This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Spire Healthcare: Death of NHS-funded private patient raises safety concerns
- Concerned about my wrist tattoo and what effect that may have on my future
- EPQ help
- Medical elective in Tanzania
- Neurosurgeon/Plastic surgeon in private practice Salarys
- Help!! Podiatry students!!!
- How do I confirm my anxiety diagnosis?
- how many people here smoke?
- Rishi Sunak considering banning cigarettes for the next generation
- gcse 5 marker
- Fear of becoming a nurse
- Medicine Interview Discussion 2023 Entry
- Need help changing careers
- GP work experience
- Vaping ‘linked to cancer and damages body like smoking’
- Speech and Language Therapy at University
- hospital volunteering interview next week
- Supporting information for a job
- Manager said I smell
- Is Diagnostic Radiography worth it?
Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery with the NHS
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Underscore__
You could replace 'cancer sticks' with any word though. If you can afford a gym membership you can afford private healthcare; if you can afford clothes you can afford private healthcare. It's completely immoral to ban people from using an NHS service when they contribute so much more than they take.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Buying a gym membership and nice clothes is different than cancer sticks. If you can't see that, I'm on a lost cause with you.
It is totally justified when they are knowingly harming themselves. Instead focus on people who suffer from cancer who don't smoke and have never smoked should be prioritised. Then if there's money left, cancer stick suckers can be treated. If you don't like it? Guess what? Don't smoke or pay for private healthcare! Simple.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by MeYou2Night
It is totally justified when they are knowingly harming themselves. Instead focus on people who suffer from cancer who don't smoke and have never smoked should be prioritised. Then if there's money left, cancer stick suckers can be treated. If you don't like it? Guess what? Don't smoke or pay for private healthcare! Simple.
What about eaters of red and/or processed meat? Or people that choose to live in cities with high polution? **** them too, right?
Original post by dingleberry jam
What about eaters of red and/or processed meat? Or people that choose to live in cities with high polution? **** them too, right?
No, there is no safe level of which you can smoke. There is of eating red meat. As well, people who live in a city may not have a choice in the matter but they do choose to smoke.
If you are unable to make this distinction, you're a lost cause and I'm done with you.
Original post by MeYou2Night
No, there is no safe level of which you can smoke. There is of eating red meat.
What is the safe level for red meat? Smoking 1 cigarette is extremely unlikely to do you any harm, surely this is a safe level?
Original post by MeYou2Night
As well, people who live in a city may not have a choice in the matter but they do choose to smoke.
As well, people who live in a city may not have a choice in the matter but they do choose to smoke.
Original post by MeYou2Night
If you are unable to make this distinction, you're a lost cause and I'm done with you.
Original post by dingleberry jam
What is the safe level for red meat? Smoking 1 cigarette is extremely unlikely to do you any harm, surely this is a safe level?
How would they not have a choice? What of those that did choose? Why should they get a free pass on their unhealthy choices?
How would they not have a choice? What of those that did choose? Why should they get a free pass on their unhealthy choices?
As I said, you're a lost cause and im done with you. Enjoy your cancer sticks.
Original post by MeYou2Night
As I said, you're a lost cause and im done with you. Enjoy your cancer sticks.
Ok.
Enjoy paying for my NHS treatment.Original post by dingleberry jam
Ok. Enjoy paying for my NHS treatment.
Enjoy paying for my NHS treatment.Fine I will. At least I won't have to wait for any of my treatment or as its being taken up and over run and cancer stick suckers, as all my medical needs are dealt with privately at a very efficiently run private hospital.
I'm not entirely sure why I should pay for healthcare for people who have caused their own problems. I wasn't a giant fan of the way that this proposal seemed to target smokers and the obese even where smoking or obesity wasn't what caused the health problem in issue. On the other hand, I think reserving the NHS for people who are willing to avoid certain risky behaviours might not be such a terrible solution. If others want what I want -- for people to be left alone to take whatever ridiculous risks they like, and for other people not to have to pay for it -- it makes a lot of sense.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
I'm not entirely sure why I should pay for healthcare for people who have caused their own problems. I wasn't a giant fan of the way that this proposal seemed to target smokers and the obese even where smoking or obesity wasn't what caused the health problem in issue.
