Making the guilty pay

Sky news has been given full access to the workings of an A and E department in Nottingham this weekend, and in what will come as a surprise to no one, it became clear as the evening progressed that many or even most of the cases being attended to were directly or indirectly a result of intoxication.

"These people should pay!" was the feeling expressed by many within the team providing help for them, and online polls suggest 72% of the general public agree. Really? That's the answer? Because if you think it is, then we must widen the net much further. What of obese people, whose over-indulgence constitutes what is called a "significant co-morbidity factor" for many life threatening (and expensive to treat) diseases? Diabetes, heart disease and strokes are just the top three of a very long list. Yet I haven't heard them being called to account and asked to fund their own care. Come to that, how about rugby players or participators in any one of the huge array of high-risk activities human beings are drawn to?

On Friday there was a massive pile-up on a foggy road in Kent. Blessedly, no one was killed, though dozens of people were taken to hospital to have their minor injuries attended to. One of these "victims" was interviewed at the scene and with remarkable candour admitted that she'd been driving too fast for the conditions, and added that pretty much everyone else around her was doing the same thing. I can't believe that first thing in the morning these drivers, most of them commuters on their way to work, were drunk, but their actions were certainly selfish, reckless and stupid. The average visit to A and E costs something over £300. Should we bill those responsible for the pile-up? If we're going to bill the drunks, we should bill them too.