The Bull  permalink

Compulsory treatment or lose sickness benefit

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 139
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Borsetshire Blue (U2260326) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    The government intends to trial a pilot scheme which would see sickness benefits removed from people who refuse treatment for their illness.

    www.huffingtonpost.c...

    This move is described as "tough love" but officials have not made clear which "health complaints" will require an individual to accept treatment or lose their benefit.

    I would question whether any health care professional would be able to treat people who have only given their consent under duress. That would breach all ethical codes and could even be assault in some cases.

    Can it ever be right to force someone to undergo treatment or therapy?





    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Well, since no details are known yet, who can say? Telegraph was as vague about it as the Huffington Post this morning, from which I quote:

    "Under the proposals claimants would be expected to attend regular sessions with a health care professional who could require them to attend therapy and other treatments to help them recover.

    It is unclear exactly what conditions would be caught but No10 suggested drug and alcohol addicts who failed to attend rehab courses would be among them in the initial trials."

    I would rather see addicts rehabilitated than not, and so long as the funding for sufficient places exists, can see no reason why some degree of "encouragement" should not be employed.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    And beyond the most simplistic steps( detox for example) rehab under duress is likely to fail...ie not be longterm change.

    I think a pilot, if it is real ie not just for show as it is in the current changes in the justice system ,where a pilot was setup, and is still ongoing and yet to report,is nevertheless being rolled out across the country, would be interesting .
    This government however is not interested in wellbeing, it is only interested in money..so i predict shambles.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Former Archers Listener known as Fausto etc (U14266958) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    No fan of this govt, but I am suprised the procedures to achieve this are not in place anyway.
    The vision of the NHS was that huge amounts of cash would be spent to ensure a healthy population. If some people do not want to be cared for by the provision availiable for them, opting out should not give an entitlement to a cash reward.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Hmm, benefits seen as a cash reward....another spin i find cynical and nasty.
    Who else do you want to get the nhs to treat compulsorily? People who are too religous( recognised symptom of major mental illness btw), people who dont vote like you?
    If you are worried about money then i suggest driving people into crime is not the best way to save it.....

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by fat_kid (U1705916) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Can it ever be right to force someone to undergo treatment or therapy?  

    No.

    But it can certainly be a requirement if they want to keep their job.

    Surely the principle is the same.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Former Archers Listener known as Fausto etc (U14266958) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    If you are worried about money then i suggest driving people into crime is not the best way to save it.. 

    Take that reasoning to it's logical conclusion then you raise an expectation that everyone should receive a bribe from the state not to be a criminal.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    We do in a sense....it is only having a functioning state that stops a vast level of crime...

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Leaping Badger (U3587940) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    So will they first actually fund proper trials to find an effective treatment for the illness I have?
    'Ö'

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Former Archers Listener known as Fausto etc (U14266958) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    So will they first actually fund proper trials to find an effective treatment for the illness I have?
    'Ö' 


    Not wanting to turn this into a doctors consulting room, but would you refuse to accept a suitable treatment were it availiable?

    That is the crux of the proposal.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by maggiechow- chained to the railings (U6630370) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Actually, that's a good thought. OH has MS, and although he does take some medicines to ease the symptoms, he doesn't go in for some of the therapies such as HBO or snake venom which have been suggested. So who decides which therapy one should be availing oneself of?

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Actually, that's a good thought. OH has MS, and although he does take some medicines to ease the symptoms, he doesn't go in for some of the therapies such as HBO or snake venom which have been suggested. So who decides which therapy one should be availing oneself of?  The guvment of course...

