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?

So would you withhold treatment from a dying anorexic, because they were the ones who voluntarily, of their own free will, refused food for so long?

so you've spent £56,160 on tobacco at most over 30 years at £39x 30 x 12x 4, of which most is tax

Lung cancer cost to NHS for one patient is £920,000 or melanoma at £190,000 I'm not seeing the guarentee that you have paid enough tax to cover any future treatment from buying your tobacco products

www.frontier-economics.com/uk/en/news-and-insights/news/news-article-i20141-cost-of-preventable-cancers-in-the-uk-to-rise/#:~:text=The%20study%20also%20finds%20that,£190%2C000%20per%20case).

I don't begrudge anyone treatment on NHS, but to say your taxes on tobacco has covered the cost of future treatment is no correct

Depends how much treatment you need surely? As I posted earlier, my father was a smoker for 65 years and got lung cancer at 78. He died a few weeks after going to the doctor. He had a few hospital appointments, blood tests, scans etc. Was admitted to hospital after going downhill then died 6 days after being admitted. Yes he took up a bed space, had nursing care and had pain meds for a week. But I would say he more than paid for that over 65 years of smoking.

True, but still inherently positive as opposed to smoking. There is nothing positive about smoking. Nothing.

but what about the person who gets lung cancer that didn't smoke but got it through passive smoking? Roy Castle was a famous example of this, but there were many more and they realised smoking in public places needed to be stopped due to this. 65 years ago that wasn't happening

If you prohibit people from accessing medical care due to self inflicted problems then most people would not get access to healthcare.

Also if you want to prohibit people accessing healthcare they you should not force them to pay for it through NI.

20.2% of your annual taxation goes to the NHS, so your contribution last year was £16,160. The NHS cost per person per year is currently £3,477. So at most you have funded your own care and that of 3.6 other people. This year you have probably funded fewer people since your own care has likely exceeded £3,477. I wouldn’t call that funding ‘many other people’ myself but perhaps you perceive it so.

In any event, if you want to live in a society where people pay only for the services they themselves directly benefit from, then you should be advocating for abolishing taxation altogether. I expect that becoming solely responsible for funding your own personal share of defence, infrastructure, social care, schools, prisons and transport would fairly swiftly lead you to discover just how much you benefit from the contributions made by other taxpayers who don’t directly benefit from the services they help to fund, and you might rethink your narrow minded and individualistic stance on the healthcare budget.

My mum has COPD and was a long time smoker. She has never needed oxygen. She was told to smoke as a teenager to help her 'breathe better' to help her asthma.

Not all with CPOD need oxygen.

@AgileJadeDog might be time to admit defeat.

Yes smoking is a bad habit & the cause of alot of diseases but for some it's there main/only vice & while hospitals arnt exactly the place to do it you must have noticed the complete lack of entertainment/distractions while people were being kept in

a whole host of other issues are/can be caused by lifestyle choices aswell.

I hope so, lazy journo

Pregnancy is not 'self-inflicted'; it takes two and the woman doesn't always get a choice (eg if it's rape).

This is because of the fire risk.
In the UK you cannot have home O2 either if you smoke. It's got nothing to do with it being self inflicted or showing that you're helping yourself. It's a simple but very significant fire risk. No one else in your home can smoke either and you have to ensure that visitors don't.

or ethical .

I do get you but where do you draw the line? What about people who are overweight? What about people who sustain injuries whilst doing something healthy - sport. it's a slippery slope.

My mother had COPD and never smoked in her life. Some may have been in because they did but don't think that everyone does.

Education won’t ‘fix’ addiction. Eradicating poverty and other social and health inequalities will, as that lies at the heart of the issue
What a lot of rubbish. Yes there is a link between poverty and addiction. Poor citizens are more likely to be tempted by addiction, but to think that it's only a poor issue, you have to wonder which planet you live in.

Addictions affect every layers of society. Some people, rich or poor, are much more susceptible to addiction then others. These same people will be affected, whatever money they have on their pockets. One has to be quite naive to think differently!

In the UK they will not supply oxygen equipment for use in a home where there are other smokers, or if the patient themselves smokes and won't give up. It's the fire risk. It's just too dangerous.

In the last days of his life my Dad could really have done with oxygen at home but he couldn't have it because my mother insisted on smoking. He would never have asked her to stop either. There were some family arguments about it but I really don't want to go further into those now.

After some further health issues of her own, my mother is no longer a smoker, but vapes instead and uses nicotine patches. I wish she had done that years ago, especially when my Dad was alive (and I know that she now does too although she doesn't discuss it much).

I live in a world where I read other people’s posts thoroughly before replying so rudely and ignorantly. I have addressed all these points at length. Thank you for contributing absolutely nothing to this topic.

It already is, @ButterCrackers.

You are not slowly killing yourself each day, by being involved in an RTA.

My own fault for reading and participating ....but this thread feels a little uncomfortable. Not far away from Hitlers Eugenics... Where is the line drawn? If you have problems that could be inherited, do we pay for your child to be treated for the rest of its life or let it go? If you've had a few health emergencies and hit 60 and have 'used' up more healthcare than you paid in, do we treat or let you go? If you've hit 80 and need help, do we just let you go, because you're not really adding anything to society anymore.....
Disgusting that some people think others should suffer. Working class would all be dead as noone except the rich would be able to pay for treatment some arsehole, like the OP, deemed self inflicted. You can't just pick on smoking. Smoking is still legal.

Depends on how many people would be unable to afford to buy their medication over the counter and would end up needing hospital treatment as a result.

it’s the same in the UK. My SiL has COPD and used to vape. It took her eight months of spot checks and regular blood tests to prove she was no longer vaping before they would supply the oxygen.

YABVU! The smokers have paid plenty of taxes. Where do you draw the line? …refuse someone who has had a heart attack treatment, what about somebody speeding in a car? Or someone who had a suicide attempt?