Should people with lifestyle related diseases be given free healthcare?

It's for my EPQ and has proven to be a controversial subject. E.g when an obese person develops type 2 diabetes, or an excessive smoker develops lung cancer; where would you draw the line? if a professional dancer gets injured dancing is it lifestyle related? What're your thoughts?

Reply 1

Chlorophile

Original post by emryjane

It's a good question. Especially with things like alcohol or smoking, I think it would be fair to remove a person's right to free healthcare if they have been warned several times by a doctor. Although, this does raise a few problems. Firstly, you generally can't prove that the illness is directly caused by their lifestyle. Secondly, it would mean that the wealthy could afford to continue consuming these drugs whereas the poor can't.

I'm not sure I agree with the whole dancing thing. That's a career path and it arguably positively impacts others.

Reply 2

MidnightDream

Really good question :smile:

I agree with the smokers and alcoholics not getting free healthcare but I think maybe after a couple of warnings so like a doctor will sit them down and say 'if you continue you won't receive free healthcare etc' erm I'm not sure if I agree with the dancer though

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 3

x-pixie-x

I agree about smokers / obese people etc. I've seen a lot of smokers on vascular ward who get told numerous times to quit smoking, then pop out for a fag after. If you're blatantly ignoring the info and have no respect for your health, then I don't think you should expect society to have to pay £££s to sort you out only for you to go back to your old ways.

Reply 4

cid

It's only FREE if they have never paid tax, as someone who both smokes and drink but has been consistently employed for the last 12 years, I would be quite offended if I was told I had to pay extra for my healthcare, whilst some sociology graduate sits on the dole complaining because they can't get a job related to their degree and they refuse to demean themselves by working at Asda.

Reply 5

tibbles209

The problem is, you can rarely prove a person's illness is a result of their lifestyle, and that they definitely wouldn't have developed it had they lived a healthier lifestyle. As well as that, some people are far more susceptible to environmental factors influencing their health than others so it can be difficult to know how much of their health is down to genetics and how much is lifestyle. People who smoke and drink pay high levels of tax on those products, so they ultimately are paying more anyway.

Reply 6

x-pixie-x

Original post by arson_fire

Smokers pay huge amounts in tax - indeed they heavily subsidise the NHS.

Even those who are unemployed or on benefits? Bearing in mind some may be obese too with diabetes.

Reply 7

emryjane

Love that everyone has different views on this, I agree with the dancer; it was a point brought up by a friend as they considered it a 'lifestyle choice' as we know a dancer who repeatedly injures herself and refuses to let her bones and ligaments heal properly, but why should 1 individual apply to a whole group?
I feel if a person goes to a GP and is repeatedly warned that their lifestyle may cause problems and they choose to ignore it, should they be entitled at all? Should they pay more tax? Or would this all be different if NHS was abolished and only private care was available?
Loving the thoughts :h: