

[-]

bishibashi@reddit

Interesting topic, I’ll be keeping an eye out.

Reply

[-]

MrReadilyUnready@reddit

They pose a risk to others which is why some care homes won't take them. Care homes are typically privately run institutions which take on some residents from the LA. It's not the same as healthcare as a whole.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

It's amusing to see the flood of "Hell no, never" answers turning into "maybes"....

Reply

[-]

turingthecat@reddit

You think people should die in pain, because they did something bad once?

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

No. But it is already what we are doing. Vast majority of UK care homes will not accept any registered sex offender. Yes I worded the question to deliberately get a knee jerk reaction. Sorry. Not sorry.

Reply

[-]

turingthecat@reddit

I actually work in, it’s not exactly a care home, it’s an EMI unit. We take pain control very seriously

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

What's an EMI unit?

Reply

[-]

turingthecat@reddit

Elderly mentally infirm. So for people who need nursing care, but due to dementia, learning disabilities, mental health issues, etc, are not safe to be in a ‘traditional’ nursing environment. We also have on staff physios and other medical specialists

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

So what is your policy on registered SO's?

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

Also ...that last line could be kindness...or could be kinda sinister...

Reply

[-]

Dazz316@reddit

Absolutely not in any circumstance. Even for the worst from murderers to pedophiles. I get the logic. But I don't think Doctors should be drawing lines on who they should and shouldn't access. They are they to help and heal anybody . Once you start limiting that, loines get blurry. We'd get used to X not having healthcare and then people start questioning where that line sits. Eventually we include a few more and before we know it the line has been moved so much that people who we'd never have dreamt of not having free healthcare now don't have it. Not just that but we'd be forcing them to pay for health work they can't live without. And nothing will make people more desperate than saving their own lives. What do you think a criminal will do when they are THAT desperate? They were already desperate enough to break the law to make some money, what lengths do you think they'll go to when their life is on the line? Putting aside the terrible outcomes of that, any money you saved from the NHS will will likely go to the police with their victims potentially needing NHS care anyway and it'll just cost more.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

I agree. But it's already in place. The majority of UK care homes have a blanket ban on accepting registered sex offenders

Reply

[-]

Dazz316@reddit

Your'e right but is that more protecting others than refusing them healthcare?It's not so much "you don't deserve X" than "we cannot have you doing X because you're a threat to others". There's always exceptions to rules where things don't fit the rules. It's less of them "deserving" less and more a logistical issue.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

It's why I phrased the question as I did. It sounds cruel and outlandish and there was no defence given until sex offenders were mentioned. However it's phrased, their healthcare is limited. Yes, homes need to protect ALL their residents and families...and if they had a process to identify risk that would be reasonable. But they are rejecting applications from RSO' s without any other considerations like time since last offence, nature of offence and the physical / mental condition of the offender. In some cases the RSO could be bed ridden, unable to speak, unable to feed themselves...yet a home can apply a blanket ban when the offender would be physically incapable of commiting an offense. At the same time, there is no similar policy around drug addicts, people with mental health conditions that may cause violence, or just plain murderers.

Reply

[-]

AskUK-ModTeam@reddit

AskUK is a "catch-all" subreddit for questions about the UK life and culture, but this does not mean we accept any and all questions or answers. We are liable to remove posts or comments which are best discussed in more specialised subreddits, or are simply not desired here because of the problems they bring. We explicitly do not allow questions or answers on or including: - politics (r/askukpolitics, r/unitedkingdom, r/ukpolitics) - legal advice (r/LegalAdviceUK) - financial advice (r/UKPersonalFinance) - technology (r/techsupport, r/technology) - relationships (r/relationships, r/relationship_advice) - DIY (r/diyuk) - university/education (r/sixthform, r/uniuk) - visas/citizenship (r/ukvisa) - [medical advice](https://111.nhs.uk/) (including [mental health](https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/mental-health-services/where-to-get-urgent-help-for-mental-health/)) (r/mentalhealthuk) - ranting/venting (r/britishproblems) - surveys (r/samplesize) - advertising/solicitation (including the mention of **brands** which could be perceived as marketing) - repetitive/seen-often (just search the sub) - "does anybody else" type vent posts (as yes, someone does, be more specific or use r/britishproblems). - questions based on protected characteristics, such as race, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, etc. subject to moderator discretion. ...and we may remove others if we believe they are liable to introduce problems for the subreddit. In some circumstances, a more appropriate subreddit may be available. Check the sidebar for other subreddits to have these discussions. Also see r/unitedkingdom's extensive list of subreddits; https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/british_subreddits

Reply

[-]

Helpful-Fennel-7468@reddit

The local prisoners we process blood for at the hospital must have their blood checked more often than people on the outside. Once a month blood tests.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

Drug tests, mostly. This is not a facetious answer, it's true.

