should all free treatment be stopped for smokers??

[Robbie]

or heavy drinkers, anyone fat, or with type 2 diabetes. they have caused their own problems..

No! I'm hoping you are just provoking discussion and don't mean it.

I saw you were comparing this subject to vaccines; only one person said people who suffered as a result of no vaccines shouldn't be treated and quite honestly I doubt he meant it, he just hadn't thought it out. No-one grudges someone else treatment, surely? People who smoke and drink do plenty of good things you know! Maybe more than many saintly non-drinkers and non-smokers.

[Steve H]

in this case it is true, I am judging no one, yet a few days ago nearly everyone was there to agree that not taking a vaccine makes you stupid...

good , so you think we have to help these people who are killing themselves and others, by smoking, drinking and eating to disability...

What a deeply unpleasant, uncharitable, self-righteous little neo-puritan you are.

[Robbie]

She may be just putting forward arguments for discussion.

GofG:- "...nearly everyone was there to agree that not taking a vaccine makes you stupid"

No-one except one said such people should not receive NHS treatment.

[Grace of God]

What a deeply unpleasant, uncharitable, self-righteous little neo-puritan you are.

still can't answer then..

[Robbie]

If you read back a few posts - not many - you'll see you have been answered, Grace.

[jeremyp]

in this case it is true, I am judging no one, yet a few days ago nearly everyone was there to agree that not taking a vaccine makes you stupid...

It looks from here very much like you are judging people. You judge people with self inflicted health problems as being not worthy of free NHS treatment. At least that is what it looks like.

good , so you think we have to help these people who are killing themselves and others, by smoking, drinking and eating to disability...

Here is my position once again. Please read it and understand it before accusing me of anything again.

It is my belief that the NHS should not discriminate in any way in who it treats. It should not discriminate against smokers, drinkers, people who engage in dangerous sports, gang members, crack addicts, Piers Morgan, or anybody else who is in need of healthcare. This includes people who have refused to be vaccinated and children whose parents refused to get them vaccinated.

If Bob refuses to be vaccinated and gets polio, he has been very stupid, but that is not a reason for the NHS to refuse him treatment. If Bob's daughter has not been vaccinated and she gets polio, Bob's daughter should get treatment from the NHS (and Bob should be in court on negligence charges).

Yes, people who refuse to vaccinate are stupid and they are negligent if they are not vaccinating their children. However, even if not vaccinating is made illegal, it is not the job of the NHS to pass judgement on people. That's for the justice system.

If that's not clear enough for you, please tell me what you are having trouble with and I'll try to explain better, but stop accusing me of hypocrisy.

[Owlswing]

ok, the other day it seemed pretty universal that anyone who does not take a vaccine is dangerous and stupid, yet those who smoke cause themselves and others great harm, those getting fat and disabled harm themselves and take up time of already over worked medical staff and gp's, type 2 diabetes, according to many gp's is linked with being over weight...
those you claim pay in to the nhs, it is a small percentage of a wage, some never earn a wage, it in no way covers the extensive costs of the long term treatment brought about by their own stupidity...

There is adifference between the two cases.

Vaccines are offered FREE to PREVENT disease.

Smoking, Drinking etc cost a bloody fortune - if you can afford to smoke and drink you can affoird to pay what you would normally pay for smokes and booze toward your treatment.

I am in favour of charging for the treatment of vaccine preventable disease where the vacine has been refused as this is a refusal of free pre-emptive treatment.

[Steve H]

There is adifference between the two cases.

Vaccines are offered FREE to PREVENT disease.

Smoking, Drinking etc cost a bloody fortune - if you can afford to smoke and drink you can affoird to pay what you would normally pay for smokes and booze toward your treatment.

I am in favour of charging for the treatment of vaccine preventable disease where the vacine has been refused as this is a refusal of free pre-emptive treatment.

No, no, no! The NHS must remain free at point of use for all, however stupid and irresponsible they may be.

[Grace of God]

It looks from here very much like you are judging people. You judge people with self inflicted health problems as being not worthy of free NHS treatment. At least that is what it looks like.


Here is my position once again. Please read it and understand it before accusing me of anything again.

It is my belief that the NHS should not discriminate in any way in who it treats. It should not discriminate against smokers, drinkers, people who engage in dangerous sports, gang members, crack addicts, Piers Morgan, or anybody else who is in need of healthcare. This includes people who have refused to be vaccinated and children whose parents refused to get them vaccinated.

If Bob refuses to be vaccinated and gets polio, he has been very stupid, but that is not a reason for the NHS to refuse him treatment. If Bob's daughter has not been vaccinated and she gets polio, Bob's daughter should get treatment from the NHS (and Bob should be in court on negligence charges).

Yes, people who refuse to vaccinate are stupid and they are negligent if they are not vaccinating their children. However, even if not vaccinating is made illegal, it is not the job of the NHS to pass judgement on people. That's for the justice system.

If that's not clear enough for you, please tell me what you are having trouble with and I'll try to explain better, but stop accusing me of hypocrisy.

so should the alcoholics, smokers, fat people , be on some charge of personal negligence??

[Robbie]

That's all very well LR but people who smoke, drink, overeat or whatever are often quite proactive in areas of which you would approve - good people - which could outweight their weaknesses.  I say this because I have read from your posts that you are more deeds v faith than faith v deeds & it isn't a faith-type subject anyway.

Th NHS may well be strapped for cash, when is it not? Still what money they have isn't always fairly distributed. We have a large number of Diabetes ll patients here, some if not many of them could well have contributed to their condition by eating wrongly, I wouldn't want to consign them to no treatment.

