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?

I think that it is reasonable to refuse treatment for certain conditions due to lifestyle. I would resent a smoker having a lung transplant whne there are people dying from lung complaints who have not destroyed their own, an alcohol getting a liver transplant, even an overweight person getting a knee replacement. To refuse to treat someone regardless of the ailment would be ridiculous.

What about alcoholics? Drug users? People who play dangerous sports? Motorcyclists?

If a very unhappy 13 year old (say they have been raped / abused) takes a couple of bottles of paracetamol would you deny him / her a transplant because the liver condition was self inflicted?

Should we fund IVF on the NHS? Just on a pure cost basis if a baby is born it is going to cost the NHS more money just by being there.

Debsbear

I'm fat, in the future I will need knew knees, hips and possibly an elbow replacing. If they could replace vertebrae I'd be needing those too alond with rists and fingers.

I will admit the fat doesn't help my joints but it has not caused the problem either. I was diagnosed at 26 with psioritic arthritis.

When you literally cannot get out of bed until 4pm until you have had all your painkillers, antiinflamatories and sometimes the painkillers have been morphoine salts, you cannot suddenly jump up and start chopping carrots. What you can do is phone the pizza / indian / chinese /kebab delivery.

You can't exercise so you will not burn off those extra calories.

Why will noone deliver a chicken salad with a glass of orange juice?

YABU - If it wasn't for smokers paying exorbitant tax, drinkers paying exorbitant tax, and fat people and the smokers and drinkers early death, this Country would grind to a halt.

There would be no money to spend on healthcare for everyone else, and hospitals would be full of 100 yr old dementia patients.

We are doing you all a favour, you should be thanking us.

But if you are going to refuse us treatment, then you should also:

Stop pre-natal and anti natal care for those bitches selfish enough to want children
IVF treatment for those selfish bitches wanting children
Vasecomy's - they can just stop having sex
Car crash victims, they chose to drive and/or cross the road....

Shall I continue?

Is it the same for alcoholics and self harmers?

Also, don't you want to know how spell? Or are you expecting us to do it for you when you put (sp?) ?!!

Oh god, sashh, I hear you! It drives me nuts that freezer meals seem to be just meat with starch. Maybe that's what freezes OK, but it doesn't half ruin your diet when you can't prepare veg for long periods.

Even buying pre-chopped doesn't solve the problem of actually cooking the buggers: it never occurs to you how many tasks are involved in that till you can't do some of them. And diet of cold raw carrots palls quite fast in winter - and that's from someone who adores salad and dips.

yes

we should treat everyone, regardless of them being fat, alcohol, nicotine or drug addicted.

it says something about society when we start even discussing the idea that we wont.

YABU.

I know a lady whose just had her third child, she was advised not to have anymore children before she got pregnant as there were significant (fatal) risks to her and the baby, she went ahead anyway. She also tried to insist on a natural birth which she couldn't manage physically (she had a caeserian in the end). She is suffering from various complications still and the child is 5months.

The risks are even greater now, but she's planning another one, against all advice, and risks leaving the three she has with no mum.

Should she get treatment?

So not treating her would increase the risk of leaving the existing three with no mum?

I might not agree with her personal decision, but I don't see how withdrawing treatment helps. To channel the purely mercenary, it will cost the taxpayer more if she dies than if she doesn't.

Serial Kipper

That's the point. I don't agree with withdrawing treatment to anyone!

i notice you left of alcoholics? in fact whist we are denying treatment why not stop there? the old, disabled, foreigners..? i believe all should be treated, however, if that person AFTER treatment, continues to abuse, then obviously the treatment is not working, and should stop,or take a different path, ie treating the cause not the symptom, until a time when the patient can prove they are capable of making changes themselves.

Smokers yes, fat people no.

I say this because I have never been a smoker but I have always been a bit fat.

I vote we don't treat people who
smoke
drink
eat
after all, they choose to do these things
we could add people who
do sport
have sex
get pregnant
crash their cars
use public transport

and in case I've forgotten anyone
those who
don't work
receive benefits
oh and
immigrants
there you go, I've just saved the NHS millions

no,because they pay as much tax,no,more tax,than everyone else.

Steroids cause significant weight gain.
I have a condition that makes me store fat, excessively and unusually, it has nothing to do with overeating, I'm a bit overweight at the moment from giving up smoking last year, but even at a size 12 I am fat, in parts! Strange, but true. Point is, you are judging without knowing the facts. You don't know if the fat person on the street is on medication for another condition. My aunt is currently 14 stone, quite a lot at only 5'1". However, once this particularly bad bout of Crohns is over, she'll be off the meds and back down to a reasonable 91/2 stone.

No. Next!

Zombie thread...

I'll never understand this if I live to be 300. Are people too stupid to start their own threads? Surely easier than trawling the archives looking for a bloody zombie one to bump?

This is actually happening already. Some of the GP commissioners in Hertfordshire have said that patients will not be listed for routine surgery if they are very overweight or smokers, until they have either list weight or seen a stop smoking counsellor. The reason given is risk of anaesthesia.

Life is risky, everything we do takes us a step closer to death.

The problem with all suggestions like this is drawing lines and policing them. What about passive smoking? Do you penalise a whole family if one smokes? Pollution? How do you weight the balance of it's healthy to run but is running alongside a busy road in the fumes good or bad? (I remember once walking alongside a busy road in the rush hour with DS in a pushchair and being very aware of traffic fumes.

Extremes of everything are bad and the NHS already recognises that and many health decisions are deferred but that has to be done on an individual case by case basis. To suggest picking on a couple of groups of people as a whole is bigoted and ill-informed.

I agree, there's already plenty of restrictions/considerations in place. For example, people who want a gastric band often have to show their commitment by losing a certain amount of weight beforehand.

We were told our best chance of successful conception was via IVF. My BMI at the time was 30 (a combination of factors have resulted in this). I was told rather bluntly to come back when my BMI was under 30. I understand why - evidence suggests that IVF is just a successful in obese women but the risk of pregnancy related problems and miscarriage are increased. Why not ask me to get my weight into a healthier weight range to improve the chances of the treatment being successful?
I cried for the afternoon when I was told but got straight out and started increasing my exercise and losing weight: I lost about 10lb in three weeks and got pregnant naturally! That's just one example.

But yes, everyone is entitled to treatment. Where the risks could be reduced by lifestyle changes where appropriate, yes, I think that's justified. But it's very complex. Fwiw I was offered a referral to a dietitian in July to advise me on how I could lose weight. I never got an appointment!

Yes, they should be left to rot.

Btw, am very much liking the spelling 'anersetic'.

Peace an love, y'all.

Why not consider banning the following from free healthcare while you're at it -
People who -

• do dangerous sports
• ride horses
• drive too fast
• drink too much
• have stressful jobs/lives
• ride bicycles or motorbikes
• take illicit drugs
• cross the road without using a pedestrian crossing
• don't eat their 5 a day

FFS