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

People who continue to smoke after cancer shouldn't be entitled to the NHS Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OriginofSymmetry)
    The NHS doesn't deal with patients like that...

    "Sorry, we can't send out an ambulance. We can't afford the fuel due to all the cough syrup we've given out to the nicotine-addicted patients."

    ...
    Oh for God's sake :facepalm:, this is not an issue of pragmatism, it's a matter of measuring principles. You can't just bring in the NHS when this particular strand of thought concerned a moral measurement in spite of the actual case of affairs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abro)
    Just becuase they got cancer doesnt mean the NHS should let them die... how would you like it if it was ur brother

    p.s. I have never smoked
    How would you feel if your brother was refused a bed because old blacklungs who'd survived cancer twice before, and got it again, is in it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Specifically with regards to breast/lung cancer (or any cancer that smoking causes). Simple fact is, these people had a warning. Most people who end up needing hospital beds don't. They infuriate me greatly. They should either be struck off the national health register, or put to the back of the queue, in order to give way to people who found themselves in an unfortunate situation, with no warning at all. I mean, if you're willing to just disregard the fact that you could have died by means of this action, if you carry on, you should do it knowing it comes at a cost. Such a strong law would probably prevent people from starting again anyway.

    Discuss.
    How ignorant of you. Then the eldery don't deserve the NHS because they will die soon anyway, the obese because they are too fat, the anexorics because they cba to eat. It can apply to anyone. My cousin tried to give up a few times. It's hard to do.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmie19)
    How ignorant of you. Then the eldery don't deserve the NHS because they will die soon anyway, the obese because they are too fat, the anexorics because they cba to eat. It can apply to anyone. My cousin tried to give up a few times. It's hard to do.
    Again, this argument would only be valid if I said all smokers should be refused NHS treatment, which is not the case. My point would be akin to an extremely overweight person having a heart attack and not trying to lose it afterwards.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    How would you feel if your brother was refused a bed because old blacklungs who'd survived cancer twice before, and got it again, is in it?
    It's a MEDC... go figure if the UK will have beds. First come, first serve is the policy at the A and E in NHS.

    Another hospital?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People who smoke period shouldn't be entitled to NHS. **** our health system.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    Anyone who drives after a rtc?

    Anyone who eats red meat after a heart attack?

    Anyone who has unprotected sex after having a first child?

    Anyone who gets parkinsons having not smoked?
    Really? Wow, well, I've learnt something new today :yes:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I cant believe some of the stupidity in this thread.

    The NHS was founded under the belief that everyone deserves free health care regardless of nearly all other factors. If you want to start denying people health care because you feel their personal lack of will power or desire to quit smoking isn't makes them less worthy of treatment to prolong their lives, then its a slippery slope from then on, as Renal showed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    how does everyone know that the taxes for these cigarettes are even contributing to england and its health care system, the whole system i so messed up no one knows where anything goes! also why do they have to completely ruled off it? Instead cant they contribute to some of the costs? Your idea of the NHS leech for smokers cancer may be someone who doesnt work is on benefits and is the "lower class".
    Truth is there are many people who use the NHS who are more than capable to pay for private healthcare!
    And of course what about alcoholics, smoking is an addiction just like drinking, wasnt there one very famous footballer that got a second chance with his life through a liver transplant and still he died because he was drinking after it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Again, this argument would only be valid if I said all smokers should be refused NHS treatment, which is not the case. My point would be akin to an extremely overweight person having a heart attack and not trying to lose it afterwards.
    Shouldn't be entitled to the NHS is in effect the same. As there are few private hospitals in the country. People would lost their jobs as a result. Many smokers wouldn't be able to afford the expensive treatment (many are from lower socio-ecominic groups)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Okay, so those who are obese and continue to eat badly shouldnt be entitled too? That's just silly. Those who smoke pay tax too, (plus lots of tax for cigarettes), so err shup?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Again, this argument would only be valid if I said all smokers should be refused NHS treatment, which is not the case. My point would be akin to an extremely overweight person having a heart attack and not trying to lose it afterwards.
    Now, I am curious. You say it's a matter of principles, but if we're discounting all physical repercussions such as costs and just talking about moral decisions, surely it's just a matter of liberty over your body? What other moral repercussions can it have? Unless you don't believe in people having liberty over whatever they do to their bodies, in which case, having the heartattack/cancer makes no difference in principle. If anything, they're more aware of the effects their decision will have upon themselves.

