Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey guys, I've thought of a little question for debate.

    The government should not publicly fund ailments on the NHS that people suffer as a result of lifestyle choices. For instance obesity and smoking and alcohol related diseases.

    Personally I agree with this statement; if you, by a consequence of the way you live, contract a life-threatening disease or otherwise, the taxpayer should not be contributing to your healthcare.

    However, this is just my opinion so feel free to go against it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eagleeye1234)
    The government should not publicly fund ailments on the NHS that people suffer as a result of lifestyle choices. For instance obesity and smoking and alcohol related diseases.
    But then no-one would get treated. If I choose to go out ad get run over, then surely I wouldn't get treatment on the basis I chose to go out?:confused:

    Not everyone who is obese is as a result of lifestyle choice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sure you'll be whistling a very different tune if you were to contract a life threatening disease because of the environment you lived in.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    So any child who injures themselves while messing around shouldn't be treated? Neither should anyone with mental health issues who has self harmed in some way? Neither should anyone who aggravates their illness in anyway- for example someone with asthma who has a dog or psorasis (sp?) who scratches their skin? No-one with an STI should be treated as its their own fault? No-one should receive pre-natal or anti-natal care because it was their lifestyle choices which caused them to become pregnant? Someone suffering from stress shouldn't be treated because it was their choice to get into a career which may have caused them the stress?

    I slightly agree with what you're saying, obesity/smoking/alcohol are three things which take a lot of money from the NHS but where do we draw the line? A lot of illness/conditions/injuries could be said to be caused at least in part by the person.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Titch89)
    But then no-one would get treated. If I choose to go out ad get run over, then surely I wouldn't get treatment on the basis I chose to go out?

    Not everyone who is obese is as a result of lifestyle choice.
    Agreed. Everything is the result of a lifestyle choice, essentially. I don't think people who're obese, who smoke or who drink should get second chances on the NHS, nor should someone with an addiction be given a transplant above someone who's more likely to treat the replacement organ well, but first chances are a right, I feel.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This would completely go against the foundations of the NHS; free at the point of need.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    I don't think people who're obese, who smoke or who drink should get second chances on the NHS, nor should someone with an addiction be given a transplant above someone who's more likely to treat the replacement organ well, but first chances are a right, I feel.
    There are some people who are obese due to health problems. Should they get treatment?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree with this. Diseases and illnesses can't always be classed as self-inflicted or not. A variety of factors come into play. How do you know that the illness was self-inflicted? The person may have had a genetic pre-disposition which increases chances he will get the illness, in which case, it would obviously not be due to life-style choices? There is always a certain amount of uncertainty as to what are the causes of an illness are.

    Also, just because a person has been living an unhealthy lifestyle does not mean that it is their complete fault. Some people are ignorant of health hazards and so don't really know that their life-style choices are detrimental to his/her health. Why should these people be penalized? They should be educated on the matter so that they do not repeat their errors.

    On the other hand, I think the concept of Justice can be used to ensure proper practice. Here is an example: You have a sick, unlucky woman who needs a liver transplant. She is a mother and lives a relatively healthy lifestyle. You also have a grizzled alcoholic who needs a liver transplant. But you only have one liver. Who would you give it to?

    You would give it to the mother because you know the procedure will most likely be successful and the illness will probably not occur again. However, if you have two livers, then both patients should get one.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Titch89)
    There are some people who are obese due to health problems. Should they get treatment?
    :yes:

    But, for example, I'm obese due to a love of food. If I were to get ill due to my weight, I'd lose weight - if I didn't, it'd be my fault and I wouldn't expect further treatment.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by eagleeye1234)
    Hey guys, I've thought of a little question for debate.

    The government should not publicly fund ailments on the NHS that people suffer as a result of lifestyle choices. For instance obesity and smoking and alcohol related diseases.

    Personally I agree with this statement; if you, by a consequence of the way you live, contract a life-threatening disease or otherwise, the taxpayer should not be contributing to your healthcare.

    However, this is just my opinion so feel free to go against it.
    Some people break their bones when they go skateboarding, should they be turned away from free NHS treatment? Nobody is forced to go skateboarding. There are a million and one ways in which our 'lifestyle choices' make us vulnerable to illness or disease.

    SOLUTION: treat everyone, educate everyone, support everyone.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by eagleeye1234)
    Hey guys, I've thought of a little question for debate.

    The government should not publicly fund ailments on the NHS that people suffer as a result of lifestyle choices. For instance obesity and smoking and alcohol related diseases.

