How should we treat suicide attempts?

And who on earth convinced you to go down the medical school route, Casey Palmer5?

I didn't go the medical school route myself—just didn't have the financial backing to make it happen.

By the way, did you guys know that in some state-run facilities, there’s a real chance you'll end up being handled by an intern who isn't even under consistent professional supervision? And you're actually paying for that service. So you're essentially being treated by someone who isn't even sure of what they're doing...
It's the same story with vacation time, too... where an intern has to fight just to get their allotted annual leave approved (even though everyone is entitled to 18 days)—it's definitely not just granted by default...

Casey Palmer5 said:Our social safety net is just wonderful, really. I’ve been grinding away as a volunteer for 10 months now, basically covering for two people out on medical leave who are still getting their full paychecks while I pull double shifts. Then, after my actual shift, I’m pulling another four hours of side gigs just to cover rent and groceries. All this just to get some official experience on paper so I can qualify for the state exam, only to likely get kicked to the curb after 12 months of free labor. And the permanent roles left by those folks on leave? They’ll go to someone with the right connections. Honestly, I already know exactly who.

I get why you're feeling burned out. Don't go thinking things are significantly better out West. Most people volunteering in spots where they can actually land solid experience and a killer recommendation see it as a win. Plus, they find ways to scrape together enough cash to survive the training period. Not to mention, you usually have to foot the bill for the education itself.

Casey Palmer5 said:On top of that, I'm shelling out about $133 every month for my prescription meds, because apparently... I can't just get those for free.

😢
Is there no workaround?

Mango said:Scott Allen10, I honestly never once doubted how much you know or how hard you work at this job... It was just that specific mindset of yours that threw me off a bit. You're totally entitled to your opinion, and honestly, it's all good as long as it doesn't cloud your judgment on the facts. I definitely went a little too hard on you there—you know why—so my bad! 🙂

🙂 ...

Wait, so how do you view smokers then? Aren't they essentially committing suicide by proxy? And what about drug users, or people speeding through traffic and putting everyone else at risk? In my opinion, you can't pick and choose. It shouldn't matter why someone walks into a doctor's office. If we start judging based on lifestyle choices, where does it end? We'll be checking eye colors next just to decide if someone is "deserving" enough of a checkup or medical assistance. We all know exactly where that road leads. Think about it for a second—there is a very thin line between discriminating against one group and discriminating against another, regardless of how much we tell ourselves we don't belong to either side... Discrimination in a medical clinic is the absolute worst thing imaginable. I won't even get into the ethics of it, because honestly, discussing that is just ridiculous.
PS Scott Allen10 says you aren't a doctor, so what's that even supposed to mean?

@Alexander Collins4,

In Australia, a gynecologist actually went on the record and said this publicly:
a/If you’re overweight and didn't take care of yourself when you should have, don't come to me now looking for help to conceive.
b/If you waited until the very last minute and are now too old to have children, don't bother coming to me, because I won't be particularly sympathetic.
c/Children should be conceived while parents are healthy and at an age where they can truly give their all—not at 45 or later, just because certain women finally feel everything is convenient, financially or socially, while other mothers are already grandmothers by then.

Maybe he has a point?

Nowadays, we all know the damage nicotine does, and we’re warned about it from every direction. Since the risks are so clear, why wouldn't people stick to those warnings?
I quit smoking at 46 just to set an example for my son... to show him that smoking isn't healthy.
Today, every medical report focuses on the long-term consequences of smoking.

It’s the same with alcohol. Once, when I wrote on a health forum that I was an ex-alcoholic—that I had struggled for ten years but hadn't touched a drink in 37—the group mocked me and called me a "wimp." That was on a different forum entirely!
Part of the reason I moved away from home was to leave that circle behind and break ties with that kind of crowd.

I’ve drifted a bit from the main topic, but I think people are slowly starting to become
aware of the consequences brought on by nicotine and alcohol... yet there’s still that "alpha" attitude of "I'm just a social drinker" or "a few cigarettes won't kill me."

I can see a time coming when, when applying for social services, they'll ask if you smoke or drink.

Now, when you sign up for Geico in Australia, for any pre-existing conditions you already have...you have to be a member for 12 months before they'll cover treatment for them. It doesn't matter if it's cancer or gallbladder issues requiring immediate surgery... there's no charity involved, just business.

Alexander Collins4 said:Wait, so how do you feel about smokers then? Aren't they basically committing suicide by proxy? And what about addicts, or people speeding through neighborhoods and putting everyone else at risk? Honestly, I don't think you can just pick and choose who gets care based on their lifestyle. If we start deciding who's "worthy" of a checkup or medical help based on why they ended up in the ER, where does it stop? We’ll be judging people by their eye color next just to decide if they deserve attention. We all know how that ends—it’s a slippery slope from one kind of discrimination to another, even when we tell ourselves we aren't part of either group. Discrimination in a doctor's office is the absolute worst; I won't even get into the morality of it because that's just getting ridiculous.
PS Scott Allen10 mentioned you aren't a doctor, so what's that all about?

I didn't quite catch that last part, specifically the end of the sentence. Could you clarify?
I totally agree that discrimination is unacceptable. You can't deny someone the care they need just because they fall into a certain "category" or group you listed. But... providing necessary care doesn't mean you have to feel sympathy for them or treat them with this deep intimacy like "everyone is the same." At least, that's my take. An overdose victim and someone hit by a car aren't the same thing in my book. Sure, everyone gets treated, but I honestly don't feel any pity for the first group. Plus, since most of them carry things like Hepatitis B or C, you actually have to be extra careful just to avoid catching something yourself.
Every profession has its share of people they just can't stand, even if they still do the job. Why should healthcare be any different?
A recent example...
Some "silver spoon" kid with a massive engine was flying through town at 110 mph and plowed into two people. One died right there in the trauma unit, and the other was critically injured, fighting for her life for about 30 days before surviving, but she's left with permanent disabilities and a hell of a long road to recovery. The idiot himself was pretty banged up too, walking away with broken ribs, a lung contusion, and a broken femur...
About a year later, an emergency comes in for a traffic victim... severe brain injury, dilated pupils that don't react to light... then a second emergency arrives, and it's the guy who caused the accident... the cop says he picked the victim up while speeding...
He walks in, and we realize it's the same "golden boy" from before... the whole crew lost it. The surgeon was visibly disgusted, cursing him under his breath while examining him, and the anesthesiologist gave him a dead serious warning that he wouldn't hear a peep out of him unless he raised his hand first... meanwhile, the actual victim was on the other stretcher getting worked on...
The idiot didn't even have anything major (that's usually how it goes), just a concussion and some scrapes and bruises... went through a CT scan, got some pain meds, a prophylactic antibiotic, and was sent straight to ortho... the victim, on the other hand, had organs harvested after two or three days once the family gave the okay...
So, tell me... is it actually "normal" to treat both patients exactly the same? Yeah, it's normal, but only if you're someone standing on the sidelines who claims to be some kind of saintly altruist.
No, you can't look at patients in black and white, or well, to be precise, in certain parts of healthcare. Everyone has a group of people, illnesses, or conditions they just can't stand... Providing what's required? Absolutely! It's mandatory!... With equal amounts of empathy? ...Man, heck no!

I can see where you’re coming from when you talk about someone putting others at risk—or even killing them—but I just can't get on board with that stance regarding suicide. It’s simple: you never truly know what drove a person to that point. The whole point of being a doctor is to offer help, not to leave compassion at the door. Honestly, we should be helping people without playing judge and jury. That’s what the legal system is for; hospitals aren't meant for passing judgment...