In this particular case , to get involved in the discussion then moderate others who may disagree is going to look bad any which way it comes over. He should have asked another mod to take over if it was apparently getting out of control.

But resigning over it?

Arthur,The moderation team have views on subjects too,and i think i helps a thread along.Even keeping it on track.The use of red text helps in the distinction of the mod hat or on.

Well it certainly didn’t help that particular thread did it!

None of the posts that I saw were particularly offensive but apparently the alleged offending material was deleted so I’ve no idea how “bad” they were but resigning because some disagreed with you or your decisions doesn’t get any sympathy from me.

To me, a moderator getting involved in discussions is akin to referees playing for one team or the other – it is only a matter of time before there is trouble.

And, Kev, whilst being in total agreement with your comments about his abilities, he was not obliged to resign. Indeed how much better it would have been had he stood his ground and the offender had been banned.

Absolutely. A flounce like that is not normally the best way to get your point across. Having said that, aren’t the “offenders” entitled to their opinion as well?

Interesting how experience can give a different view on things. My experience is that the NHS is a vastly improved organization than that of 20 years ago and all I see is a government determined to screw it up for their own ends. No it isn’t perfect but no organization of the scale of the NHS can ever be so.
Any treatment myself or my family have needed has been based on our need, nobody judged our lifestyle, our habits or diet or past history to determine whether we were worthy of treatment. We were treated because we needed it. What a great system.

I don’t anybody is getting het up.
Anyway. Back to the original question.

I don’t think it is getting off-topic either. Your original question asked whether those who deliberately choose to harm themselves should get treatment for free. Most, including myself, seem to be saying that it is impossible to make moral judgements on other’s lifestyles.

Or in other words

Do you think that people who, on a Friday or Sat night, and get stoned, or take drugs in such a quantity, and as a result have to be taken to Hospital to be treated, should pay for the treatment they recieve?.

No.

So you would give treatment to me who smoked and gave up but not to someone who hasn’t given up. Even if they’ve paid the same amount of tax and NI. I see…..
We all pay for the NHS and we should all get treatment from it if required, regardless of what caused the injury/illness – who is going dare judge ME on MY lifestyle?

If a skydiver is injured who pays for that? He knew it carried a high risk of injury but he went and did it anyway?
Maybe the NHS shouldn’t pay for antenatal care – that is largely “self-inflicted”?

By your argument, anyone who does things that have known risks should pay more. Is that fair? And who decides what is more risky. Fraught with problems I reckon.

tornado64
You were the one that spoke about officers in this fashion,

they collect speeding fines quick enough off fully legal drivers

not me.

For a start they can’t be “fully legal” if they are speeding can they? All motorists need to do is stop making themselves a “soft target”; it isn’t difficult.

Creating a health service that judges others on their lifestyle is fraught with danger.