3 ms·

People whose safety has been threatened or been injured by a spouse and are at risk absolutely will be placed in a room with security, what are you talking abou

People whose safety has been threatened or been injured by a spouse and are at risk absolutely will be placed in a room with security, what are you talking about? The financial issue is more debatable, but as the article notes, there's already preference given to friends and family of doctors and nurses - so if they're "seriously educated", it doesn't seem to have stuck. I'm not sure whether I'm more troubled by an informal policy of helping big donors the same way friends and family are or a formal policy that allows people to pay an annual fee for preferential treatment at the ER (which many hospitals have).

_8j50 4y ago
> ... it doesn't seem to have stuck. I agree, but the key word in my comment is "should" as in that is ethics taught in medicine school. It seems you and others think I meant abused people don't get protection at all, it's my fault for communicating wrong. Of course they get protection once they speak up, but as far as I am aware they still have to sit in a queue like everyone else before a nurse sees them and they have a chance to speak, the senator is skipping line here. If it truly is a question of danger there are more formal and proper ways of doing it, not "hey, a senator, he'll go first".