NHS may refuse to treat drinkers and smokers

[MistleToo]

news

first it's no new hips for the obese now this?

In the wake of George Best's death and a general feeling that he 'wasted' his new liver - what do you think?

It's a rights and responsibilities issue IMO. I want the right to free healthcare, so I will take responsibility for my health. With more and more people living longer, the NHS will have to prioritise its services in some way.

I agree with hunker, but I'm also aware that smokers pay a huge amount of tax on their habit, which in turn goes into the Treasury pot which funds the NHS. That's where it gets a bit sticky.

It doesn't cover treatment costs though.

hmmm

Hunker I am fairly sure that the overall contribution of smokers to the Treasury pot way exceeds the treatments costs for smoking related illness - although am happy to stand corrected on this if someone has the figures.

Fair enought stop treating smokers but stop taxing them so heavily too.

tough one this and definately hard to carry through. Smokers and drinkers KNOW the possible risks of their habit and what i find hard to deal with are the people who continue to abuse their bodies even after a health issue. George Best had a second chance at life and decided not to take it. Is it right that money be 'wasted' treating people that obviously have no respect for their own lives? I am not sure of the answer and am aware that addiction is a hard thing to get over.

Stop treating them at all????? Or just stop treating for smopking related illnesses??? BUT NON-SMOKERS GET LUNG CANCER TOOOOOOOOOOO!

about bloody time. DH says that his congenital cardiology patinets wait in the same line for treatment as fat knackers who continue to eat too much and smoke. He thinks that smokers should be given a chance to stop, but if they continue past 6 months then treatment, other than palliative, shuld be denied.

I was going to post that in the case of smoking they should not treat smoking related illnesses. But then, so many illnesses in some way can be related back to smoking. How would it work for ex smokers? What about drug users? They are often frequent visitors and long stay patients (if they don't go AWOL) as we can't discharge them back onto the street. But if we refused to treat them, they are hardly going to have medical cover, and will die. But why else should they have prefferential treatment?

The more I thing about it the more concerning this whole concept it.

Which life choices are acceptable and which are not?
And who decides?
And where do you stop as Sackache says, is it only for directly-related conditions. Difficult to differentiate sometimes.

So if the majority of smokers quit so they can still get free treatment - leads to less money from the tax on cigarettes going into the treasury - what will they cut down on next?

What about refusing treatment to drug adddicts? Joy riders who crash? Attempted suicides? Where will the line be drawn with regards to responsibility for our own health problems?

Easy Highlander - v. harsh.

What about those with Chronic conditions like Asthma. Do they just get denied inhalers and left to die?

This is ridiculous!! Where do you draw the line?

What about those of us who don't exercise and eat wholegrains? If we get heart disease should we not be treated as we didn't follow the government guidelines for things to do to keep your heart healthy????

What if a smoker has a stroke? Left to die? Not given any treatement to learn to walk/talk again? And what about the fact that that person might have had a stroke anyway.... smoker or not.

All of us basically who sit don't exercise enough ot eat too much salt. But then what about those who exercise to extreme and need some form of treatment - it is there own fault too!

Similar thoughts in Central Scotland Toothy .

I know, I know I am going to pack right now.

Yeah Gomez - What about injuries sustained when playing a sport?? Afterall why should my tax money go into treating some idiot who broke his leg water skiing????? Or someone who decided to go mountain climbing in the Cairngorms midwinter and slips..... ends up with Hypothermia. Wonder how many packet of fags it would take to fund that person treatment!

Perhaps instead of refusing treatment to these people who are addicted to eating/smoking/drinking and are probably the most vulnerable in society, the NHS should be doing more to help them beat their addiction.
So if they have say 6months to quit or else their treatment will be ceased... well where I live, the waiting list to get onto the NHS quit smoking scheme is minimum of 2months anyway.
I have a friend who is obese and very weak willed regarding food, she has begged for help from her GP, his solution - go to the gym.

Does it mean John Prescott goes to the back of the queue if he needs surgery?

the point is that there have been some amazing advances in medicine over the last 10 years, but sadly they are very costly. Increasingly, the NHS cannot shoulder the burden without some sort of drastic action in the future. We are soooooooo bloody lucky in the UK that we have access to the latest medical advances, without paying a penny. With that we, as potential patients, should shoulder responsibility for our own health and make lifestyle choices that ensure we don't abuse this amazing free service (OK,OK, I know we pay NI so technically it's not free ).

I'm talking abuot the extremes of health abuse here - smoking, excess alcohol intake. Not one of us is perfect, but you hardly burden the NHS by snagging down the occasional bag of chips. The people I'm critiscising are a tiny minority of society who don't give a stuff about themsleves or their fellow man.

sachache - I don't understand why you think chronic asthma sufferers fall into this category?

Highlander - But its back to the same old questions.... who makes the final decision that an illness is smoking related for example? All cancers can be contrated by non-smokers too..... as can emphasema (sp?), bronchitis, asthma!

Its totally unworkable!!! I could understand if they refused to give a liver transplant to an alcoholic who refused to stop drinking. And people can easily lie about whether they are still smoking or not.

Rant away Highlander.... but its a bit far-fetched!

Smoking asthma sufferers perhaps, Highlander?

(Of which I know a few before anyone suggests surely they wouldn't be so stuipd...)

Smoking can aggravate asthma.

Some people develop asthma after they start smoking! Its perfectly relevant, I don't understand why you're confused.

Yeah Gomez - ME!

Impossible. Unworkable. Too difficult to draw the line.