Reply

[-]

Helpful-Fennel-7468@reddit

They aren’t.

Reply

[-]

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

Punitive measures like this that are often based in emotion and while I get it, ultimately it’s for the greater good that we still afford our criminals and outcasts a basic level of dignity as a human. From a more economic PoV: Ultimately most criminals will be released one day, and at that point they’re considered to have paid their dues back to society. If they’re now permanently disabled, or significantly impacted somehow, society has to pick up a much larger tab than they would if said criminal had access to healthcare. So yeah, I probably wouldn’t lose sleep over a rapist not having access to chemotherapy for example. But if the question is *should* a rapist have access to chemotherapy (or just healthcare in general), the answer is a rather reluctant yes. If we let people slowly waste away due to preventable conditions, then we may as well save ourselves the money and just reinstate the death penalty. Although that conversation is a whole other kettle of fish.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

As I've said in many replies now, I don't actually believe we should and I've been relieved to see that very few others do either. But we are doing it right now. Blanket bans on sex offenders getting residential care. I could understand if a risk assessment was part of it, but there are offences that will get people on in the register for life...and risk surely must or at least COULD change with age surely?

Reply

[-]

Beartato4772@reddit

Prisons have a duty of care, that includes healthcare. And this btw is true in the US too, people have deliberately committed prisonable crimes for the healthcare.

Reply

[-]

Away-Shake5887@reddit

I’m 50 delivery well paid and live in the UK and have seriously thought about some kind of crime that would serve as a viable retirement plan.

Reply

[-]

Beartato4772@reddit

A little bit of major financial fraud, live like a king for a bit on that then arrested you're thinking?

Reply

[-]

Away-Shake5887@reddit

Are you cop?

Reply

[-]

PeppercornWizard@reddit

If you live in the UK that is a stupid plan. Prison healthcare is not superior to NHS healthcare. It’s also not a very nice place in general. Plus unless you do something very, very bad, you’ll be unlikely to get a significant custodial sentence.

Reply

[-]

Beartato4772@reddit

OP's taking the piss a bit of course (which is fine, it's not a first level reply) but I can certainly understand the mindset if you're desperate. Especially in the US. Maybe that should be a TV series. Orange is the new Breaking Bad.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

Orange is the new Gray('s Academy)...

Reply

[-]

Away-Shake5887@reddit

It was a mildly facetious comment, more so on the state of our nation than anything else…but a roof, food and access to healthcare and welfare, it’s something a significant portion of people are left without in the wild.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

Uk healthcare in a home £1400 per week. Prison - free. If you're dying anyway but want your relatives to inherit your estate...I can see where you are coming from...

Reply

[-]

Bounty_drillah@reddit

Think of a room the size of your bathroom, then think about whether you'd be prepared to spend at least 18 hours a day in there, sharing it with the stupidest person you went to school with.

Reply

[-]

Otherwise_Koala4289@reddit

No. Access to healthcare is a fundamental right. You shouldn't lose that just because you've been found guilty of a crime.

Reply

[-]

GnaphaliumUliginosum@reddit

Exactly, after the criminals, who is next? Nicked a telly when you were a teenager? No chemotherapy for you! (I know this is esentially what happens in the US and it's absolutely awful over there too.)

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

I asked the question to get a response; I don't believe it's a good idea. But we are already doing it. The vast majority of care homes have a blanket ban on admitting any registered sex offenders. So as you said; after the (sex) criminals, who's next?

Reply

[-]

Flat_Development6659@reddit

I don't think those things are equivalent tbh. Saying you're not trusted to be around vulnerable people isn't the same as saying we're not giving you insulin for your diabetes.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

But what about dementia care? Alzheimers, Parkinson's? Cancer? Basically anything that needs residential care. Their choices are limited for life. And it's a blanket no - if they were assessed and found to still present a risk that would be one thing. But s blanket ban is too indiscriminate (I think).