    On a serious note i think its likely that such moves will only apply to those conditions at which people feel entitled to tut tut. Addictions, mental health problems spring to mind....a short hop to compulsory sterilisation if you want unemployment benefits.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Leaping Badger (U3587940) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Not wanting to turn this into a doctors consulting room, but would you refuse to accept a suitable treatment were it availiable?  Not if there were something which was known to make people better - of course, I'd do anything to be well. But really this hinges on your word 'suitable'. What is 'suitable'? In my condition as with many chronic illnesses, because it is ill-understood (in many cases because there has never been proper funding of biomedical research) there is no treatment known and studied which actually makes people better. The only treatment approved by NICE for my condition is hugely controversial, is really only dealing with symptoms rather than the underlying illness which causes those symptoms, and actually makes a lot of people severely worse. It's basically a 'we don't know what else to do' treatment. A huge study was finally done of this treatment last year, and the results showed that only 40% of people showed 'some improvement', with a similar number being made worse. Now, being the only NICE-approved treatment, would it be considered 'suitable' under this scheme? I've been through that treatment programme a couple of times, and it didn't help me recover (made me worse in some regards). How many times would I have to go through this under this scheme, even though it hasn't proved helpful in my case? How much weight would the opinion of the doctors and other health professionals who have dealt with me be given? (None, going by how the medical assessment system works at the moment.)

    That aside, I'm trying to think what illnesses people have who are currently refusing treatment (as this proposal, if true, claims implicitly). Apart from chronic illnesses where there is no known and definitely effective treatment, I suspect this might be mainly mental illness and personality disorders, that sort of thing. I know that a lot of people with illnesses of those types can find the 'cure' worse than the illness. The treatments might seem effective to people outside the illness (or to a civil department weighting up costs), because they produce human units more able to function 'properly' in society, but can be devastating for the person concerned. Think of frontal lobotomy for an extreme example. A lot of medical (drug) treatments for mental illness can produce really horrid and distressing side effects, and can lead to the person taking the drugs not feeling themselves. Some people with such illnesses decide, after taking such treatments, that on balance it is better for them not to take such treatments. I wonder whether this proposal is mostly targeting such people with mental and personality disorders.

    It's certainly an issue which is nowhere near as simple as it might seem on the surface.

    I'm going on the premise that this report is accurate, which is by no means certain. I can certainly believe that such a proposal is being made, however.
    'Ö'

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by fat_kid (U1705916) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    I know of a family where they all four appear to have excluded themselves from the world of work on the grounds of various illnesses.

    It also seems coincidental that they all seem to be suffering from chronic conditions that are neither treatable nor in one case even identifiable .

    It's just bad luck I'd guess.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Former Archers Listener known as Fausto etc (U14266958) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    It's certainly an issue which is nowhere near as simple as it might seem on the surface.

    I'm going on the premise that this report is accurate, which is by no means certain. I can certainly believe that such a proposal is being made, however.
    'Ö' 


    I agree, though as with all forms of legislation, the devil is going to be in the detail, and I will be astonished if exclusion clauses will not be included for what will come under the description of chronic illness.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Constance (U14594138) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    My understanding from R4 is that the treatment would be for 'lifestyle' illnesses rather than others as described above. So drug addiction, alcoholism, smoking and someone mentioned obesity. Where the action of the person has significantly contributed to their illness. Not illnesses where the person has / had absolutely no control over their ill health.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    I think you will find that doctors will have been involved somewhere along the line....
    But as you where...can be so much more satisfying...certainly much easier than actually thinking...

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by idontbelieveit (U14276798) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Can it ever be right to force someone to undergo treatment or therapy? -
    If they are using an illness to claim a benefit,I think it's reasonable.
    Surely one would seek treatment/therapy anyway?

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    My understanding from R4 is that the treatment would be for 'lifestyle' illnesses rather than others as described above. So drug addiction, alcoholism, smoking and someone mentioned obesity. Where the action of the person has significantly contributed to their illness. Not illnesses where the person has / had absolutely no control over their ill health.

     
    All of which is moot.
    but for the purposes of 'saving money ' will be easy to determine of course...just need a few ticks on a form and away you go...

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Loopy_ Lou (U10913539) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Do you think it is unreasonable but those whose lifestyle choices have contributed to their ilnesses (alcoholism, obesity etc) should be expected to do something about it?

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    And when it does not work? And when services are swamped by clients/patients who will not benefit but nevertheless are presenting purely for the purposes fo retaining sickness benefits? What happens next?

