Hospital refuses surgery to abortion protestor.

[Finn]

A 75-year-old man has been denied hip treatment after health officials warned him about sending hospital staff pictures of aborted foetuses. Anti-abortion supporter Edward Atkinson has been jailed for 28 days for sending offensive photos to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, Norfolk.

Mr Atkinson had been on a waiting list for an assessment for a hip operation when he started sending in pictures of aborted foetuses. The NHS Trust wrote to him asking him not to send such material to the hospital as it was distressing staff. When he continued, the trust said he had broken its "zero tolerance" policy with regards to staff.

On Monday, Ruth May, chief executive of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, said in a statement:
"The trust's view is that we have a duty of care to our staff. Our legal advisers were consulted and their opinion was that this man's actions contravened the NHS Zero Tolerance policy in cases of abuse or unacceptable behaviour towards our staff. We take such matters extremely seriously and because he continued to send extremely graphic material to us we exercised our right to decline treatment to him for anything other than life-threatening conditions."

An anti-abortion group backing Atkinson said the decision was "outrageous".
James Dowson, national co-ordinator of the UK Life League, said: "It is ridiculous. I think it is completely unfair. They are refusing to treat him. Would they refuse a murderer or a paedophile?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4750647.stm

So, are the hospital right to take this action (bearing in mind they would still treat him in an emergancy situation and he can still be treated by the NHS elsewhere) or are they being unreasonable?

[mafiamonroe]

I think they are being unreasonable. If he's paid taxes then he's entitled to the same health care regardless of his opinions/actions.

[guntrip]

On one hand, yes - hippocratic oath and all, they're meant to treat everyone the same and without prejudice. On the other hand, he's clearly been harassing staff and that's not cool.

I would say that it's probably the right thing to do, as he can go elsewhere for the surgery, but that maybe they should arrange that for him as recompense..

[Gillyflower]

I have no time for anti-abortion protesters, particularly when they use extreme measures to get their point across; he should have stopped after they wrote to him. By choosing to continue with his "protest", he cannot now complain about the consequences of his action.

Paying taxes does not give you the right to abuse those from whom you subsequently expect a service.

[azima]

Paying taxes does not give you the right to abuse those from whom you subsequently expect a service.

i was gonna write something, but this'll do far better than my illiterate numbscullery...


x x x

[Takk]

Paying taxes does not give you the right to abuse those from whom you subsequently expect a service.

Agreed.

[Dancing May Girl]

He got a warning and he knew what he did. I got nothing left for anti-abortionists like him.

[Rumblefish]

The hospital are right to deny him treatment after he'd abused the staff but they still have a duty to make sure his care is followed through, was he reffered to another hospital?

[guntrip]

[playing Devil's advocate a bit here..]

Would you support them if they refused him emergency care on the same grounds?

[Gillyflower]

No, of course not. No-one should be denied emergency treatment.

[Zinedine_Kilbane]

I think his punishment should be kept seperate from his healthcare, and he's got 28 days in jail. It's not as if he'd be a physical threat to the staff, which I think is the main concern of the Zero tolerance policy. Of course, it hardly matters, as it's not like he can't get this help anywhere else. But I don't agree with the hospital on this one.

And I support the anti-abortion movement. But what he was doing was pointless and horrible. People who think they can do things like this just because they feel they have the moral high ground are wrong.

[Lone Architect]

The NHS has a zero tolerance policy towards staff harassment, and they did warn him so he gets what he deserves. Medical staff put up with too much as it is, the zero tolerance policy is needed to protect these vital members of society.

He's only been refused non-emergency care anyway. If he has a heart attack they'll treat him, but the hip thing was quality of life and persistant (and warned) trouble causers should be denied that.

Simple as.

[kiriyama]

He got a warning and he knew what he did. I got nothing left for anti-abortionists like him.

Have you got no sympathy for anti-abortionists like him as in extremists or every single anti-abortionists?

