Should smokers and fat people be denied treatment on the NHS unless they make radical changes to their lifestyle?

[Mrbojangles1]

My objection is not that people smoke or are fat people should do whatever makes them happy as long as they are legal and not inflicting their bad habits on children.

My thing is if these people are not refused treatment and they continue to smoke or over eat their medical condition is very likey to come back or counting thus treating a condition with out change is a waste of money.

Also my oh who works for nhs tells me giving somone who is fat anersetic (sp) is very dangerous the amount to knock them out can often be lethal

Also I think we should be helping people take ownership of their own health

Personally I wouldnt want some one who wouldn't commit to stop somking to have a new heart.

What do you all think
Ps this is not about the wrongs or rights of somking or being aft but about should we expect people to commit to change in order to take up the precious time of surgeons, nurses, doctors and Nhs staff?

No.

And YABU because you have not asked an AIBU question.

That's for that in depth answer trills

Well...........smokers do pay a lot of tax.

When I smoked I paid a fortune,. plus the wine.........I am always surprised that given the amount of tax I have paid they don't usher me straight through to the catgirl wing whenever I am ill.

there are many complicated reasons why people fail to either stop smoking or to lose weight

smoking is a physical addiction and increddibly hard to give up

weight is very often linked to emotional eating -people can't just decide one day to lose weight and do it sucessfully and keep it off long term

how long do you make someone who is a smoker stay off the dirty weed before they can have a heart? because if you are talking months then if they have made it to the transplant waiting list then they probably don't have months left

YABU

but......
if the NHS invested more in helping overweight people etc resolve their issues behind the physical then they would probably save money in the long run

you sound like a lovely caring member of the human race

I don't really think it's OK to refuse standard treatment to anyone, regardless of lifestyle.

However, I agree that I would be less happy about donating my liver to a healthy doing-everything-they-can-to-live person than I would be donating it to an alcoholic, however long they'd been on the waiting list.

Would you stop all medical treatment for fat/smokers or just the illnesses that could be proved were preventable by losing weight/giving up smoking?
Only I'm thinking, you could have a chest infection, that could be because of smoking, but may not be and how would you police this?
And what about people who engage in certain sporting activities and therefore are at more risk of injury? Or anything else for that matter - travel and get malaria - is that their own fault? I don't think it's workable.

Kill 'em all.

There is a big difference between:

1 - sometimes people must change their lifestyle in order for treatment to be safe and effective (your OH's comment on obesity and anaesthesia - sometimes people need to lose weight before surgery because otherwise the surgery would be unsafe)

2 - we should deny people treatment (even if it would be safe/effective) if we disapprove of their lifestyle choices (not giving a heart to a smoker)

No but I do think people who eat themselves bedbound for no other reason than greed shouldn't get their needs ( bed/chairs/carers) met by the tax payer as it is just facilitating.

Lucky for you that you don't have any fatty or smoker close family. What if your mum was fat and needed an operation because of something that was 100% to do with her being fat? She would just die. Health affects more people than just the person directly affected, if that makes sense.

I think it woudo be fair enough to deny organ transplants to people who are deliberately harming their health, because the waiting list is so long and people die while they are on it.

But it would be wrong to deny them other treatments, especially as smokers pay so much tax.

Methe

do you honestly believe that people eat to the point of being bedbound because they are lazy???

No I think it's only right that if the illness is preventable by loosing weight then they should do so.

Also if their is more risk of the person passing away due to the anaesthetic then their would be if they didn't have the op at all due to their weight

I think in the uk the donation of organs is very low as it is I really think people who are willing to give up drink or somking should really be given more piorty than those who won't make a change

Because then it becomes how many transplants can they have with out making a change ?

Fiendishlie uncalled for

No, because they are greedy.

WTF are those people that are posting so many judgemental and inhuman views at the moment?
There are so many posts like this that I CBA replying anymore.
Is there a nice thread going on about kittens anywhere?

Trills I did say I didn't want to get into weather people should be fat in the first place

But weather people who are not prepared to maked changes should get treatment above people who will when resources are tight

Weather people should be fat, too many skinny people doing the weather these days

Methe this is not a hate fat people thread

ok then

Methe

do you honestly believe that people eat to the point of being bedbound because they are greedy???

Yes, it is, Mrbojangles1, clearly it is.
You are perfect I take it?

I agree with fiendishlie. And how does this loosing weight thing work? Do you, you know, work it loose? Does it somehow become loose? Was it not very tight to begin with?

And have a for - err - everything.

Here you go Lady