    The services available are already groaning, and have been rundown and cut...The proposals are cynical and have an almost guaranteed outcome imo...increased criminality.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by fat_kid (U1705916) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    I think you will find that doctors will have been involved somewhere along the line....
    But as you where...can be so much more satisfying...certainly much easier than actually thinking... 
    I'm sure a doctor will be able to confirm that one of them in particular has repeatedly winced in agony in their surgery over back pain despite never being able to discover what is causing it.

    I don't think patients with self-disclosing symptoms are that easy to treat.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by maggiechow- chained to the railings (U6630370) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    What about rugby players or mountaineers who break their necks/legs?
    Just as much a 'lifestyle choice'.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Do you think it is unreasonable but those whose lifestyle choices have contributed to their ilnesses (alcoholism, obesity etc) should be expected to do something about it?  Did you notice where i said..' all of which is moot'...
    Care to demonstrate the choices involved as opposed to, for example traumatic childhood experiences, mental health difficulties...and so on...
    Your post is a classic example of how to make something tnat is extremely complex ridiculously simplistic...

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Loopy_ Lou (U10913539) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    My post was a simple question.
    I don't know why you felt the need to post such an agressive response.

    I haven't implied anything is "ridiculously simplistic", I was just interested to know whether you thought ppeople should be expected to take some steps towards aiding their recovery.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Ok if you don't cut benefit for non compliance,how about paying in vouchers that exclude purchasing of alcohol,cigarettes and fast food.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Loopy_ Lou (U10913539) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    What about rugby players or mountaineers who break their necks/legs?
    Just as much a 'lifestyle choice'. 


    Fit and active people tend to make huge efforts in rehabilitation.
    I can't imagine many mountaineers or rugby players would be happy sitting around all day doing nothing.
    It would drive them potty.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Your whole post was based on apresumption, which i had already addressed in my previous post...ie the whole assertion that its alifestyle choice is moot...therefore evrything that followed was simplistic...

    Vf exactly how would your proposal help? Aside from, as i said to be a surefire way to increase criminality...thus being a cost overall?

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Mrs PPG (U14114383) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    That's a very good point.

    Mr PPG has been in A&E many a time with rugby related injuries. He keeps himself fit and has a pretty healthy lifestyle but his choices mean that he has taken up NHS rescources. Is that wrong?

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by conductor (U2040502) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Obesity isn't always due to lifestyle choices. A neighbour of mine who died recently was very obese, to the point of its being a disability, and it certainly ruined her life. However it was not due to overeating but to a condition of which I don't know the details. Her mother had it too and she had some sort of procedure which corrected it - she went from being very obese to being rather a little woman. My neighbour had the same treatment but it didn't work, so there was no other way of helping her.

    --<-@

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by fat_kid (U1705916) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    And what about symptoms that only manifest themselves through the patient's own description of them?

    Is any doctor ever going to call a patient a liar?

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    What about rugby players or mountaineers who break their necks/legs?
    Just as much a 'lifestyle choice'. 


    Fit and active people tend to make huge efforts in rehabilitation.
    I can't imagine many mountaineers or rugby players would be happy sitting around all day doing nothing.
    It would drive them potty. 
    Did you know that a common reaction to traumatic change in people is depression and depending on the injury, personality change?
    So yes they might attempt rehabi
    Itation, they may have limited capacity to rehabilitate, or indeed may have mental health problems in being able to do so...

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Loopy_ Lou (U10913539) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Vf exactly how would your proposal help?  

    I am really surprised that you can't understand how this proposal would help.
    An alcoholic not buying alcohol?

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    And i notice no one posting in a positive way about these proposals suggesting what will happen when the therapy does not work, where these services will come from, and who will pay for the inevitable increase in costs related to criminality...
    Seems to me its all just a chance to have a pop at people its still acceptable to bandy prejudices about...

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Vf exactly how would your proposal help?  

    I am really surprised that you can't understand how this proposal would help.
    An alcoholic not buying alcohol?  
    I am really surprised that you cannot join up some very simple dots...desperate addict nicks money, buys alcohol...so now we have an alcoholic ( or drug user) buying ,but this time costing more because criminal justice is involved too...

    So how exactly would the proposal help?
    And would you care to fill in the holes in the proposal that i have pointed out twice now..since you seem to be in favour of it...

