Obese smokers and drinkers

Obese smokers and drinkers

Should these people be treated in the same way as people who arent when it comes to livers, lungs and other such medically related things?

The case of George Best springs to mind, and if you are someone who looks after themselves do you think that people should be refused treatment if they do not look like they will change thier ways?

Ie - doctors saying they will refuse treatment as you do not look like you will quit smoking/stop drinking/eat helthily.

What do you think?

Re: Obese smokers and drinkers

not refused but should be back of the que imo

It's an interesting topic - should we not treat people with sports injuries because they are 'self-inflicted'? The biker whos come off his donorcycle?

We should, but there's no point giving someone a bypass who carries on smoking and eating shit, because they will have died within a few years from the heart attack it was trying to prevent

So.....maybe.

The system is pretty much as good as it will get i think, george best would never have got a second liver transplant but did have a case for his first one as he had those implants in his stomach to try and stop him drinking and he was dry for a year before his transplant ( I still hate the cunt)

But I do think we should have an opt out system for donating rather than currently having to sign up.

If you think though, people who need this medical attention because of lifestyle habits cost the nhs-taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds each year. Its a total drain on resources. But then again, i wouldnt want to see any one of my family refused treatment.

WHat i think could be a better idea, if the person, once they found out they had a problem (if that does happen) take steps to correct the problem before they are treated much like Geoge Bests case. Think thats fair?

OBESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE KILLED. ESPECIALLY YOU!

wouldnt work with cancer, not much you can do after youve got it really

"You" Doesn't have much impact of you don't say who you is.

I'll try

There is no discrimination of patients based on their percieved guilt - allocation of something like a donor organ or big procedure is based purely on the clinical need and likelihood of good clinical outcome. In a smoker, this outcome will be worse, therefore it's more likely to go to someone else.

i pay my taxes, in NI AND tax of fags/booze which pays for FREE health care. i agree, IF i become ill because of it i should change my ways - if i don't - i wouldn't expect the same treatment of respect.

As it is, the policy of the NHS is free care FOR ALL no matter what. hence why besty got a new liver then fucked it up his way.

:worship: :worship:

Your taxes are high enough already, on that we agree - but NHS resources are limited, and you have to just accept that, and do the best you can with what you've got, whilst campaigning for more.

When you don't give someone their heart bypass, the cost of it isn't the money, it's what else the money could have bought - for example, a new baby incubator, or some IVF for a young couple.

There is a concept known as the quality-adjusted-life-year, and an argument that treatments of equal cost should be given to maximise the number of quality adjusted life years.

Can you justify an incredibly expensive treatment with a fair chance of saving someones life, or would the money be better spent on getting hip and knee replacement waiting lists down?

So then, accepting that we have limited resources, we're back to our QALY's - and if a non-smoker would get more from their treatment than a smoker, for example, there is a good argument that the non smoker should be the preferred recipient.

of course you'd rather a private system - you're a psuedo-toff.

unfortunatly not everyone comes from middle england

can i ask what your parents careers are?

The problem is that the health service would collapse if it wasn't heavily subsidsed by young people who use it infrequently like we do - the elderly are incredibly disproportionate users of resources, and the taxes they pay are minimal as well in comparison.

The country will have the same health needs with or without the NHS, and will have to be paid for - let's say health insurance was compulsory - the costs are the same (I'm ignoring management inefficiencies), but you have to pay the dividends for the shareholders of the various companies, their advertising costs etc etc etc

In a way, the NHS is cut down already - compare it to the US, and it's incredibly no frills, but it works better in some respects because we don't overinvestigate and overtreat to the extent they do - and the fact that its not available to all means that the infant mortality rates in somewhere like the deprived areas of new york border on 3rd world.

It's the same argument as state education really - should there be an opt out for taxes for that? It would hit the children who use it worst, though it's not ideal that people who go private are in effect paying for both. It's a set of left-wing systems, and it all has to be payed for - and the big earners bear the brunt. That said, I'm happy to know that I won't be hit by bills in the tens or hundred of thousands if I ever need cancer treatment, or a stay in intensive care