How would you prove it?
Original post by TimmonaPortella
On the other hand, I think reserving the NHS for people who are willing to avoid certain risky behaviours might not be such a terrible solution. If others want what I want -- for people to be left alone to take whatever ridiculous risks they like, and for other people not to have to pay for it -- it makes a lot of sense.
On the other hand, I think reserving the NHS for people who are willing to avoid certain risky behaviours might not be such a terrible solution. If others want what I want -- for people to be left alone to take whatever ridiculous risks they like, and for other people not to have to pay for it -- it makes a lot of sense.
What about eating red and processed meat, living in a city with high levels of pollution, unprotected sex, getting pregnant, sports.......,.. ?
Original post by Mathemagicien
Perhaps we should issue cannabis to smokers and fatties; I'm sure their addictions can be easily replaced with an even stronger drug addiction.
Ridiculous! Its magic mushrooms for treating addiction.
http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/features/psychedelics-entering-a-new-age-of-addiction-therapy/20066899.article
Original post by Mathemagicien
Perhaps we should issue cannabis to smokers and fatties; I'm sure their addictions can be easily replaced with an even stronger drug addiction.
Cannabis is far less addictive than tobacco, and much less carcinogenic. Being obese is also far more dangerous than being high. Do some research.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Define "caused their own problems"?
If someone is born with a genetic propensity to eat more and exercise less is it fair to discriminate against this person?
Original post by lawyer3c
Obese people pay taxes and NI, why should they be denied (reasonable) usage of the NHS?
I'm pretty sure these people pay a lot in through indirect taxes (VAT etc) on the types of food they eat anyway.
I'm pretty sure these people pay a lot in through indirect taxes (VAT etc) on the types of food they eat anyway.
What virtually all the posters have ignored is that this scheme was dropped as soon as it became public because the lawyers quietly explained to the Health Authority that it was illegal.
It is possible to restrict access to certain treatments on medical grounds ie the outcomes for particular operations are worse for smokers or obese people than non-smokers or non-obese people but that wasn't what was being done here. There was no evidence base considered by this Health Authority and why does any outcome problem miraculously go away with a 12 month delay irrespective of whether the patient has made a lifestyle change?
Smoking and BMI were being used simply as a rationing technique and choosing those who smoke or those with a high BMI is no more rational and lawful than choosing Manchester City supporters or Audi drivers.
Original post by nulli tertius
What virtually all the posters have ignored is that this scheme was dropped as soon as it became public because the lawyers quietly explained to the Health Authority that it was illegal.
It is possible to restrict access to certain treatments on medical grounds ie the outcomes for particular operations are worse for smokers or obese people than non-smokers or non-obese people but that wasn't what was being done here. There was no evidence base considered by this Health Authority and why does any outcome problem miraculously go away with a 12 month delay irrespective of whether the patient has made a lifestyle change?
Smoking and BMI were being used simply as a rationing technique and choosing those who smoke or those with a high BMI is no more rational and lawful than choosing Manchester City supporters or Audi drivers.
It is possible to restrict access to certain treatments on medical grounds ie the outcomes for particular operations are worse for smokers or obese people than non-smokers or non-obese people but that wasn't what was being done here. There was no evidence base considered by this Health Authority and why does any outcome problem miraculously go away with a 12 month delay irrespective of whether the patient has made a lifestyle change?
Smoking and BMI were being used simply as a rationing technique and choosing those who smoke or those with a high BMI is no more rational and lawful than choosing Manchester City supporters or Audi drivers.
Good post, thanks.
Original post by Dandaman1
A step in the right direction. The taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for people's bad habits and poor lifestyle choices.
People should be paying for more of their own healthcare and taking more responsibility for themselves.
People should be paying for more of their own healthcare and taking more responsibility for themselves.
