To think that if you need very expensive medical treatment due to a self inflicticted cause, the NHS should still pay?

[BoobleBeep]

I have been wondering about this.

If someone smokes 40 a day, drinks extremely heavily or is morbidley obese and has been given all the treatment available on the NHS to try and help them with their condition but still continues to smoke/drink/eat and as a rsult needs expensive surgery should the NHS pay?

"So if you can prove that you need supervision for example, because you are falling over drunk a lot and so at risk of falling into traffic, etc, then the fact that this is because of alcoholism makes no difference to entitlement."

It does now and has done for a while. The DLA form asks you to only state the symptoms not conected to drink or non-prescribed drugs. You can get DLA for the impact that the effects of addiction has on your life ie a transplant, but not because you are an addict, this is a common mis-conception.

Interestingly enough, the majority of cases of cirrhosis of the liver is through paracetamol, including the over use in childhood. As many threads on here show parents refuse to follow the guidelines and dose their children up and teach their children that the use of paracetamol is something not to be worried about.

I also had a friend die of alcoholism, started to ease the pain he was in after an industrial accident. The doctor told me that the result would of been the same, liver faluire, if they had of given him adequete pain relief.

Years ago he would have died, but they pinned him back together, instead of letting him and this is adding to the numbers of people needing transplants, the effect of prescribed medication is often ignored by the general public when making these judgements, which would be a nightmare for an ethics commitee to decide.

yes - YABU sorry - most things are self inflicted ... pregnancy and birth (fairly expensive) accidents caused by choosing to drive, skiing, wearing high heels, DIY etc etc - where do you draw the line?

I smoke 30 a day thanks very much, and I already pay in excess of non smokers towards the NHS, I more than pay for any treatment I need as the government takes 75% tax on a packet of fags/tobacco.

So I pay for my cancer treatment when I will need it in 20 odd years thanks very much.

The majority of cirrhosis cases are NOT due to paracetamol. Overdose of paracetamol, whether acute or chronic, causes acute liver failure. Cirrhosis is due to long-term scarring, due to things like alcoholic liver disease, non-alcoholic liver disease often associated with obesity, Hepatitis C, auto-immune hepatitis etc.

I wasn't counting medical conditions that in no way can be counted as self inflicted, i was only considering the use of any substances, legal or not. You don't have to drink to excess to cause damage. I wasn't just considering the UK, which is valid as we now have such a movement of people.

You could count Hepatitis and some auto-immune conditions as self inflicted.

My point was that the list would be endless, not just the one's that you can see or that the general public are more aware of.

I was mearly pointing out (as i did in my first post) that what the OP is suggesting is unworkable, from an ethics POV.

Your post doesn't even make sense!

"I wasn't counting medical conditions that in no way can be counted as self inflicted, i was only considering the use of any substances, legal or not. You don't have to drink to excess to cause damage. I wasn't just considering the UK, which is valid as we now have such a movement of people."

"You could count Hepatitis and some auto-immune conditions as self inflicted."

By what stretch of the imagination can you say that auto-immune diseases can be self-inflicted?!

You don't need to drink to excess to cause alcoholic liver disease, but drinking any alcohol can cause it in susceptible people.

Hepatitis C can be due to sex with the 'wrong' person, taking IV drugs with contaminated works, or by having a blood transfusion/blood products before 1991. All self-inflicted, eh?

I'm glad to hear that my auto-immune disease is self-inflicted. As nobody is very clear on what actually causes Lupus, I'm thrilled to hear that it could be my own fault .

I'm also interested in how the NHS could charge the parents of children with genetic diseases. If a couple has genetic counselling and know that they have a 50% chance of having a child with a disease, but they choose to go ahead and have a baby anyway - would that also be self-inflicted? Would the parents bear the medical costs until the child reached adulthood, at which point the NHS would take over as the disease isn't the (now adult) child's fault?

A disease caught by not practising safe sex could be classed as self inflicted.

This thread is about stopping healthcare towards 'self inflicted' conditions, there is an endless list of conditions that could be counted as 'self inflicted', my point was the NHS has to be free for all. Otherwise the OP would probably find herself and members of her family paying or going without.

I am on medication, i voluntary have as part of my bloods a liver test, i find that making big lifestyle changes has helped my condition and my overall health. I wouldn't come under the OP definition on the face of it, but in reality i would, if analysed.

I don't see why your choosing to argue with me, as we seem to agree

Pip- x post my contition is Lupus, also. Alot of my family (native American) have it, my point was should they now pay because they have chosen to have children (although there aren't many of us living in the UK, so do pay).

I think the family point is very interesting.
I've heard a lot of discussion recently around the fact that the lifestyle choices made by an individual may manifest themselves as health problems not just in the individual, but their children and their grandchildren as the lifestyles choices change the way the baby develops in the womb.

So if I am obese and have to pay the NHS, could I recoup my costs by suing my parents or grandparents for causing the problem in the first place?

