To think we shouldn't be funding this on the NHS?

A friends dad died from lung cancer and it was blamed on second hand smoke. Selfish smokers don’t care about how their choice affects others.

I'm overweight. So does that mean I won't get treated for anything that overweightness might affect? Cause I might hurt my knee playing tennis could be due to being overweight and there was more mass or could be just because I played the ball in a weird angle. Who decided this? Will we go through the courts system if I disagree? Do I get karma points for working in the NHS or is that irrelevant? If I have a hart attack will they treat me and then determine if it was self inflected or not and send me the bill or will they just look at me and decide that fatty doenst deserve to live and leave me at thw carpark? If at the coroners they determine it was infact congenital?

Look, I get it. It is darm frustrating to see people with lung cancer go out to smoke. It is annoying that people jump off buildings and then complain when they break an arm. It is damn annoying that people get very expensive assisting aids and won't use them. There are already rules in place who will get treated. But we can't have "self inflected" as a general.guideline.

Yes, my fil.
Died from lung cancer in 2020.
He'd never smoked in his life.

lol. OP exhibiting the simplistic thinking of the self righteous. You contributed 80k tax last year you say - yeah, sorry, that doesn’t go to the NHS. That goes to defence, schools, councils, and so on. Some of it may well have ended up in the DOH, but can’t guarantee it’ll have contributed to your / anyone else’s healthcare directly.

Anyway, sounds like the OP would like there to be an arbiter of what is or is not self inflicted. Some kind of…death panel!

As the chairman, I’m afraid I’ve deemed that your embolisms were the product of lifestyle choices and you’ll need to pay, OP. There shall be no appeals.

I assume the OP lives an incredibly pure, clean life and will therefore never be affected by anything that could possibly have a lifestyle cause or partial cause?

Yes of course we have to look after people coughing their lungs up because of smoking. The alternative is to let them die a painful death (and some of them will anyway). We're a civilised society and we look after our ill. Just as we look after those who fall ill or have accidents in Britain while visiting from abroad.

Such ignorance. Trauma and poor mental health are often the reasons WHY people turn to substances to help them cope - be it food, alcohol or drugs. It is a complex issue, it can’t be reduced down to ‘it’s self inflicted’. Was the poverty and childhood abuse self inflicted also? Where do you draw the line?

Football is the most dangerous sport in terms of numbers of injuries. Banned.

Horse riding in terms of serious accidents to hour of participation. Banned.

Any line you draw would be completely arbitrary meaning you would spend more than you save fighting appeals and legal challenges.

YABVU. We may all have our preferences but we cannot play god. For example I would rather the NHS treat a good person who was a smoker their whole life than a non smoking paedophile who has ruined peoples lives. But that is not my decision to make. What you’re basically saying is smokers deserve to die and I think there are people much more deserving but that’s not how it does or should work.

There's another life with no decision making in this example so it's just a ridiculous comparison.

If you have children do you agree that they should be left to die should anything in these categories happen to them at any point, or do you think the rule should only apply to people you don’t care about?

Anyone who works contributes to the NHS so it should be available to them. I did not use it for years but now I’m getting older I have eg I broke my ankle and if they hadn’t have sorted it out I’d need to use the NHS even more! Smoking is a hard one as no one knew the dangers or the addictive nature of it years gone by (I don’t smoke). I do feel a generational change as I don’t see many young children smoking like I used to.

we are lucky to live in a country where healthcare is free. The alternative is to go private!

Yabu

Where would it stop?
Many issues could be considered self inflicted to some extent.

Are you deliberately being goady, if you paid 80k in tax you can afford to go private and have your own room but guess you'd have nothing or no one to watch and moan about.

Not as disgusting as your post/views.

Dear God.... hopefully the OP is in the minority... I'm fat and a smoker, also a high-ish earner with private medical... tell you what, I'll stop paying in... not having a good enough job to afford private medical is self inflicted !!!!! I'm sure there are countries OP could move to that actually work that way and leave ill people to suffer. Fuck me!!!!!

@taxguru Hard decisions have to be made IF we want to keep the NHS

Detail how you would make these hard decisions. Does soccer stay or go? It’s a re relational choice that has risk. Should it be banned in the event the NHS must be used? What about driving? Some driving is okay but what about the person who drives to work risking an accident instead of walking, when the walk would take them 15mins? Or someone who drives 5mins to shops instead of walking 20mins and making a few trips a week, because walking is healthy right! Where exactly are you going to draw all of these lines for your hard decisions?

Or is it, only very wealthy people who can self-fund are going to be allowed to play soccer, or have the luxury of driving 5 mins to work/shops instead of a 15/20 min walk?

How are you going to work all of this given you're adamant that hard decisions must be made?

YABU. Many start smoking very young - around 12 - succumbing to pressure and coercion from peers. Many were given cigarettes by older teens or irresponsible adults so therefore not in a position to make a fully informed decision about risks and consequences. Now they have a physical addiction and can't just stop. So, no, I don't think its ethical to deny them care and compassion later on when their health suffers because of it.

Fully in support of NHS funded smoking secession services although this doesn't work for some and might be too late for others.

Shall we examine your lifestyle choices and decide if you are worthy of treatment?

Well put.

How many sexual partners should we be allowed to have then OP, before we're not allowed to have any NHS treatment for STIs?
You know both underweight and overweight is related to mental health in many cases, right?
You know you can get lung cancer, COPD and many other lung conditions having never had a cigarette in your life, right?
Also do you expect people to carry on paying into a service, if they are going to be forbidden to use it?
What about people who don't pay into it? Should they still be allowed to have treatment.
The best way is to increase NHS funding and reduce poorer lifestyle choice is to heavily tax ultra processed foods, alcohol, vapes and cigarettes (which are already heavily taxed, and therefore smokers are already contributing extra into coffers (where the gov. Depends to mis spend the monies raised is a whole different discussion).
I know this always goes down like a shit in the proverbial punch bowl, but also think drugs should be available from pharmacies and heavily taxed. It would wipe out, or at least significantly reduce, the criminal element, it would be properly controlled so the purchase would know it's 'safe', and it would help funding towards addiction services. Let's face it you can pretty much smell skunk daily walking down your average 'high'street!

What if someone suggested that your blood clots could of been avoided OP?

So the paramedics at the site of an RTA would be expected to judge how "responsibly" someone was driving before they administer any treatment?

Most people don't choose to be obese, or alcoholics, or smokers- of course we should treat all who need, its the basic ethos of the NHS. of course ideally we would provide a complete circle of treatment not only for the presenting illness/injury but for the root cause in the situations you describe thus hopefully reducing the need for further treatment but the NHS is essentially a patch up and send home service.

I have also been on respiratory wards with mostly smokers and you can certainly tell, I hate it, it stinks, everything about it is gross but all we can do is continue to help people give it up when they are ready. We cannot withhold basic medical care.

The government has allowed cigarettes to be sold, they have taken the tax from them, so YABU to suggest that people shouldn’t be treated for illnesses caused by them. Even if people were doing it illegally, in a civilised society, we shouldn’t refuse to treat people who need it.

I hate smoking, wish people didn’t do it and it’s shit that money has to be spent on things that could have been prevented, but it’s a horrible suggestion to refuse to treat people who need help or make them pay extra, even if the issue is self inflicted.

You don't hate them, you just think you're better than them!

Sorry, but I spent a number of years living somewhere with no NHS. You would think it would make a difference, but it really doesn't. People still do the same things, they just don't go to the doctor's because they have to pay for it. It's not that people think 'oh, the NHS will look after me', people think it won't happen to them.

Most places without an NHS system don't have populations living vastly healthier lives because they know they will have to pay. They just don't seek medical care until it's absolutely unavoidable. It's a peculiar thing, they'll spend any amount of money on doing the unhealthy thing, but baulk at £60 to see the doctor.

In fact, in many places without any or much form of national healthcare, there is a much lower level of education around health. When health is an industry, it's not in the industry's interest to offer education about making healthy choices which might mean you don't need to buy their products.