The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery with the NHS

Scroll to see replies

I think it is crossing a line not allowing hip and knee surgery as surely it has the potential to reduce people's ability to walk therefore making disablement more likely.
However, it could be much worse they could have gone as far as only allowing emergency surgeries for every condition or refused to operate entirely .

I was always grateful that the nhs tried to save my dad after being a heavy smoker for almost twenty years even though his heart condition wasn't his fault, he brought his death on himself much much sooner because of smoking and they still did their best despite there not being much they could do to save him.
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.


There are so many people who already struggle financially and can't afford healthcare, what about them? Is it ethical to just send them back home because they don't have adequate health insurance? That has happened in America.

So many illnesses are not what one can call self-inflicted, and the additional worry of falling ill but not being able to afford treatment can't be good for the public.
Original post by Jee1
Two simple things they can do

Stop smoking
Stop eating crap and go for a run!


Yeah, go for a run on that knee that you're waiting to have an operation on...
Original post by 1010marina

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....


And then certain people come out and say "well clearly the NHS is inefficient and needs to be privatised" even though this has apparently been done because of a funding gap that wouldn't be there if it was properly funded.
Original post by SirMilkSheikh
Good news. I don't want my money to go towards a fat person's eating addiction.


It's not, it's going towards surgery...

I don't quite understand why obese people and smokers have been picked and like someone else said smokers more than pay their way.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by WBZ144


the NHS is groaning under the weight of these ridiculous people. if nothing is done it will be finished in 5 years. *
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.

This.
Original post by WBZ144
To be honest, I'm vehemently against the privatisation of the NHS and fear what may follow if the public allows this to happen. Higher tobacco tax and fat tax that goes straight into funding the NHS is probably a better solution.

I know that people make their own choices and others may object to having a "nanny state" but private healthcare will hurt everyone.


No it doesn't.

I actually prefer private healthcare, rather than the socialised crap we have here in the UK, sweden canada and cuba, where it would take me 8 months just to see a dentist just cause it's free
Original post by JamesN88
It's pretty Draconian IMO.

BMI isn't a reliable indicator anyway, plenty of "overweight" people are just muscular.


It needn't be a 100% reliable indicator, even 90% is good enough. You are much more likely to come across a >30BMI individual that's obese than extremely muscular (body builder). I'm pretty certain there are some extenuating circumstances as well, a lot of media headlines report things in a simplistic way.

The NHS is FREE AT THE POINT OF USE, by smoking or being obese and then having surgeries which could have a higher risk of complications than a non-obese/non-smoker, you're making things more expensive in the long run for a system that's already burdened with diabetes, cardiac disease, cancer, more age-related issues, etc. In a way, this could add to the incentive of living a bit healthier. If you want "more freedom" to do unhealthy things, you should be the one paying for the treatments of your sins than everyone else. Why would you want what little money the NHS has, going towards those that abuse their health in the first place when people at no fault of their own are struggling to get treatment?
Original post by minimarshmallow
Yeah, go for a run on that knee that you're waiting to have an operation on...


Having a weak knee doesn't prevent you from eating healthier, yes it might stop you from going for a run, but it's certainly not an excuse to add an extra 30 pounds
Original post by Underscore__
It's not, it's going towards surgery...

I don't quite understand why obese people and smokers have been picked and like someone else said smokers more than pay their way.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Probably because of how risky surgery is.
I can understand the smoking ban, but perhaps other factors should be considered and not just BMI... what if an old person needed surgery and they can't help but get fat because that's what happens most of the times when you get old :/ not everyone is physically capable to lose weight...

Other than that yes I agree with the obese part; if a person is young and capable to stay in the healthy weight limits but doesn't do anything for that, it only seems fair. Besides, all the complications that can result from operating on an obese person. It's for their sake as well.
Original post by WBZ144
There are so many people who already struggle financially and can't afford healthcare, what about them? Is it ethical to just send them back home because they don't have adequate health insurance? That has happened in America.
.


But they can afford all the cigarettes?
Original post by Underscore__
It's not, it's going towards surgery...

I don't quite understand why obese people and smokers have been picked and like someone else said smokers more than pay their way.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Yes surgery, so that they can continue their fat eating habits knowing the nanny state will look after them.

It's true that smokers pay lots in taxes. However obese people don't, and I don't want to fund their self-inflicted obesity problems.
Reply 34
Avatar for Maker
Maker
20
Original post by Sabertooth
Ah, socialized medicine.


Ah, some many enormous Americans.
Original post by Tiger Rag
Probably because of how risky surgery is.


I didn't realise smoking causes a significant increase in the risk of surgery


Posted from TSR Mobile
Maybe they could also refuse treatment to the ones (probably half the UK) who drink too much as well?
I mean that's also harmful and you're causing it yourself.

Tbh honest though this is ****ing ridiculous.
Reply 37
Avatar for Maker
Maker
20
Original post by venetiaan
Maybe they could also refuse treatment to the ones (probably half the UK) who drink too much as well?
I mean that's also harmful and you're causing it yourself.

Tbh honest though this is ****ing ridiculous.


Thats a good idea, drunks need an invective to pull themselves together.
Tragic. It's almost as if people should stop ****ing around fawning over Corbyn in endless leadership races and present some proper opposition to the Tories.
Original post by Maker
Thats a good idea, drunks need an invective to pull themselves together.


It's really not a good idea though.
If you start by refusing to help obese people,smokers drunks, people with eating disorders( as someone mentioned above) the list is going to get very long in a very short time. Very few people would be entitled to free healthcare.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you