Cheers

[Finn]

Everyone should have the right to treatment in a life-threatening emergancy. I wouldn't be able to support exclusion from a hospital under those circumstances.

I find it interesting that the issue of his beliefs is made so important when it is ultimately a matter of sending upsetting mail, being warned and then continuing until banned. Personally his 'beliefs' don't come into it - he was harrassing the staff.

[kiriyama]

Well giving that the thread title reads "Hospital refuses surgery to abortion protestor", it's not hard to see why people are making that mistake, but not many people are. They just hate anti-abortionists anyway.

Cheers

[Zinedine_Kilbane]

Well giving that the thread title reads "Hospital refuses surgery to abortion protestor", it's not hard to see why people are making that mistake, but not many people are. They just hate anti-abortionists anyway.

Cheers

They do? I dunno if that is the prevalent opinion on this forum, but I certainly don't get it from this thread.

[Finn]

Well giving that the thread title reads "Hospital refuses surgery to abortion protestor", it's not hard to see why people are making that mistake, but not many people are. They just hate anti-abortionists anyway.

Cheers
Erm, I actually meant the fact that his beliefs were mades such an issue as to be newsworthy, rather than just the harrassment. I wouldn't have heard of it if it otherwise.

The title of the thread reflects the nature of the news reports.

[kiriyama]

They do? I dunno if that is the prevalent opinion on this forum, but I certainly don't get it from this thread.

I only meant a certain few among my fanbase.

Cheers

[kiriyama]

Erm, I actually meant the fact that his beliefs were mades such an issue as to be newsworthy, rather than just the harrassment. I wouldn't have heard of it if it otherwise.

The title of the thread reflects the nature of the news reports.

But ther herassment was already in the news as I remember, this is just a follow-up really, must be another slow news day. Meet as well say 'someone pays for their mistakes', you know the only reason he sought medical attention there was to get some publicity, fuck him.

Cheers

[*lisa simpson*]

i'd be more inclined to refuse treatment to anyone who said cheers incessantly and unnecessarily and in such a way as to make it sound excruciatingly patronising.

"cheers"

[Zinedine_Kilbane]

Is there anyone here who hasn't used "cheers" in a sarcastic fashion when dealing with Kiriyama?

Cheers.

[raven]

Sounds like he wants his head testing? Not a good idea to go upsetting people who might be cutting you open shortly.

I suppose, I don't know how their zero tolerance is applied, guess you'd have to know more about that to know if it's fair to turn him away, I mean they must get a stream of abusive violent drunks, drug addicts... through their doors and in need of treatment. On a Saturday night do they lock the doors? But then a lot of that abuse will be violent or threaten violence and I can sympathise with them turning some of them away but in this case it's distressing but no one's been threatened or attacked have they and 28 days in prison is maybe punishment enough? But then, true the photos were graphic and there are other means for him to raise his objections to abortion, this wasn't his only means y'know and he persisted despite warnings.

I'm thinking as I type (sort of) they don't turn people away in need of emergency treatment and that's the key thing I think, I wouldn't agree with that whatever they've done (well, hmmmmmmmmn)

[MrsCarbohydrate]

I only meant a certain few among my fanbase.

Cheers

Seriously, just step AWAY from the conversation.

I don't think the hospital should be obliged to treat him- staff are not there to be abused, whether this man happens to think they are evil baby killers or not. They provide a service in difficult enough circumstances and frankly, if I were a member of the medical team I would not have him in my ward. I think physical and mental harassment have to be grouped together in these circumstances. We shouldn't expect nurses to have to put up with this behaviour.

[mafiamonroe]

i'd be more inclined to refuse treatment to anyone who said cheers incessantly and unnecessarily and in such a way as to make it sound excruciatingly patronising.

"cheers"
:mrgreen: Me too!

[*lisa simpson*]

Seriously, just step AWAY from the conversation.

I don't think the hospital should be obliged to treat him- staff are not there to be abused, whether this man happens to think they are evil baby killers or not. They provide a service in difficult enough circumstances and frankly, if I were a member of the medical team I would not have him in my ward. I think physical and mental harassment have to be grouped together in these circumstances. We shouldn't expect nurses to have to put up with this behaviour.

what she said :)

[Cheryl Mason]

Ten per cent of nurses have been physically assaulted by service users, according to the NT, so it does make you wonder what happens to a drunk who suddenly punches a nurse in the face. On the other hand, this was sober and premeditated, and the trust made a sober and premeditated decision to exclude him, so perhaps it all balances out. (For non-Brits: NT = Nursing Times)

[mafiamonroe]

Though he's a scumbag and shouldn't have done what he did i still think he's entitled to treatment.

[Joannathon]

I have two things to say about this:

1. It's not like hospital staff have never seen an aborted foetus before. I mean, come on.

2. Although they're denying his right to a hip operation, he would like to deny a woman's right to an abortion operation. However, neither of these is right. In an ideal world, in my opinion, both operations should be allowed. End of.

[Rumblefish]

1. It's not like hospital staff have never seen an aborted foetus before. I mean, come on.



Not always. Some hospitals don't even provide abortions, i know mine doesnt. Also, hospitals are full of student nurses and health care assistants who've had no experience in gynecological care so no, not every member of hospital staff has seen what an aborted foetus looks like and thats completely besides the point anyway. No-one should have to put up with being continually sent disturbing images regardless of what exposure they might have had to it before, it's still harassment.

[Cheryl Mason]

It's not like hospital staff have never seen an aborted foetus before. I mean, come on.
Which hospital staff are we talking about here, though? I mean, there are security guards, radiographers, clerical workers, pharmacists, cleaners, paediatric nurses, general nurses, RMNs, cooks... And even nurses who've seen a lot of gory stuff don't necessarily like it all equally. My friend worked in a rectal ward cos she said poo was OK but she couldn't stand blood or phlegm.

Edit: ha! You beat me to it. Never mind.

[kiriyama]

i'd be more inclined to refuse treatment to anyone who said cheers incessantly and unnecessarily and in such a way as to make it sound excruciatingly patronising.

"cheers"

I used to enjoy reading your posts.......

Cheers

[kiriyama]

Just another one for you dogger!

Cheers


Oh by the way, you know half of ye would ask questions if I didn't say it, so I'm.................oh god cn't think!!!!!!! this new radiohead track is awfuuuuuuuuul!!!!!! and it's six in the morning.

Cheers

[Rumblefish]

Just another one for you dogger!

Cheers


Oh by the way, you know half of ye would ask questions if I didn't say it, so I'm.................oh god cn't think!!!!!!! this new radiohead track is awfuuuuuuuuul!!!!!! and it's six in the morning.

Cheers

What the fuck are you on about?

[Cheryl Mason]

What the fuck are you on about?
Er, I think he was semiconscious. I hope so.

[Perdita]

Same as what most sensible people on this thread have said. Noone should be denied life-saving treatment, clearly. But if a basic code of conduct (which is so basic it's laughable, ie don't verbally or physically assault me, please and thankyou) isn't followed by people who can afford to wait, then they can fucking well wait.

The 'oh they see plenty of blood and guts anyway' type argument - bollocks. First off, plenty of the staff don't see this. Secondly, it's hypocritical: 'I have standards for myself that other people needn't have', and thirdly it misses the point - the images are meant with malice. Clearly we can all look at an aborted foetus in a textbook and not get upset - it's the fact that they're sent from someone who truly means to upset you that's the main problem.

[littlemanicbaby]

I have two things to say about this:

1. It's not like hospital staff have never seen an aborted foetus before. I mean, come on.

Whoooooaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.......bad statement to make there, an aborted foetus is not something everyone sees every day in hospitals, it depends on where you work, what you do etc etc, its highly unlikley for example for a hospital porter or a physiotherapist to have seen one....as has been mentioned previously here. and they are upsetting to see, in pictures or in real life. Unfortunatly i work in an area where i do see a lot and thats not in a gyane area either, although i have only seen one which did take the physical form of a baby but they are upsetting and make you feel kinda wierd.

What this man did was wrong, and I actually think the trust are well within thier rights to do what they did as he was mentally upsetting staff and for once it is nice to see a trust exec take abuse of staff seriously for a change :rolleyes: i don't doubt for a minute they would refuse any life saving treatment to him

2. Although they're denying his right to a hip operation, he would like to deny a woman's right to an abortion operation. However, neither of these is right. In an ideal world, in my opinion, both operations should be allowed. End of.

this quote however i also agree with

[Matt_o_Mac]

Question if he had been perving or flashing to the nurses at the hospital or harrashing one particular nurse then would you still say he should be allowed in the hospital.

I agree with the Hospital, and my feelings to anti abortionists well, its not your body to decide what a person does to it and after all its there life.

[kiriyama]

I agree with the Hospital, and my feelings to anti abortionists well, its not your body to decide what a person does to it and after all its there life.

You really want to start a 34 page thread that spirals into pure malice shrouded by light condesention. People are entitled to their opinions! There are plenty of pro-choice people who personally find abortion wrong anyway.

See look, you've got me started!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one raise the ethics of abortion and we'll all be grand.



Anyway, who cares about nurses, I've seen this stuff at stalls in the city centre during he middle of the day. I don't need to be fucking reminded about what I already know, especially when they give such a one sided arguement, it makes the rest of us look bad. Everyone seems think every pro-lifer is a hate mail sending, hypocritical biggotted creep. Does a seven year old kid really need to see the picture of a dead foetus!

You reap what you sow, this guy is the personification of idiocy to expect treatment in that hospital. His original tactic was useless anyway, if you're the doctor or nurse who carries out abortions, a picture of it is hardly going to knock you off your feet and make you beg for forgiveness, this guy is an idiot. He should be ignored.

Cheers

[littlemanicbaby]

Question if he had been perving or flashing to the nurses at the hospital or harrashing one particular nurse then would you still say he should be allowed in the hospital.

QUOTE]

Hmmmmm......you've got me there. I don't know its a tricky one to be honest. Thing is, much of the time its ok saying "we're not going to provide this hip op because you upset our staff" and i think the trust are right to do this. However, if this man suddenly has a cardiac arrest in the street.....well first he would be treated by an ambulance, then bought to hospital for further ALS if need be, but to be honest in these situations, particularly if the person is by themselves we very rarely actually know who the person is until we've either called it a day and stopped or we manage to save thier life so unless he was actually recognised i doubt he would be denied life saving treatment at the hospital, even if he was recognised i doubt he would. So i don't know, its a tricky situation but like i said, i admire the trust for suporting their staff in this case.

[QUOTE]Anyway, who cares about nurses

Nice to know we're considered so highly;

[MrsCarbohydrate]

1. It's not like hospital staff have never seen an aborted foetus before. I mean, come on.



That's beside the point. As well as what others have said about clerical/auxilliary staff NOT being exposed to this at all, the point is in his intent.

He clearly intended to cause emotional harm to these people so it's harassment. If someone happy slaps you and luckily you're uninjured, it's still assault. It's the intent to harm that matters.

[Joannathon]

OK everyone, I stand corrected :D I still stand by my second point though.

[Hawkeye]

The hospital Trust was completely correct to refuse non-emergency treatment to this idiot.

No-one goes to work to be abused, what this idiot was doing is abuse, regardless of how many unborn children staff may or not have seen or what abuse they may have faced in the past. The hospital Trust was simply doing what every employer should do to protect its employees.

This idiot made a choice to abuse the staff, all NHS Trusts make it very clear to everyone that zero-tolerence is the policy, this idiot chose to ignore that, therefore he chose not to be treated.

[Zinedine_Kilbane]

I still think the 28 days in prison were his punishment, and that as he didn't pose any physical threat to the staff, not treating him seems to be pure malice.

