Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It's one of the NHS's founding principles that sick people get treated, regardless of their social standing, how much money they contribute, the reason for them being ill, whether they make the right decisions or not, whether they're "bad" or not. People get treated.

    What next? The NHS shouldn't treat criminals, the NHS shouldn't treat people with self inflicted illness of any kind, the NHS shouldn't treat people who are a "lost cause" and will die anyway?

    You talk about principles but you've got them all wrong.

    And I'm no fan of smoking.


    EDIT:
    Patient: I'm really short of breath and I'm worried my cancer's come back
    Doctor: Allow me to check my records before I take this any further
    Doctor: Oh dear, you're a smoker
    Patient: I'm sorry?
    Doctor: I'm afraid we don't treat your sort. You can just p*ss off and die
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Degausser)
    Of course its an exaggeration. But your stance here just shouts being bitterly misinformed.



    Seriously? What a horrible thing to suggest. How can you put a value on human lives like this?
    I don't see anything wrong with it. It's like comparing someone who's been ******* about in the road, dodging cars, for years, and finally getting hit by one, with someone injured in a hit and run. Some cases are just more tragic than others.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    god this thread been done so many time, and well where do you stop

    whos next on the list, drinkers, red meat eaters, drivers, and so and so on, then you end up everyone paying
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    does anyone have any real figures on the taxes vs cost of smokers to the NHS...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    I don't see anything wrong with it. It's like comparing someone who's been ******* about in the road, dodging cars, for years, and finally getting hit by one, with someone tragically injured in a hit and run. Some cases are more just than others.

    Sounds like you want the NHS to play a judge, jury and executioner type role as well as health care.

    Who determines which case is more just? You? The doctor? You get sick/injured and you're treated as best as can be, and this is how it should be. Don't stand on your high horse and dictate how people should be treated depending on their personal decisions, its not the way. You talk about principles, but in doing so you just throw the foundation of the NHS out the window.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Totally Tom)
    does anyone have any real figures on the taxes vs cost of smokers to the NHS...
    The cost to the NHS directly is about half as much (very roughly) as the money made through tax.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Lolz. People seem to think my point has to work within the bounds of NHS morals.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Lolz. People seem to think my point has to work within the bounds of NHS morals.
    No, because it obviously wouldn't. The reason I keep bringing it up is because the NHS is a great thing that both morally and in principle is much better than what you're suggesting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Degausser)
    No, because it obviously wouldn't. The reason I keep bringing it up is because the NHS is a great thing that both morally and in principle is much better than what you're suggesting.
    Not really, I believe in rights in accordance to the situation, and someone who hasn't survived cancer yet continued smoking deserves the right to healthcare more than someone who has? That's my ideal anyway. You may not like it but don't get too wound up. :indiff:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AP123)
    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.
    I dont think they should be denied NHS healthcare even if they hav continued smoking and of course their revenue is high thats the whole reason cigarettes are so costly is for the government too get back what ever its costing tem for smoking related illness and to try and deter them frm smoking.

    So yeh in fact they do already pay for everything through purchasing of cigarettes.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Not really, I believe in rights in accordance to the situation, and someone who hasn't survived cancer yet continued smoking deserves the right to healthcare more than someone who has? That's my ideal anyway. You may not like it but don't get too wound up. :indiff:
    Whats wrong with treating both? The NHS isn't necessarily underfunded, it's just all these layers of outsourced middle management etc that are costing it so much.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)

    Discuss.

    Didn't you really mean to say "agree with me wholeheartedly or I'll attempt to belittle you"?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    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.

    You did switch it over pretty fast. So we're talking morals now? Any more information given on the smoker? Light or heavy smoker? What about the driver? Drunk driver? Pedestrian? The more variables there are, the more complicated it becomes as I'm sure you understand.

    Morally, of course you would sacrifice the person who had brought it on themselves as opposed to the person in the car crash. (I'm assuming their involvement was innocent, as opposed to directly causing it, which in turn would bring them back round to bringing things on to themselves.)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MichaelG)
    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!
    But those doctors wages/resources are paid for the smokers' taxes (putting it simply).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reflexive)
    But those doctors wages/resources are paid for the smokers' taxes (putting it simply).
    oh they are paid for their efforts of course, but putting it more complicatedly (sorry :p: ), you could say that the time they invest in a serial smoker could be instead invested in someone who is ill through no choice of their own.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    On the basis that smokers contribute more to the NHS than they cost, then no. If there's a shortage of beds, then it certainly isn't the fault of smokers. Besides, the state has absolutely no right to threaten and coerce people into changing the way that they treat their bodies. Spoken as a non-smoker, for what it's worth.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    Perhaps we could stop people who refuse to give up red meat or don't go to the gym at least 3 times a week from accessing NHS care?

    Smokers more than pay for the care they receive for smoking related illnesses.

    this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Fully agree!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As countless people have said; taxes on cigarettes vastly outstrip your mandatory contribution towards healthcare, so take your elitist attitude elsewhere.
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

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

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