If you actually made everyone only individually accountable for their own health problems then I guess you'd be referring to private insurance without risk pooling. In these circumstances, the irony is whilst you have greater autonomy, since you're only responsible for your health, each claim would result in an astronomically high premium. Now just try to imagine some of the consequences of that.
There is a reason we pay in nationally to protect against these types of situations.
Original post by 1010marina
the problem is, it's easy to say that every obese person is that way through poor eating choices - but there are those people who have glandular issues, or things like pcos, that can make it harder to lose weight. I fear that people who genuinely have it harder could be ignored here...
I also think people would be more offended if the nhs refused to treat girls with anorexia or bulimia until they reach a healthy bmi, and seeing as they're all eating disorders... Etc.
I don't like it, and i mostly just hate the fact that money is so tight the nhs has to operate like this, and there are still people complaining about tax. It's sad, i think....
I also think people would be more offended if the nhs refused to treat girls with anorexia or bulimia until they reach a healthy bmi, and seeing as they're all eating disorders... Etc.
I don't like it, and i mostly just hate the fact that money is so tight the nhs has to operate like this, and there are still people complaining about tax. It's sad, i think....
thank you so much for this
Original post by Mathemagicien
I wasn't even being entirely serious... anyway, doesn't your research actually show its a good idea?
Well cannabis use is associated with lower BMI.
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002/oby.20973?r3
Although I don't claim to know huge amounts on the subject, this could potentially be a huge benefit to the NHS, in the long term. But it would put quite a lot of people at risk in the meantime.
Then NHS obviously has a huge funding problem at the moment with not enough doctors to treat people and less money for treatments in general. To my knowledge obesity and smoking being two large areas of spending for the NHS would radically help other areas. Not only that, but this could potentially act as a bit of a preventative measure, forcing people to think twice about their health at the risk of their health care being lost, further decreasing the pressure on NHS budgets in the future as less people are smoking/obese.
Obviously it would create quality of life problems for the people included in the ban throughout the year. However - assuming it only affects people with obesity not caused by other health issues - the 12 month waiting period could potentially get them off the list with prescribed dieting and physical therapy, both decreasing pressure on the joints and strengthening the muscles/reducing inflammation. Although, I'm no doctor so I can't say for sure how effective or possible this would be and this could arguably be more expensive. The article does however say that they can get on the list faster if they lose 10% of their body mass.
If it were my choice, I'd get a new health secretary and then start contemplating this.
Then NHS obviously has a huge funding problem at the moment with not enough doctors to treat people and less money for treatments in general. To my knowledge obesity and smoking being two large areas of spending for the NHS would radically help other areas. Not only that, but this could potentially act as a bit of a preventative measure, forcing people to think twice about their health at the risk of their health care being lost, further decreasing the pressure on NHS budgets in the future as less people are smoking/obese.
Obviously it would create quality of life problems for the people included in the ban throughout the year. However - assuming it only affects people with obesity not caused by other health issues - the 12 month waiting period could potentially get them off the list with prescribed dieting and physical therapy, both decreasing pressure on the joints and strengthening the muscles/reducing inflammation. Although, I'm no doctor so I can't say for sure how effective or possible this would be and this could arguably be more expensive. The article does however say that they can get on the list faster if they lose 10% of their body mass.
If it were my choice, I'd get a new health secretary and then start contemplating this.
Related discussions
- Spire Healthcare: Death of NHS-funded private patient raises safety concerns
- Concerned about my wrist tattoo and what effect that may have on my future
- EPQ help
- Medical elective in Tanzania
- Neurosurgeon/Plastic surgeon in private practice Salarys
- Help!! Podiatry students!!!
- How do I confirm my anxiety diagnosis?
- how many people here smoke?
- Rishi Sunak considering banning cigarettes for the next generation
- gcse 5 marker
- Fear of becoming a nurse
- Medicine Interview Discussion 2023 Entry
- Need help changing careers
- GP work experience
- Vaping ‘linked to cancer and damages body like smoking’
- Speech and Language Therapy at University
- hospital volunteering interview next week
- Supporting information for a job
- Manager said I smell
- Is Diagnostic Radiography worth it?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