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Your whole post was based on apresumption, which i had already addressed in my previous post...ie the whole assertion that its alifestyle choice is moot...therefore evrything that followed was simplistic...

    Vf exactly how would your proposal help? Aside from, as i said to be a surefire way to increase criminality...thus being a cost overall? 
    Well its better than doing sweet FA which seems to be the default setting for some,despite the fact that UK plc is on the slide.

    If not in vouchers then in a government credit card that restricts the amount of alcohol/cigarettes per week.Why should the government,no actually its tax payers fork out money for people to smoke,drink and gorge themselves to death?They will then require NHS treatment for the chronic conditions they suffer and it isn't even as if any tax cash would be obtained from the fags as the state has bought them in the first place!

    Doing nothing is going to end up with no welfare state as it will have become completely unaffordable and collapsed.Not necessarily in your lifetime (indeed you maybe lucky enough to receive a pension,I very much doubt that I will in 30 years time) but certainly in the not so distance future.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Can it ever be right to force someone to undergo treatment or therapy?  

    No.

    But it can certainly be a requirement if they want to keep their job.

    Surely the principle is the same. 
    One may add: it can also be a condition of not going to prison; and I don't know of anyone complaining about that.

    I see a parallel with that case a couple of years ago. A man had a life-threatening heart condition, and the question came up of expensive tests to see whether some treatment would help. But he was a heavy smoker, and said that he wouldn't stop whatever. So the docs said, In that case, the treatment would be useless, so no point in giving the tests.

    There was some to-do about his being refused his rights under the NHS, but the docs' view looks perfectly reasonable to me.

    So, perhaps, with the dole for people who choose not even to try to stop piffing it away on toxins (because that must be mostly what we're talking about)?

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    But there is alot going on, despite the cuts inservice...and it is successful...why not camapign for better services which work?

    But that is not half as satisfying as weilding the stick....

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Loopy_ Lou (U10913539) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    .desperate addict nicks money, buys alcohol...so now we have an alcoholic ( or drug user) buying ,but this time costing more because criminal justice is involved too... 
    Right, so we have to give benefits to alcoholics so they don't turn into criminals and start nicking stuff?
    Is this really what you're saying?
    You want the country in effect, held to ransom?

    Or the alternative, they actually get help. Its a no-brainer.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    That is not a comparator..as the issue was amedical decision, therre is no point in treaments if the conditions are not right...that is always true for all conditions and all patients...

    Still no one addressing the holes in the proposals..who will pay for the increased criminality? Who will provide the services? What happens when the therapy fails? Oh and who decides what treatment is effective and who actually is making a choice as opposed to exhibiting a feature of their mental condition?
    Maybe IDS, maybe a tickboxer who has done so well with physical disability and mental health assessments so far...

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    'its a no brainer'

    Well some posters are certainly not engaging their brains....

    In what way will an addict be helped do you think?...note i am asking you to think....

    Any chance of you answering some questions i have put on this thread twice or three times now...they do require a brain..

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    Still no one addressing the holes in the proposals..who will pay for the increased criminality? 

    And what about the costs of drink related crime?Criminal damage,violence and abuse,anti social behaviour?Hospital admissions?On going treatments?

    Its a bizarre world where the government is effectively sustaining and feeding habits that cause acute and chronic conditions that will have to treat under its NHS mandate and which will be paid for by, erm the government!

    Do nothing,but don't be surprised when in 15 years time the threshold for receiving child benefit is down to £30000 or that the fuel allowance has been cut.

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by fat_kid (U1705916) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    You make some good points Loopy.

    Points which have (along with others) been ignored and countered only with insults.

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by londonplug (U13638089) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    No fan of this govt, but I am suprised the procedures to achieve this are not in place anyway.
    The vision of the NHS was that huge amounts of cash would be spent to ensure a healthy population. If some people do not want to be cared for by the provision availiable for them, opting out should not give an entitlement to a cash reward.  
    REPLY..............Thumbs up!!!! i do not see why people that are so iresponsible to end up with so called "drugs or alcohol" problems should be entitled to a life time of sponging of the backs of tax payers, many and indeed most of us taxpayers do or have used both drugs and alcohol but have the self responsibility to treat them with respect

    "Self responsibility " seems to be a phrase erased from our language by the Left

    Many people are on benefits due to no fault of their own perhaps some compasion should be show by the government to them instead of atacking them

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by Shirley Knott (U14164156) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    You make some good points Loopy.

