Do you consider smokers should be denied treatment on the NHS?

Question

If so what about other "self inflicted diseases or injuries"

Joggers with dodgy knees or ankles.
People who drink too much alcohol.
People who are obese through over eating.
Stupidity.

Who else should be denied free treatment?

P.S. I don't think anyone should be denied free treatment on the NHS

I am a smoker

Answer 1

Smoking= bad
Driving cars= polluted=bad
Some foods we eat= fat/sugar/salt/cholesterol= bad
Air we breath= pollution=bad
Drinking= liver disease= bad
Horse riding= broken bones=bad
High risk sports= death?= bad
Obesity=bad
You get the point? We all inflict things upon ourselves, its called living. Deny one group, you have to deny all!

Answer 2

There's no need to raise the comparison with joggers etc as the tax paid by smokers on each packet of cigarettes is so high that any illness derived from smoking and requiring treatment has probably been paid for ten times over by the time treatment is required and before the anti smoking bunch jump on that one not everybody does become ill due to smoking so the taxes they pay are a bonus for the NHS at the end of the day the choice is the individuals to run the risk or not and hopefully the new restrictions will protect people who chose not to smoke.

Answer 3

In principle, no. As you have pointed out, and several respondents have agreed already, if providers of medical treatment start making judgements about lifestyle where do they stop?

There may be circumstances in which smoking will make treatment likely to be ineffective, and therefore unjustifiable. perhaps a clearer example is in the case of alcohol: the scarcity of livers for transplant is such that it is clearly inappropriate to give a new liver to an alcoholic who will destroy it through further drink rather than a non-alcoholic who will benefit longer from the new liver.

Non-smokers have the right not to be exposed to the dangers of passive smoking whilst receiving NHS treatment, and the NHS has a duty to prevent such exposure in relation to both staff and patients. So smokers will have to put up with not smoking in hospital.

Let me add that smoking is a disgusting (e.g. because it smells) habit that kills a large propostion of those who smoke. It is highly addictive: in my experience most smokers would give up if they could. The NHS should give every possible incentive and service to stop people smoking, but not the stick of denying them treatment.

Answer 4

A difficult one, this. Joggers jog in order to increase their fitness, the benefits of jogging outweigh the negative aspects and as a result negative side effects are precisely that, side effects to an action which has a positive overall effect.

However, if someone is doing something which they know to be harmful, then should other people be forced to foot the bill? Well, obviously smokers pay taxes, just like everybody else, through income, national insurance and the extra "sin tax" on their cigarettes. Tobacco taxation amounts to £10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is roughly £1.7 billion. Banning smoking would create a defecit for the government to have to make up from somewhere, presumably from alcohol taxes, which is why smoking has only been banned in public places and not outright. Can you imagine the uproar if everyone who wanted a drink had to pay £8 a pint?!

Smokers pay for the ills they are doing to themselves and are funding their own medical treatment through taxation on cigarettes. It is true that they could be made to pay even more on a case-by-case basis for medical treatment but then should smokers taxes on cigarettes be used to pay for the treatment of everyone else?

The NHS is a blanket created to provide care for everone who needs it. Talk of excluding some from the mantle of the NHS is fashionable, however ultimately unworkable. Speeders in car accidents? Overeaters? Those injured during extreme sports? If smokers are excluded for pursuing a habit which is ultimately legal, then this would not only have a negative impact on the poorest sections of society, but also exclude smokers even more from a society which cannot afford to be without their addiction.

Answer 5

Actually, since you cant determine why they have those conditions (even if you think that everyone who has dodgy knees or ankles caused their conditions, or that people who drink too much do so of their own free will, or that people who are obese get that way by over-eating, or that being stupid is a choice) everyone should get treatment for whatever they have.

You shouldn't stereotype people. One day something may happen to you, and then everyone else will point at you and say some stereotypical thing, and all you can do is complain at that point - dont spread stereotyping!

Answer 6

No one should ever be denied treatment on the NHS. I was born before the NHS was created but when it was, we were told that it would protect and look after us from the cradle to the grave - and so it must continue. Those too young to remember life before the NHS should understand this, even well of middle class folk cannot really afford private medicare - even those foolish enough to think they can. To see what its like without an NHS visit the USA. People without medical insurance simply do not get treated in hospital, even those suffering major road injuries. You never see this on American medical soaps but it is true.

The truth about life and death is that 75% of people never get ill or go into hospital, they simply die of old age in their sleep. In spite of what you have heard - all of the above is true. None of my family ever spent time in hospital and all died in mature old age simply of being old and their hearts gave out. An uncle of mine died stone dead in the street in his 82 year while we were going to the pub - crash - dead, no spasms no pain, just dead, like he'd been shot or something. Way to go!

Answer 7

Don't get invoved in these debates often, but have to say the responses to this question are a degree above the usual c*** that I see on here. You can't discriminate without opening a whole can of worms. If you are not careful, you will end up with the "Hitler" solution, i.e. get rid of homosexuals, mentally subnormal, physically disabled etc, etc. All of us who enjoy good health should be grateful and be more understanding. I hate smoking, primarily because of what it does to people, is there anything more tragic than seeing patients in a hospital going out for a smoke, despite the fact that it is killing them?. I wish that I could/could have been? a better person and he who is without sin, let them cast the first stone-and I am not religous either!

Answer 8

No. It would set a precedent to deny other people treatment simply because they do not live a healthy lifestyle. Who would be the judge of that? No one can. Not even our self appointed "nanny" of a government. The medical profession would be placed in an impossible position. They do a marvellous job already and a lack of adequate resources already makes it difficult to make decisions on the level and type of treatment needed.

Answer 9

Self-inflicted my butt. When I started smoking at 14, no one was telling us that cigarettes were going to be the death of us. No one gave a damn. By the time the no smoking campaign began there were millions of people like myself, addicted beyond belief. I continue to try to quit smoking on a regular basis, with very limited success. Percentage-wise, more people are successful quitting heroin addiction than are successful at beating the cigarette habit. I'm not a person who likes to blame my own shortcomings on others, but I'll be hanged if I'll accept drug addiction as coverable for treatment and not addiction to cigarettes. People who have never smoked and rail against those who do? They can kiss my behind. So many of them seem to think all we have to do is just wake up one day and throw them out. They talk about our "filthy" habit like it is something easy to get rid of. They don't have a fricking clue.

Answer 10

No - As the taxes charged on cigarettes actually finances the NHS and a lot more.
In fact looking at it another (perverse) way, smokers are actually providing a service to the community.

Answer 11

Nope, if someone really want to get down to it and be nitpicky, most health problems could be contrued as being caused from something someone did or did not do.

Besides, smokers are going to die at least 20-30 years before the rest of us, so it'll probably end up evening out with the health problems we'll have later in life.