That's the point though, where would the finger pointing end?

I wasn't given a chest xray and developed pheumonia, i lived through it but was very ill because of my Lupus, how would i work out what i could blame the NHS for, or my GP's?

Could i even sue the US government? they shouldn't have colonised the US to start with and made my condition (by the introduction of European genetics) more complex.

Well good for you Birds
Have you thought that not everybody is in the position in which you have found yourself, eg. not able to make those lifestyle changes.
Perhaps you would care to discuss it with those with severe mental health problems, or those who care for them. For heaven's sake, some people self medicate, it's not a lifestyle choice, it's a getting them through the day without killing themselves or somebody else. They often don't understand that the booze, fags whatever are a form of self medication, just that it helps in the short term at least, to make them feel better.
If you're going to be judgemental then think it through, fully, first.

Dawn- i haven't been judgemental, i am arguing for free health care for everyone

My stating that i have made lifestyle choices is ponting out that on the face of it, i could be seen as 'blameless' because i have a genetic condition, but if scrutinised, i would not be, under the OP's definition.

I think that my posts are being taken out of context, i have posted from the begining that you cannot put judgement on any statutory services.

Read my post about my friend who died through self medication, i have worked in the MH field, my points show that i am against the OP's opinion and have told her to uise her supervision process, as she sounds as though she is suffering from 'burn out'.

DAWN-

"This thread is about stopping healthcare towards 'self inflicted' conditions, there is an endless list of conditions that could be counted as 'self inflicted', my point was the NHS has to be free for all. Otherwise the OP would probably find herself and members of her family paying or going without.

I am on medication, i voluntary have as part of my bloods a liver test, i find that making big lifestyle changes has helped my condition and my overall health. I wouldn't come under the OP definition on the face of it, but in reality i would, if analysed."

Reread and do point out the judgement, because you won't find any, you have just reacted to what you think that you have read.

It really isn't all that simple. Many physical problems are caused by mental health issues, depression, anorexia, bulimia and many addictions. Who are we to say one problem is more 'worthy' that another? Let's not stigmatise mental health issues more than they are already.

My gut feeling says yes, the first time. So e.g. - you drink until your liver is shot, you get a transplant on the NHS and are told to look after it - if you need a second transplant through continuing to drink, you go to the bottom of the list.

You have a hernia through stupid activity - get it repaired on the NHS - continue to do similar stupid activity, more hernias - you pay for them to be repaired.

You have a gastric band on the NHS - you eat until you burst your stomach, have your stomach repaired on the NHS - no more gastric band on the NHS.

But even that gets tricky and it does become impossible to know where to draw the line, so in the end you have to say "yes, we treat anybody, regardless of how self-inflicted or not their condition is".

but surely judgements and rationing go on all the time? staff and resources go to popular ailments, not to unpopular ones.

Children's cancer? top of the list

Geriatric care? bottom of the list.

Which gets more attention - breast cancer or prostate cancer?

Birds
Apologies, you are right, I should re-read before typing and slow down before posting.

Yes they should.

Just like if my brother goes out on his fishing boat and gets into difficulty, then he should be saved. Just like my friend should receive free treatment if they injure themselves after running a marathon.

Or should only people who sit safely in a chair all their lives be treated for free? And even then, well, the lack of exercise could result in self inflicted health problems couldn't it?

If you smoke and drink lots and are morbidly obese you will cost the NHS a lot at age 50-60 but you won't be languishing in the geriatric ward costing lots at age 90 because you will be long since gone ( and all your pension ssaved too)

What about if you are obese because the government made you pay for the banking crisis by sacking you from your public sector job? And they have cut all other services, and you now live in poverty and the stress of it made you overeat to compensate?

Who has to pay then, you, the banks, the food company or the government?

"My gut feeling says yes, the first time."

So, one suicide attempt - saved. Second suicide attempt - hard luck?

if they start refusing treatment for self inflicted illnesses they may aswell start turning away stuff like sports injuries and the likes.

people love to say crap like obesity osts nhs this and smoking costs them that. but you could do that with every single thing.

YABU. It's a tired old simplistic idea that can't ever work in a decent society.

So if we don't treat self-inflicted conditions that includes things such as broken bones from sport, skin cancer from sun exposure etc. We'd all then need insurance to cover us to go outside in summer, play sport and so forth. And the haves would be able to pay, the have-nots wouldn't and the gap in society would widen.
Sport is good for some forms of depression so balance the injuries against the cost of medication. We need to get out in the sun to stay healthy. We'd need additional insurance cover to drive - can you imagine the costs?

Then you get into a situation where people with a chance of having a child with a health problem have to factor in the financial cost of that child rather than the welfare. We'd end up going down the route of eugenics.....

latrucha's post just shows that we are not here to make judgements on peoples choices..we do not know what past experiences make them make these choices