    Points which have (along with others) been ignored and countered only with insults. 
    Indeed.

    It's just a discussion - everyone is entitled to their input without being insulted.

    And anyway, it's only the 5-livers who are allowed to be nasty isn't it?

    St Hilda - you seem to be ready to shout down anything that tries to address this huge problem.

    I haven't seen anyone mention the long-term message. Yes there will be a few people at the beginning who will howl at how their human right to be an addict and still get benefits is being compromised, but as with the child benefit debate, we must start somewhere with the message that in future, the current situation just cannot be tolerated or afforded.

    Or perhaps we should just let everyone have anything they want! Yes that's it! A free for all - behave just how you want - it's your human right. Responsibilities? Pahh - they're for suckers!! Don't worry - someone else will pay. Oh err.....we seem to have run out of money....

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by fat_kid (U1705916) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    You make some good points Loopy.

    Points which have (along with others) been ignored and countered only with insults. 
    Indeed.

    It's just a discussion - everyone is entitled to their input without being insulted.

    And anyway, it's only the 5-livers who are allowed to be nasty isn't it?

    St Hilda - you seem to be ready to shout down anything that tries to address this huge problem.

    I haven't seen anyone mention the long-term message. Yes there will be a few people at the beginning who will howl at how their human right to be an addict and still get benefits is being compromised, but as with the child benefit debate, we must start somewhere with the message that in future, the current situation just cannot be tolerated or afforded.

    Or perhaps we should just let everyone have anything they want! Yes that's it! A free for all - behave just how you want - it's your human right. Responsibilities? Pahh - they're for suckers!! Don't worry - someone else will pay. Oh err.....we seem to have run out of money....
     
    That's the money shot Shirley.

    The long term message will start to get through that sponging off the state is not an option.

    And despite those who marginalise this or even try to pretend that it's only small scale, it really isn't. It's been reportedly on the increase over the past ten years or so and the effect of carrying on letting people go down this route is ultimately catastrophic.

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by Shirley Knott (U14164156) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    It's been reportedly on the increase over the past ten years or so and the effect of carrying on letting people go down this route is ultimately catastrophic. 

    For them, and for everyone else.

    Now, whilst I love a good conspiracy theory, most can be turned inside out and shot down in flames. (Good mix of metaphors there, Shirl - you can give the pencil sharpeners out after break)

    But this situation does tend to give credence to the 'dumbing down of the masses theory'.

    Lets keep them all drugged up/drunk/stoned/whatever - in fact, lets give them the money to do it! That'll keep em off our backs!

    I don't much agree with left-wingers but even they wouldn't stoop that low.

    Would they?

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by BanquetBangersBaroness (U15332198) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    So the likes of Georgia Davis the 63 stone teen would fall into this category for compulsory treatment? Is being that large 'addiction' or 'lifestyle'? Is there a dividing line between the two?

    Futhermore, if any such treatment were effective then wouldn't it be all for nothing if the claimant was then allowed back into a home situation that was till going on in the same old way? Where the rest of the family had made no effort to change or be of assistance, thereby putting any success in serious jeopardy?

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    So the likes of Georgia Davis the 63 stone teen would fall into this category for compulsory treatment? Is being that large 'addiction' or 'lifestyle'? Is there a dividing line between the two?
     


    www.huffingtonpost.c...

    Thats when you know that the West has a problem and needs a reality check.40 people required and half a house demolished to rescue 1 person who cant move themselves through obesity.

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Loopy_ Lou (U10913539) on Tuesday, 6th November 2012

    In what way will an addict be helped do you think?...note i am asking you to think.... 

    An addict will be helped because they will be expected to get help.
    I would have thought that was obvious.

    in your world St hilda nobody is required to get help for their addictions, merely the tax payers to keep funding their caddiction.
    So I think the question should be addressed to you, .. in what way would your ideas help anyone at all?

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.