    Personally I agree with this statement; if you, by a consequence of the way you live, contract a life-threatening disease or otherwise, the taxpayer should not be contributing to your healthcare.

    However, this is just my opinion so feel free to go against it.
    I feel you have a valid point. However, I don't think you've thought it through well.

    I can appreciate the tremendous strain individuals put on the NHS due to their life-choices. But I guess every condition can be linked to ones environment.

    I guess a major flaw in this idea, is how will it be controlled? How can one 'analyse' whether ones condition is as a direct result of messing around?

    I also appreciate the idea behind wasted transplants. But how can one accurately decipher whether one will abuse their organ after the transplant?

    I certainly couldn't possibly make the decision of who gets what?

    Besides, I guess another factor which is brought into disrepute, is the cost of NHS on an individual; 'why should I pay if I can't get anything from the system'?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eagleeye1234)
    The government should not publicly fund ailments on the NHS that people suffer as a result of lifestyle choices. For instance obesity and smoking and alcohol related diseases.
    There are very few ailments which cannot in some way be credited to someone's lifestyle. There are always ways of lessening a person's susceptibility to illness - are you seriously suggesting that everyone who didn't do this to the utmost level would be denied treatment? Then barely anyone would qualify. Are you suggesting these people should still pay tax towards the NHS?

    That said, I believe people should be responsible for themselves - which is why, of course, I believe in abolishing the NHS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It has been said already, but nearly accidents illnesses are caused by lifestyle choices. Sometimes the connection between the two is fairly straight forward, sometimes it is complex, but who would make this decision?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The NHS should be privatised and then thetaxpayer wouldn't have to pay for anyone
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eagleeye1234)
    Hey guys, I've thought of a little question for debate.

    The government should not publicly fund ailments on the NHS that people suffer as a result of lifestyle choices. For instance obesity and smoking and alcohol related diseases.

    Personally I agree with this statement; if you, by a consequence of the way you live, contract a life-threatening disease or otherwise, the taxpayer should not be contributing to your healthcare.

    However, this is just my opinion so feel free to go against it.

    Hmm, but for instance, they can't always say definitively that the lung cancer was due to smoking. So should everyone who gets lung cancer and has tried smoking be refused just in case?

    On a personal note, I've had back problems, which were originally put down to my weight, saw a physio and turned out it was actually an underlying problem, that is there for life, doesn't matter if I'm 6 stone or 26. How often would things like this be ignored on presumptions?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think that its fair to an extent ie smoking - if a person has made the effort to stop then they should be offered treatment, but if they haven't then no
    same with obesity if they try to lose weight they should be helped but otherwise no
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eagleeye1234)
    Hey guys, I've thought of a little question for debate.

    The government should not publicly fund ailments on the NHS that people suffer as a result of lifestyle choices. For instance obesity and smoking and alcohol related diseases.

    Personally I agree with this statement; if you, by a consequence of the way you live, contract a life-threatening disease or otherwise, the taxpayer should not be contributing to your healthcare.

    However, this is just my opinion so feel free to go against it.
    How about the taxpayer doesn't have to contribute to healthcare full-stop, and we end this insane communist policy of having a state monopoly on healthcare that is a total failure on every level?

    That way everyone can live whatever life style they want, however decadent, without everyone resorting to blaming each other for a problem that actually lies with our wannabe-communist 'free health care for all' (which isn't even free since we are forced to pay national insurance and now extras vaccinations and dental treatment...) culture and nanny-state...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    is it not part of doctors ethical posistions due to being part of the .... cant remember the name of it now but don't they have to treat people reguardless of what they have done or have'nt done in their lives?
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by eagleeye1234)
    Hey guys, I've thought of a little question for debate.

    The government should not publicly fund ailments on the NHS that people suffer as a result of lifestyle choices. For instance obesity and smoking and alcohol related diseases.

    Personally I agree with this statement; if you, by a consequence of the way you live, contract a life-threatening disease or otherwise, the taxpayer should not be contributing to your healthcare.

    However, this is just my opinion so feel free to go against it.

    The tax made on things like cigarettes, alcohol etc is rather high and a fair percentage of that does go towards the NHS, in a way smokers pay for themselves. Plus, bringing this type of decision leads down to a slippery slope in society, could lead to the NHS to not treating those who attempted suicide, or weren't paying attention to the road, leading to something which the NHS wasn't set up for.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by re-animator)
    is it not part of doctors ethical posistions due to being part of the .... cant remember the name of it now but don't they have to treat people reguardless of what they have done or have'nt done in their lives?

    Hippocratic oath? Although nowadays it's the GMC duties of a doctor (I think!)
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.