To think we shouldn't be funding this on the NHS?

[AgileJadeDog]

I recently had my first stay in hospital due to a respiratory issue and I kid you not, every other person in the bay smoked+had a smoking related disease.

I have no idea if this is typical in other specialties/hospitals but it really hit me how much gets spent on completely self inflicted stuff. AIBU to think we shouldn't be funding stuff like this?

And they are because, guess what, this is where the majority of their paycheck is going too....

My five year old grandson has better reasoning skills than this. It’s also insulting to those suffering from those ailments through no fault of their own. You sound immature and somewhat sheltered from the realities of life OP.

You missed the bit about it being highly addictive? Quadruple the price, Pushing people to black market tobacco products which contain even more harmful stuff?

So people do smoke in hospital grounds, many have said that it’s not a thing at their hospital

Err tennis related injuries????? entitled much

And let's not fund treatment for anyone who's a sanctimonious piece of work!

Long may we continue to have a healthcare system which treats anyone in medical need, without judgement.

It is an addiction, but I feel that a system whereby people are given a timeframe that the NHS will reduce funding allows for people to make choices moving forwards.
An addiction is still a persons responsibility to sort out. You don’t tell a Heroin adding that “it’s ok to carry on taking it because it’s an addiction”. Whereas people tend to give smokers a free pass for that very reason.

It is simply my opinion, I know many will disagree but I am just sharing my thoughts.

I completely get where you are coming from but most/all of these are diseases in themselves.

So you are stopping people from getting treatment for getting secondary illnesses from their original disease.

Most well-rounded people do not have diseases such as drug or alcohol dependency or obesity.

These are often diseases which are more common in society’s most vulnerable and something has happened in their lives to make them this way.

So you are essentially saying that people who have come from good homes, with money and have had no traumatic experiences should be treated on the NHS but anyone who isn’t as fortunate, should have to pay for their own treatment.

I do understand your frustration though.
And I support funding that get to the route of the problems like stopping smoking measures and therapy etc.

I have seen a ward full of diabetic amputations with people smuggling in the cream cakes

Perhaps we should just let all fat people die rather than help them also ?

And the person who didn't do quite enough exercise - we shouldn't treat them

And the person who didn't take enough care stepping off the pavement

And the person who doesn't live exactly as you think they should ?

It's interesting that you state you do not believe the NHS should cover those with 'self inflicted' illnesses, yet your list above is highly associated with dopamine transmission, often as a result of neurodiversity, therefore not self inflicted at all and certainly not 'easily avoided.'

That's not self inflicted.
Issues that come with smoking are self inflicted
Issues that come with over eating (being fat) are self inflicted
Issues that come with alcohol are self inflicted.

If you pay £80k in tax you can afford private healthcare. I paid far far less in tax, my salary was about half what you paid in tax even, and I’ve recently undergone private surgery.

I agree I couldn’t afford to smoke after I lost my job and I stopped that every day. I think it was six quid for a packet of 10 at the time and that was 6 pounds that needed to go on fruit and vegetable for the children so it ended there and then.
I was an addict.
One need out weighed the other. It was as simple as that.

Living in Central London is a lifestyle choice. Should we stop treating people for respiratory conditions because they choose to live in a hotbed of pollution?

The NHS doesn't treat people depending on moral values. If it did there would be nothing for them to do.

I have been to 8 hospitals this year for combination of myself, my children and for work

• Chelsea and Westminster
• Hillingdon
• Stoke Mandeville
• Wexham park
• Great Ormond Street
• Amersham
• High wycombe
• Ealing

All banned smoking on the grounds. All but GOSH had people smoking in the grounds/outside the main entrance. Security people visible and doing absolutely nothing

Early smoking and heavy smoking is a significant behaviour associated with adverse childhood experiences. Fuck em eh

Refuse treatment to
Idiots who drives too fast/dangerously?
Anyone on a motorbike?
Someone who plays virtually any sport?

But those issues often have a root starting point in poor mental health. People self medicate with drugs or alchol in order to try to numb their pain. Often when they have been let down by poor NHS mental health care.

Fat people pay tax too believe it or not.

Sorry, but I spent a number of years living somewhere with no NHS. You would think it would make a difference, but it really doesn't. People still do the same things, they just don't go to the doctor's because they have to pay for it. It's not that people think 'oh, the NHS will look after me', people think it won't happen to them.

Most places without an NHS system don't have populations living vastly healthier lives because they know they will have to pay. They just don't seek medical care until it's absolutely unavoidable. It's a peculiar thing, they'll spend any amount of money on doing the unhealthy thing, but baulk at £60 to see the doctor.

In fact, in many places without any or much form of national healthcare, there is a much lower level of education around health. When health is an industry, it's not in the industry's interest to offer education about making healthy choices which might mean you don't need to buy their products.

You don't hate them, you just think you're better than them!

The government has allowed cigarettes to be sold, they have taken the tax from them, so YABU to suggest that people shouldn’t be treated for illnesses caused by them. Even if people were doing it illegally, in a civilised society, we shouldn’t refuse to treat people who need it.

I hate smoking, wish people didn’t do it and it’s shit that money has to be spent on things that could have been prevented, but it’s a horrible suggestion to refuse to treat people who need help or make them pay extra, even if the issue is self inflicted.

So the paramedics at the site of an RTA would be expected to judge how "responsibly" someone was driving before they administer any treatment?

Most people don't choose to be obese, or alcoholics, or smokers- of course we should treat all who need, its the basic ethos of the NHS. of course ideally we would provide a complete circle of treatment not only for the presenting illness/injury but for the root cause in the situations you describe thus hopefully reducing the need for further treatment but the NHS is essentially a patch up and send home service.

I have also been on respiratory wards with mostly smokers and you can certainly tell, I hate it, it stinks, everything about it is gross but all we can do is continue to help people give it up when they are ready. We cannot withhold basic medical care.