Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The NHS cant just refuse treatment and if they stopped helping people who still smoke after cancer wouldnt they have stop treating a hell of a lot of different patients like people who have had skin cancer who still go for sunbeds.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiritedAway)
    Really? Wow, well, I've learnt something new today :yes:
    That and ulcerative colitis.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why on Earth should only the ones who were unfortunate enough to get cancer be struck off? Surely, if you want to be logical, then either all smokers should be struck off, or none should. If you're a decent human being, you'd favour the latter. A lot of smokers will never feel any ill effects at all, or at least never as bad as cancer. Even presuming they do, it's not a case of those who smoke the most feel the effects worse. Why should a 30 year old bloke who carries on smoking after cancer be denied NHS treatment when an 80 year old on 60 a day can continue getting treatment if she gives up after her cancer scare? Why if they don't stop smoking should they be denied the service, even if they've still smoked a damn sight less than most people anyway?

    That's completely ignoring the immorality of denying someone a service they've already paid for several times over.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I do think that you kind of have a point. But remember who the nhs is funded by. The other thing is, regardless of warnings people are actually addicted, which is more than just a word. Addressing a problem is one thing, dealing with it is much harder.
    Offline

    16
    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.
    This is ridiculous. I haven't read the whole thread and I'm sure this has been said already, but it is not possible to accurately assess the cause of cancer. People who smoke may have suffered from cancer even if they hadn't have started smoking. Should only people who abstain from consuming alcohol be granted treatment? As alcohol is linked to pharyngeal, liver and bowel cancer.

    Red meat is thought to be linked to bowel and stomach cancer... should this be banned regardless of the health benefits? And those who consume it be denied healthcare? Oh and according to sources:

    http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=120

    Barbecuing food such as red meat can release chemicals which contribute to cancer. We can't deny healthcare to people who regularly have barbecues...

    Anyway, if people have paid for healthcare, why should they ever be denied it?*

    *There probably are some circumstantial reasons but let's not be pedantic.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think anyone should be entitled to NHS treatment, particularly those who clearly have money, so for once I'm firmly on the side of the 'OMG teh smoking??!?! NOES!' lobby.
    Offline

    12
    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.
    Snobbiness on his part? Are you kidding me?

    The NHS isn't stretched to the limit by smokers in the slightest. Any impression on your behalf that this is the case is completely ignorant (although you've demonstrated that well throughout the thread).

    Also, can never ever say that the cause of a cancer is definite. Smoking greatly increases the risk, but it doesn't mean they 100% cause cancer. You could smoke 3000 cigarettes a day and if you got lung cancer, no-one could say for sure that that was the cause.

    Anyway I'm going to leave it there. Your argument has been successfully destroyed by jsut about everyone.
    Offline

    14
    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.
    on a similar note
    you'd have to also ban:

    fat people
    people who drink
    people who eat unhealthily
    people who don't exercise
    people who drive dangerously
    people who sunbathe
    people who sleep around and catch STDs
    people who do drugs
    people who do drugs and catch infections
    people who go on exotic holidays and get ill
    mothers who feed the children unhealthy food
    teenage mums
    old mums
    etc etc

    you'd be banning everyone....

    tax on cigarettes should cover some of the cost...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Tax generated by smokers > The cost of smokers to the NHS.

    We pay for the NHS with both smokes and our wages. To deny us treatment we paid for twice would be ridiculous. Also, being obese carries the same health risk (statistically - fat people aren't going to just develop lung cancer :rolleyes:) as smoking 10 a day.

    By your standards OP, obese people shouldn't get treatment if they keep on eating the pies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Smokers fuel the NHS through heavy taxation.

    Beside, would a hard working middle-aged, successful smoker who has paid a fortune in tax over his 20+ years of working be less deserving than a obese, non-smoking, non-taxpayer?
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.