Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery with the NHS Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by venetiaan)
    But the ones who earn the same pay the same right?
    If a smoker or a fat person earns the same as a thin non-smoker they're also paying the same taxes more or less.
    Yes but as I said we don't all earn the same and do not pay the same, so your 'if' scenario isn't very useful in the real world.

    If the NHS runs on such principle then at least 50% of people will not be eligible for treatment as they are net recipient of the state ie. the state spends more on them vs. their tax contribution.

    I think what you are trying to suggest but didn't, is that the ban is discriminatory on obese people and smokers, however one could argue that rule are discriminatory in nature. Personal wealth or tax paid should not be part of the argument because we are a welfare state and there is no equal basis when it comes to tax contribution, unless you want to decline free health care to 50%+ of people.
    Offline

    19
    I think this is ridiculous. Many obese people have binge eating disorder, which is a mental illness.

    The NHS treats both the physical and mental symptoms of those with anorexia, which is also a mental illness. Why won't it do the same for the obese?

    You can't argue that "it's their own fault they are obese, so they should pay for it", because it is arguably just as much the fault of the anorexic person that they are critically underweight. Both have disordered eating due to a mental illness which is making them physically unwell. Either this means both are responsible and should not receive free treatment, or both are not.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Before anyone attacks me, saying that I do not understand anorexia blah blah blah... I have had anorexia since the age of 15 and owe my life to NHS treatment.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    If thy can afford cancer sticks, they can afford private healthcare.
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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

    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    How would they not have a choice? What of those that did choose? Why should they get a free pass on their unhealthy choices?

    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    If you are unable to make this distinction, you're a lost cause and I'm done with you.
    :yawn:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    :yawn:

    As I said, you're a lost cause and im done with you. Enjoy your cancer sticks.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dingleberry jam)
    Ok. 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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    What about eating red and processed meat, living in a city with high levels of pollution, unprotected sex, getting pregnant, sports.......,.. ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.co...066899.article
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Cannabis is far less addictive than tobacco, and much less carcinogenic. Being obese is also far more dangerous than being high. Do some research.
    I wasn't even being entirely serious... anyway, doesn't your research actually show its a good idea?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I'm not entirely sure why I should pay for healthcare for people who have caused their own problems.
    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?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    What about people who are obese because of a disorder or genetic factors? I agree with it but for people who are obese because of lifestyle only
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Good post, thanks.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.