Lifestyle Choices impacting on the NHS -Boiling my piss!!!!

Do you include people crossing the road, going downstairs or slicing vegetables as those taking risks?

So no one should do any sports, or take any transport that carries a risk? But then lack of activity is also bad for us and would have an impact on the NHS. The injuries you describe sound like generally healthy people just living their lives. Not something to criticise.

How often did she get a whole child-free weekend day by herself?

What I said may not apply to their situation, but it applies to many, many others.

How many women with small children spend whole days cycling?

And also if caring for small children is so easy, why didn't he take them along cycling with him? He'd hardly have noticed them, right? Piece of cake.

If that is the case it is poorly done. But the fact DH was hurt playing football did give me pause.

OP has made a similar comment on a recent NHS thread

My FIL was still cycling the Surrey Hills in his late 80s and cost the NHS next to nothing. He worked hard all his life supporting a family and was more than entitled to a bit of cycling each weekend. MIL was more than capable of “wrangling” children as they were healthily not joined at the hip, she had her own interests and caring for children isn’t hard.

Oh my God, every day we have these posts about what should or shouldn't be treated on the NHS, what's people's responsibility, what's self-inflicted...do people even think about this for more than a second?

How? HOW would this be administered? Are you going to a percentage calculation of responsibility for every single injury and illness people turn up at the hospital with? I would wager you could make an argument that 99.9% of health problems have been to at least some small degree either caused or exacerbated by the person's "lifestyle" because being alive entails risk.

Its either free at point of use or its not. Which doesn't mean we treat everything in everyone - my aunt has a plethora of lifestyle diseases and at the moment she's being denied an orthopedic operation, not because she doesn't deserve it, but because her diabetes is so wildly uncontrolled that the risk of surgery outweighs the potential benefit. But the deserving/undeserving thing is an absolute and total dead end.

I have a friend who’s a doctor. I once asked her if she judges. She said no, she doesn’t. She doesn’t see a chronic smoker as any different from someone who’s having children. It’s all lifestyle choices.

So why is your husband in the NHS ward, it was his choice to play 5 a side

Completely incorrect. Obesity and all the big diseases that go with it is are crippling the NHS and the biggest cost burdens hence the NHS funding of weight loss jabs.

Somebody fit and cycling is going to cost the NHS significantly less over a lifetime.

The trouble with trying to limit treatment based on the extent to which the patient could have avoided arriving at their predicament is that it would require medical staff to make that judgement on the ground. They're presented with a snapshot, rather than having all the info they would need. Some situations are complex.

YANBU, OP.

And as for these people "living life to the full" and being the "best of us", quite a few of them are no doubt children- and family-avoidant twats who have taken up time-consuming or all-day hobbies to escape the demands of family life and the drudgery of domestic chores. While they're living their best life cycling in the Surrey Hills or going out to the pub with their football mates, many will have spouses or partners at home wrangling small children, and the closest they'll come to living their best life is a glass of wine or bar of chocolate when the kids are finally asleep.

Exactly. Imagine penalising people who are fit and active!

We're back to the lockdown message of "Sit on the sofa eating banana bread to do your bit for the NHS!"

Where would you stop on assessing lifestyle injuries? The list would be endless.

Cyclists live longer, healthier lives and are less likely to get dementia. Cycling instead of driving saves governments heaps of money in the long run.

The question could be this - would people do these things if they were told they would have to pay for any treatment required? I suspect that people who do sport would carry on- it’s good for mental well being and health. Drinking to excess and stuffing your face until you are obese and get diabetes and need lifelong medication however maybe not, these people might think again.

YABU OP.

You've not mentioned obesity, which is the much more costly lifestyle-related issue. If people need to take responsibility for what they subject their body to, that will need to be included.

This is actually a myth. The tax paid by "drinkers and smokers" funds the NHS which far outweighs their use. Morbidly obses tend to die young so also not expensive.

Well that went well OP, hasnt it 😂

“Boiling my piss” What a vulgar and unnecessary statement. YAB(dramatically)U.

Don't be silly OP.

Lifestyle choices are only considered a burden on thr NHS if you're an unattractive fat person or a stinky smoker or alcoholic.

Choosing other risky lifestyles is totally fine and never a burden on the NHS! Especially sports! Because they're cool, you see!

No, but it has caused an injury which is now going to use up the very same stretched NHS resources OP is complaining about. You have to admit there's a certain irony in that.

Oh the irony.

Yes, they "chose" to have a car and drive, so according to OP'S way of thinking it's their own fault!

Agree, but now imagine that idiot who sped over a stop junction driving straight into the side of your body instead. The problem with motor bikes is that there is absolutely no protection. Cars are dangerous (I had a conversation about risky transport with my dd who is scared of flying the other day). But when you come off a bike, injuries tend to be far worse.

Erm... Remind us again why DH is in there? 😂