    Either I'm missing something if this is a matter of principle, or this discussion is pretty superfluous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lotpot)
    how does everyone know that the taxes for these cigarettes are even contributing to england and its health care system, the whole system i so messed up no one knows where anything goes! also why do they have to completely ruled off it? Instead cant they contribute to some of the costs? Your idea of the NHS leech for smokers cancer may be someone who doesnt work is on benefits and is the "lower class".
    Truth is there are many people who use the NHS who are more than capable to pay for private healthcare!
    And of course what about alcoholics, smoking is an addiction just like drinking, wasnt there one very famous footballer that got a second chance with his life through a liver transplant and still he died because he was drinking after it?
    I read an article which had the figures (if I had a link I'd link you), and it showed the revenue from smokers which was shockingly high, whereas they burden the NHS for a significantly smaller amount.

    Tbh, the NHS would collapse without smokers.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanyore)
    Now, I am curious. You say it's a matter of principles, but if we're discounting all physical repercussions such as costs and just talking about moral decisions, surely it's just a matter of liberty over your body? What other moral repercussions can it have? Unless you don't believe in people having liberty over whatever they do to their bodies, in which case, having the heartattack/cancer makes no difference in principle. If anything, they're more aware of the effects their decision will have upon themselves.

    Either I'm missing something if this is a matter of principle, or this discussion is pretty superfluous.
    The principle comes when these people are given hospital beds ahead of those who've had an unfortunate, spontaneous, accident. They can do what the hell they want with their bodies, but it's when this detracts from resources that it becomes a problem.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AP123)
    Tbh, the NHS would collapse without smokers.
    That's not the issue.

    The fact is that most people stop smoking when they've come that close to death. If such an experience doesn't override a lack of willpower I don't know what would. The people who continue are a very small proportion of the overall smoking population. They'd make little difference.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    The principle comes when these people are given hospital beds ahead of those who've had an unfortunate, spontaneous, accident. They can do what the hell they want with their bodies, but it's when this detracts from resources that it becomes a problem.
    Do you actually know anything about the NHS or allocation of beds/resources?

    You make it look like you think that if a rta patient comes in they'll just put them on the floor because smokers are taking up all the beds. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reflexive)
    Think that argument has just been pretty much destroyed
    not necassarily. You could argue it takes up doctors time and medical resources which could have been used elsewhere. Im just putting it out there!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    That's not the issue.

    The fact is that most people stop smoking when they've come that close to death. If such an experience doesn't override a lack of willpower I don't know what would. The people who continue are a very small proportion of the overall smoking population. They'd make little difference.
    So you think they shouldn't be treated as a way of scaring them into quitting? The stick approach rather than the carrot? Why is it societies job to help people quit? People can do what they want.

    I may have missed your point, I don't know.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Degausser)
    Do you actually know anything about the NHS or allocation of beds/resources?

    You make it look like you think that if a rta patient comes in they'll just put them on the floor because smokers are taking up all the beds. :rolleyes:
    No I'm not. That's just an exaggeration and snobbiness on your part. Fallaciously excluding/ignoring other medical resources, and forms of patient welfare. "Beds" was a metonym.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    No I'm not. That's just an exaggeration and snobbiness on your part. Fallaciously excluding/ignoring other medical resources, and forms of patient welfare. "Beds" was a metonym.

    Of course its an exaggeration. But your stance here just shouts being bitterly misinformed.

    They should either be struck off the national health register, or put to the back of the queue, in order to give way to people who found themselves in an unfortunate situation, with no warning at all
    Seriously? What a horrible thing to suggest. How can you put a value on human lives like this?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.