Reply

[-]

Beartato4772@reddit

Always take notice of how they treat the most vulnerable because that's how they'd treat you if they thought they could get away with it. And once inside, prisoners are technically vulnerable, they can't exactly shop around for care. You sentenced them to say, 5 years inside, not to die of cancer.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

It's not a right that it's free, ask the Americans. But I don't actually want this, I just want to point out it's already in place...for *selected* criminals...

Reply

[-]

Otherwise_Koala4289@reddit

We're not in America. This is AskUK.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

Fundamental rights should not depend on your country.

Reply

[-]

Otherwise_Koala4289@reddit

Whether they *should* is a different matter. But the fact is they do. The fundamental rights a British citizen has are different to an American, a Japanese person, a Chinese person etc etc.

Reply

[-]

TheDarkestStjarna@reddit

No, because it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. Do all criminals lose healthcare, or just ones who've been imprisoned? If someone gets a terminal illness do we just let them die in pain? Do criminals lose all healthcare forever or just for the duration of their punishment? If we deny healthcare to prisoners then who's next?

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

It's a hypothetical question. Is there ANY offense that deserves it?

Reply

[-]

Bounty_drillah@reddit

No. What if the prisoner was serving 6 months for a non-violent crime and wound up dying because they were denied access to proper healthcare. That would be an injustice.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

What if they were a sex offender?

Reply

[-]

Pockysocks@reddit

No. It's paid for by taxes, not rules.

Reply

[-]

cfehunter@reddit

No. Absolutely not. If they don't deserve death for the crime, then you can't just leave them without basic care. That's just a delayed death sentence.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent_Ad_880@reddit (OP)

So after ten seconds it's all "No's" . Did you know the vast majority of UK care homes have a blanket rejection policy for registered sex offenders?

Reply

[-]

Timely_Egg_6827@reddit

Likely because otherwise they need to ban all child vistiors to the other residents. I do think the sexual offender register needs review because publuic urination is a very different offense to rape or even flashing with intent. Most care homes are private and private companies can make their own decisions about their customer base.

Reply

[-]

terryjuicelawson@reddit

It is a basic human right, it is not something that can be taken away as a punishment. it also becomes self defeating, without basic healthcare any small issue can become huge needing emergency treatment down the line.

Reply

[-]

Timely_Egg_6827@reddit

Yes, because they are either in prison or in public. I don't want to give more reason for people to break the laws because they need to fund a heart bypass. In jail, the state assumes responsibility for them in terms of basic needs because they remove their options for fulfilling them themselves. Also people in prison have ridiciculous levels of mental health issues - think it is 76% of women and 46% of men incarcerated have them. Let's get them healthy and stable so we don't need to use more resources locking them up again after members of the public harmed.

Reply

[-]

GnaphaliumUliginosum@reddit

Death penalty by the back door.

Reply

[-]

Particular_Tune7990@reddit

You're involving the proctologists in this?

Reply

[-]

Boldboy72@reddit

wtaf, are you suggesting we go back to the old days of Newgate Prison and Gaol Fever? I think we should be putting more effort into changing the ways of prisoners. They should be expected to spend their time doing educational programmes that give them better skills to survive on the outside without causing a nuisance. I don't think they should have access to the internet, tv's, playstations and the likes Prison is hell mate.

Reply

[-]

Then_Bodybuilder3967@reddit

Withdrawing healthcare from people is cruel and unusual punishment.

Reply

[-]

Scared-Room-9962@reddit

Like if I break the speed limit I shouldn't be allowed to see a doctor about something? Lol No.

Reply

[-]

Herne_KZN@reddit

Absolutely fucking not!

Reply

[-]

TrackTeddy@reddit

Access to healthcare is a right - not a benefit in the UK.

Reply

[-]

ResplendentBear@reddit

No, and as this sub doesn't allow one word replies, for god's sake no.

Reply

[-]

Alternative_Bit_7306@reddit

No. Because they’re still human beings.

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - When replying to submission/post please **make genuine efforts to answer the question given**. Please no jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Reply

Reply to Post

78 Comments