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?

AAAAAAHHHHHH The J word.

-Maybe I should just crunch the cyanide now...trying so hard to give up the weed and it's not easy....but I am on week 6 (OK mea culpa a couple of blips)...but am after these 6 weeks 7 - 10 lbs heavier and I'm not surprised by this because last time I built up the willpower I put on over 2 stone which I lost through effort and resuming the weed. In my last medical my weight was good but of course was advised to give up smoking. ??So according to some of the posts above and some views I have heard I am not worthy of medical intervention because I am a smoker and/or am overweight (though only slightly at the moment ). OK I accept my fate but what next...

So when we get rid of my lot who next?

Dangerous sports?
Motorway drivers?
Town and city cyclists?
Heavy drinkers?
Drinkers who exceed 25 units?
Pedestrians who cross without benefit of zebra crossing?
People who travel to foreign parts where UK style health and safety is not the norm?
...and some who travel down snowy mountains.....
and those who have hereditary illness/weakness.....

I'm sure these thoughts are not new and a certain Mr H.... and others had a "good idea" about creating a race who would need very little medical intervention.

OP I am not seriously suggesting that you are suggesting genocide to create a superior race but just wanted to point out the slippery slope.

What you're really asking, is should people have to morally justify their own treatment?

Short answer, over my dead fucking body.

Yes, a doctor will sometimes take a decision over where resources are best used - giving a donor organ to a young, otherwise healthy recipient as opposed to someone older with more problems - but what the OP suggests is repugnant.

But Lemon some people do drive too fast or pay more attention to their radio channel than the road etc as 'repeated sustained self aware behaviour'. Think how many road accidents would be avoided if these people left an extra five minutes for their journey or drove 5mph slower etc. I just think its a slippery slope to try to factor blame or responsibility into the criteria for who gets NHS treatment or priority

Even if you stick to medical problems such as obesity and smoking related illnesses then the people affected could argue that some cases of diabetes or bowel conditions could have been avoided by better diet etc. I still think it would be unworkable.

I'm work some of the time on a hospital ward specializing in liver and kidney problems. Obviously quite a few of the liver patients have alcohol problems. It is so sad to see them come back again and again when the answer to their problems seems in some ways so simple, stop drinking. But obviously it is not that simple or we would not have women in their 30s with children drinking themselves to death.
If we are not to treat these people what do we do with them? Do you include treatments and help to stop drinking in with not treating these people?
On the question of organ transplants, I am not involved with the decision to put someone on the transplant waiting list, but I believe they do not put patients on the list for a new liver if they are still drinking. I don't know how long they have to stop for.

Thanks for clearing that up about organ donation, rambling. I agree that it would be a pretty crap thing if we were just to treat 'well' people.

There is a full moon at 8.40am tommorow morning - this could explain the ignorant pillocks on AIBU today.

OP I take it that the NHS shouldn't fund fertility treatment because that is a choice?

Journalist. I say no more.

RamblingMum

Didn't George Best drink and his liver failed; he was given a transplant and continued to drink alcohol?

Why don't we just burn obese people and use the energy to heat swimming pools and saunas and other stuff...?
Sorry, find it hard to take your premise seriously. Can't think why that might be...

I find it really sad when you 'meet' someone on another thread, think they seem nice, chat a bit, then you read their nasty views on another thread and actually feel grateful you don't live close enough to them to meet up for a coffee (not the OP by the way) :(

Yes Rule. Geordie Best buggered up his own liver with booze, got another in a transplant, went back on the sauce (booze) and f*ed up that liver too. The 2nd liver should have gone to someone teetotal and who was willing to respect the fact someone had to die to give them a 2nd shot at life.

AFAIK, alcoholics needing a liver transplant have to be teetotal for at least 6 months before being considered for one. Not sure whether that's just over here in NI or all over the UK though.

My DMIL died last year because the NHS wouldn't give her a kidney while she was obese and a heavy smoker. (Even if the kidney was donated by family.) This breaks my heart but she didn't want to quit because she was so ill (with kidney disease and associated strokes) that she saw smoking as just a little pleasure she could still have. She couldn't exercise with her condition and didn't stick to diets because her day to day life was miserable due to the constant dialysis and being housebound and it made her feel better to have a fry up. She knew she would die of her condition and in effect she made the decision to die earlier than she might have done had she had a kidney transplant.

Much as I can't bear it I think the NHS were right to insist on lifestyle changes before they would give the transplant, and so did she. She was just so ill and tired of life that she didn't care enough about the transplant to want to make the changes.

Perhaps getting vouchers that could only be spent on fresh food instead of some benefits would be a good idea - seeing fat mums and dads pushing buggies carrying larger while smoking a fag and moaning that they cant afford to feed their kids makes me really really cross. If I smoked my kids would have to go without so I don't full stop.

i agree chipping (unless you were talking about me obv) you see some posters and think they are nice and then you click on a thread like this...shows the true colours of some

Absolutely no need for the pedantry from PP's, seriously it only serves to make you look like pompous twats and does not contribute to what could be a valid discussion.

OP it's not as black and white as you outline, both smoking and over-eating are addictions. I agree that both could be handled better by the NHS. What I don't believe is appreciated enough in the UK is how lucky we are to have the NHS at all. Interestingly, in countries where people pay medical insurance to cover treatment, an insurance company would be able to refuse to insure someone if they had an ongoing medical problem (e.g.lung disease) and continued to smoke. Then the smoker wouldn't get treatment.

I don't want to see that happen in this country, just for people to value what we have a little morem

why fat people and smokers above say..... drug addicts ? Where would you draw the line and who decides which lifestyles are acceptable enough for nhs treatment?

What about people who do extreme sports and broken bones

Yabu - denying nhs treatment based on a moral standard which judges you based on your lifestyle being acceptable to a certain portion of society is ridiculous and well unreasonable.

it is not illegal to buy or smoke cigarettes unkike other drugs and the people who take hard drugs get treatment so question answered.

It's a very slippery slope to start deciding which groups can and can't have treatment.... Fat people, smokers, drinkers, old people.... where do you draw the line....

Fat people (and any other group) might well be denied treatment if the risks posed by the anaesthesia were deemed to be too great,

YABU

would that be the cigarettes which the government makes a fortune from?

hmm...don't think you really thought this through very well

Al0uise - 1800 kcals is not high for a woman of my height & activity level. My BMR is about 1870 kcal per day. I need those calories to lift!

Agree with BikeRunSki - if I'm lifting in the gym & get injured by dropping a bar on myself or whatnot, can I be refused treatment for picking up heavy things?

Even if I was picking up those heavy things to make myself healthier?

Where do we draw the line?

According to Sir Humphrey

"Cigarette taxes pay for a third of the cost of the NHS. We are saving many more lives than with otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntarily lay down their lives for their friends. Smokers are national benefactors."

(this one is for people old enough to remember Yes Minister).