Have your say

[Neal]

I should have highlighted this on the petition. I feel sorry for those living in the borough's of Burnley and those living in Pendle and further afield. The time it will take is disturbing. The area BGH covers is too great to simply remove the A&E.

[jaysay]

Only two weeks ago I had the need of a Paramedic attendance at my home around 7am, the attention I recieved was first class, in as much as that on the way to hospital had already had ECG and other test such as blood sats levels ect, before arrivng at A & E at the Royal. However I'm of the opinion that Burnley should have emergency faclities as well as Blackburn. I can't think that the decision to close the A & E at Burnley was made by medical people, which is the trouble with todays NHS, these decisions should be made on clincal need not at the behest of pen pushers or Governmen targets

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by cashman

well i would not be ashamed if new information came to light saying someone had died through this, if i had changed my mind, i would be DEVASTATED. but then i'm more fer people than figures.

So you're trying to say I am not for people, for life? Don't be so narrow minded, it could quite easily be the other way around, it could be that changing it back with all the money involved in the process will cost lives, this is why we need more information to decide.

You'd think I was against the idea of Burnley having an A&E back with the way you're carrying on! All I want to see is which option is saving the most lives and providing the best healthcare, rather than just guessing as you are.

My heart tells me we should have the service in Burnley and Blackburn. It would be irresponsible for me to go with my heart, without first at least looking at some valuable facts.

[jaysay]

I think here in Accy Area we are talking from a piont of security, the A & E is nearby, but would we be so possitive if the decision had been to site the A & E in Burnley in the first place, I have a Daughter and Grandchildren who live the other side of Colne when they are in this country, I hate to think that they would have to be taken to the Royal if someting was seriously wrong.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by andrewb

So you're trying to say I am not for people, for life? Don't be so narrow minded, it could quite easily be the other way around, it could be that changing it back with all the money involved in the process will cost lives, this is why we need more information to decide.

You'd think I was against the idea of Burnley having an A&E back with the way you're carrying on! All I want to see is which option is saving the most lives and providing the best healthcare, rather than just guessing as you are.

My heart tells me we should have the service in Burnley and Blackburn. It would be irresponsible for me to go with my heart, without first at least looking at some valuable facts.

its not me whos narrow minded,its you who is paranoid. could be or could not be is NOT good enough fer me its that simple, i need to be pretty certain it will not be to the detriment of people before i reconsider,if thats narrow minded in your mind,see a shrink.

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by jaysay

I can't think that the decision to close the A & E at Burnley was made by medical people, which is the trouble with todays NHS, these decisions should be made on clincal need not at the behest of pen pushers or Governmen targets

The woman who was in charge at the time cleared off down south to be nearer her parents just after the decision was made. Perhaps she should have moved her parents to the other side of Colne and we probably would have had a different decision

[blazey]

Which option saves more lives? If there are more casualties going to blackburn per year than burnley and only one can be efficiently funded then surely it is better to have one good service a bit further afield than two a&e's which might be nearer but would both face budget cuts and be less efficient.

I would imagine 2 badly equipped a&e's saves less lives than 1 well equipped service, but then I haven't seen the statistics. Blackburn has a helipad for very serious emergencies anyway, so distance shouldn't be too much of a problem should it if the ambulance isn't adequate. How long does it take an ambulance to get from burnley to blackburn at the top speed it is permitted allowing for traffic delays? Surely not that long? And paramedics are quite good at resuscitation too and things like that...

I don't feel the need to find problems with it before they have even occurred. It MIGHT put lives at risk, but there would have had to have been a risk assessment of some sort to see which option was the most risky.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by blazey

Which option saves more lives? If there are more casualties going to blackburn per year than burnley and only one can be efficiently funded then surely it is better to have one good service a bit further afield than two a&e's which might be nearer but would both face budget cuts and be less efficient.

I would imagine 2 badly equipped a&e's saves less lives than 1 well equipped service, but then I haven't seen the statistics. Blackburn has a helipad for very serious emergencies anyway, so distance shouldn't be too much of a problem should it if the ambulance isn't adequate. How long does it take an ambulance to get from burnley to blackburn at the top speed it is permitted allowing for traffic delays? Surely not that long? And paramedics are quite good at resuscitation too and things like that...

I don't feel the need to find problems with it before they have even occurred. It MIGHT put lives at risk, but there would have had to have been a risk assessment of some sort to see which option was the most risky.

Which option saves most lives, to me there shouldn't be an option, all lives should be saved, its to late when even one person loses their life because some pen pushing clown thinks its a good cost cutting idea to move all emergancy services to one hospital, it looks great in government statistics, but not very cleaver if your loved one loses their life because of it. One emergancy facility for around 300,000 people is not joined up thinking to me.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by jaysay

Which option saves most lives, to me there shouldn't be an option, all lives should be saved, its to late when even one person loses their life because some pen pushing clown thinks its a good cost cutting idea to move all emergancy services to one hospital, it looks great in government statistics, but not very cleaver if your loved one loses their life because of it. One emergancy facility for around 300,000 people is not joined up thinking to me.

agree entirely but then we aint students wi years of experience.

[blazey]

If we could save every life then I am sure we would, but the problem is that there just isn't the resources to do that.

If you want to be cared about, I recommend you get health insurance and get treated at bupa. Otherwise you best get used to being a statistic because that is all you're going to be to the NHS.

It's not called Individual Health Service, it's National, so you're going to have to share the bit of the budget that is allocated to you and stop being a wind bag.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by blazey

If we could save every life then I am sure we would, but the problem is that there just isn't the resources to do that.

If you want to be cared about, I recommend you get health insurance and get treated at bupa. Otherwise you best get used to being a statistic because that is all you're going to be to the NHS.

It's not called Individual Health Service, it's National, so you're going to have to share the bit of the budget that is allocated to you and stop being a wind bag.

thats just how much you know aint it? a good friend from Read was in BUPA fer many years, until he got cancer, then they didn't want him any more, a windbag dont know what they are on about i reckon.