[kiriyama]

I still think the 28 days in prison were his punishment, and that as he didn't pose any physical threat to the staff, not treating him seems to be pure malice.

He's got what was coming to him, there's other ways he could have done his protest, and he's done more harm to the anti-abortion cause than good.

To be honest, the happy slapping reference isn't quite right, what he did wasn't directly meant to harm them, it was meant to imform them, in the most fucking ignornant and stupid way possible, the shock value. At the end of the day, any of those staff could see something 100 times worse at any moment, that's in the nautre of their job.

But how the fuck did he get all those adresses though? That's invasion of privacy ain't it?

Cheers

[MrsCarbohydrate]

To be honest, the happy slapping reference isn't quite right, what he did wasn't directly meant to harm them, it was meant to imform them, in the most fucking ignornant and stupid way possible, the shock value. At the end of the day, any of those staff could see something 100 times worse at any moment, that's in the nautre of their job.


Whether they could in the course of their jobs see something disturbing is neither here nor there. Outwith the remit of their jobs they have a right not to see these things should they so wish.

I don't know how sending pictures of aborted foetuses to nurses is intended to inform. They wil have seen it before. It was clearly intended to harrass and upset.

[kiriyama]

Nice to know we're considered so highly;

Apologies for that remark, I'm sorry. What I meant was that nurses come in contact wtih these sorts of images all the time, it's part of looking after the human boby. Anyone who goes into the medical profession and doesn't expect to see a bit of the ol'gruesome, has to be very naive.

I've seen this kind of stuff in broad day light in the city centre. A seven year old kid walking with their mother should not have to these grotesque butcheries. I hate the extremist anti abortionists, they only believe in shock value. They show pictures of 'illegal abortions' (ireland has no abortion policy unless the mother is serious risk), even I'll admit, that the professional abortion practice carried out by medical professinals (like in the UK) would not sanction those brutal practices, I fucking hate mis-imofrmation with a passion.

Cheers

[kiriyama]

Whether they could in the course of their jobs see something disturbing is neither here nor there. Outwith the remit of their jobs they have a right not to see these things should they so wish.

I wonder if I can do that with my bills?



I don't know how sending pictures of aborted foetuses to nurses is intended to inform. They wil have seen it before. It was clearly intended to harrass and upset.

Answer: HE'S AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers

[Matt_o_Mac]

You really want to start a 34 page thread that spirals into pure malice shrouded by light condesention. People are entitled to their opinions! There are plenty of pro-choice people who personally find abortion wrong anyway.

See look, you've got me started!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one raise the ethics of abortion and we'll all be grand.



Anyway, who cares about nurses, I've seen this stuff at stalls in the city centre during he middle of the day. I don't need to be fucking reminded about what I already know, especially when they give such a one sided arguement, it makes the rest of us look bad. Everyone seems think every pro-lifer is a hate mail sending, hypocritical biggotted creep. Does a seven year old kid really need to see the picture of a dead foetus!

You reap what you sow, this guy is the personification of idiocy to expect treatment in that hospital. His original tactic was useless anyway, if you're the doctor or nurse who carries out abortions, a picture of it is hardly going to knock you off your feet and make you beg for forgiveness, this guy is an idiot. He should be ignored.

Cheers

Nice to see you have a response to every answer.

Cheers :rolleyes:

[kiriyama]

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????


Cheers

[Miss Oceania]

I still think the 28 days in prison were his punishment, and that as he didn't pose any physical threat to the staff, not treating him seems to be pure malice.

Not allowing someone who has harrassed your staff, been warned to cease the behaviour or repercussions will occur, and who in full awareness of the repercussions continues the harrassment, elective surgery for a non life-threatening condition is NOT malicious! If the guy has a heart attack tomorrow he will be given treatment. If he is run over by a bus, he will be given treatment, if he is shot, he will be allowed treatment.

If he puts himself on a waiting list for non life-saving surgery, he will be refused treatment. That is what a zero tolerance policy means.