People are good and bad and a mixture of both regardless of their habits.

[wigginhall]

It's certainly an interesting idea, not to treat some people.  Drug addicts could be left to die, if they OD, drink drivers left by the roadside to die, fat people could die in bed unattended.  Only the pure at heart survive!

[jeremyp]

so should the alcoholics, smokers, fat people , be on some charge of personal negligence??

No, they are endangering only themselves. The person who fails to vaccinate his child is endangering somebody else - in fact, lots of other people.

[Grace of God]

No, they are endangering only themselves. The person who fails to vaccinate his child is endangering somebody else - in fact, lots of other people.

smokers endanger others, drinkers endanger others if they drive especially or through violence, they also waste the time of medical staff..
not taking a vaccine may endanger your own child but isn't it the parents choice to do the best for their child and not a state decision..

[Anchorman]

I am of the opinion that people who cause their own health problems by drinking excessively, smoking, eating too much and taking drugs, should be at the back of the queue for treatment. The NHS is strapped for cash so it is only right people whose illnesses are not caused by their lifestyle should be treated first. I will now don my flak jacket and helmet!

Whoa.
Simplistic (but what's new?)
Have you ever considered that there may be underlying psychological reasons why certain people eat and drink to excess?
Would you therefore put them, also 'at the back of the queue'?
Wouldn't it be more humane to examine and deal with the situation which has caused their problem first?

[ippy]

I generally think all people should be treated in the same way, including smokers but it might be a good idea if smokers were put into special wards with a good circulation of air that would hopefully waft away the unpleasant odour, smokers seem to be oblivious of, that goes along with their addiction, away from the rest of us.

Regards ippy

[Robbie]

Patients aren't allowed to smoke in hospital, Ippy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More should have put into leisure centres.
They use to have health tips on breakfast TV. Now on BBC you have sportsmen on sofas and that leadingexponentof chairobics. 'I'm on GMB.

[ippy]

Patients aren't allowed to smoke in hospital, Ippy.

I assume you haven't got a very good sense of smell, they all have a personal smell of tobacco surounding them, in their hair and clothes, I'm surprised you havent noticed.

Smokers seem to be unaware of the trail of an unplesent smoky odour they leave behind themselves as they go about their daily tasks, even when they're not actually smoking.

Tried a cigerette when I was about twelve and thought it was bloody awful then, thank goodness and that was in the days when the general public were unaware of health issues.


Regards ippy

[Steve H]

Enjoying a bowl of Samuel Gawith's 'Commonwealth Mixture' in a billiard pipe as I write. Fuck the health nazis!

[Robbie]

I assume you haven't got a very good sense of smell, they all have a personal smell of tobacco surounding them, in their hair and clothes, I'm surprised you havent noticed.

Smokers seem to be unaware of the trail of an unplesent smoky odour they leave behind themselves as they go about their daily tasks, even when they're not actually smoking.

Tried a cigerette when I was about twelve and thought it was bloody awful then, thank goodness and that was in the days when the general public were unaware of health issues.

Regards ippy

Ippy I have an excellent sense of smell! I have come across the smell you talked about but not for a very long time.

People nowadays bathe, shower, wash hair and change their clothes daily, ippy. The lingering aroma you refer to is very much a thing of the past partly because people are generally cleaner and partly because there's hardly anywhere to smoke. Anyway if they were in hospital they'd be in clean pyjamas.

[Owlswing]

No, no, no! The NHS must remain free at point of use for all, however stupid and irresponsible they may be.

Why?

Especially when huge numbers (my local hospital, is the closest tothe UK's major airport) are treated free of charge at point of use having been transported direct from airport to casualty and vanish without paying a penny as soon as cured and prove impossible to trace for payment.

[Robbie]

That's a different issue, Owlswing & it is a problem but people - like ourselves - should be treated by the NHS even if we have been unwise in our lifestyles. I don't know how or where the line would be drawn if it was decided to penalise drinkers, smokers etc. We all pay for the NHS.

[Steve H]

Why?

Especially when huge numbers (my local hospital, is the closest tothe UK's major airport) are treated free of charge at point of use having been transported direct from airport to casualty and vanish without paying a penny as soon as cured and prove impossible to trace for payment.

All UK citizens, and any others who are entitled. Heath tourism is a problem, as Robbie says above, but it is peripheral, and doesn'y affect the basic principle of there being no charge at point of use.

[Steve H]

Yes we should all be treated, but I think the priority should be people who aren't damaging their health deliberately like smokers, drinkers and those over eat.

The priority should be clinical need, and nothing else. If smokers are put behind non-smokers in the waiting list, they will never be treated, as there will always be non-smokers needing treatment.

[Aruntraveller]

Smoking, Drinking etc cost a bloody fortune - if you can afford to smoke and drink you can affoird to pay what you would normally pay for smokes and booze toward your treatment.

It could be argued that smokers & drinkers are already contributing more per head than more abstemious members of society by way of the taxes they pay and the fact that their choices in life will limit their lifespan.  Taking this to a logical conclusion all the non-drinkers and non-smokers should actually pay more because they are going to live into old age as a result of their selfish life choices, get dementia and be a much bigger burden on society.

This is probably a reductio ad absurdum or some such. It does show what a complicated mess you get into if you try to define by means other than clinical need who deserves to get treatment.

And that is what LR and others here are doing. They are basing who they think should get treatment on their own personal prejudices. Well that's all fine and dandy until someone comes along and says we shouldn't treat people with Down's syndrome or with HIV infection, or any number of other things that people get exorcised about.

Steve H is absolutely correct, treatment should be on the basis of clinical need and free at the point of treatment.