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 dont think anyone should be denied free treatment. But then, I'm a smoker

Answer 1

THEY ARE AWAYS HAVING A GO AT SMOKERS. THEY FORGET HOW MUCH MONEY IS PUT IN THE GOVERNMENT COFFERS FROM THE TAX WE PAY. THATS WHY THEY DO NOT MAKE SMOKING ILLEGAL.THEY CANT AFFORD TOO,SO GIVE US A BREAK.

Answer 2

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 3

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 4

One perspective is that alcohol, eating (!!!) and jogging are potentially GOOD for you....
There are still smokers around (aged 55-60 and over) - who probably should NOT be blamed for their compromised health, because as late as the 1960's, the effects of smoking cigarettes were not fully known, and smoking was still portrayed as a 'glamorous' and socially 'in' thing to do. (Just watch a James Bond movie!)
But those born later....do they really have any excuse for starting to smoke, given the widespread warnings and the level of health education???? Even the old chestnut that smoking 'reduces stress' has been completely blown away by the clinical evidence. (Smoking CAUSES stress, which is then relieved by smoking another cigarette!!!)
Life does involve risks at all levels - but deliberately engaging in self-destructive behaviour (especially given that free help is available) is perhaps a completely different thing.
Having said that, we have to be compassionate about other people's addictions. It takes just one pack of cigarettes to be addicted - and it is something that is VERY difficult indeed to kick.....
On balance I think the NHS should not be permitted to make moral judgements when dispensing healthcare. As you indicate, there is no logical stopping point, and moral issues require an altogether different forum.

Answer 5

Chadders >
I see what you are saying.
I smoke, and like my beer.
The smoking came from my school-mates, the beer came from my very good freinds at the local pub.
Happy days.
OK - it is still down to me.
Sure, I am to be responsible for my own health, or lack of it, but if after paying in thousands to the NHS, and be denied any treatment as a UK citizen, I would be more than T'd off.
It used to be a 9% tax on earnings.
I don't need treatment for smoking cigs., and probably won't.
But by gum, was I happy when some twit pulled out in front of me, when on my motorbike.
He had a cigarette in his face, and unhurt.
I get a leg cut in half.
Life is a .....

Bob

Answer 6

I certainly think that people should have to take responsibility for their health. I would be happy to pay an extra premium to the NHS for taking part in active sports like skiing and rock climbing if I also got a discount for being slim, non-smoking and vegetarian.

I think that repeat offenders should be denied treatment, for example if you are treated for a smoking related condition and you don't stop smoking, they should charge you for the treatment, or at least put you at the bottom of the waiting list.

Answer 7

Hello chadders,

Good question! So long as smoking is legal no one should be denied treatment for illness related to smoking. Personally, I don't think anyone should be denied treatment for smoke related illness even if smoking was illegal.

Smoking is an addiction. People who smoke need to be supported with education and coping skills and encouragement to quit as well as having their health care needs met.

I don't believe anyone should be denied treatment, however I do believe anyone should have the option to refuse treatment. Of course this is just my opinion. I think more people could benefit this way, than by forcing anything on anyone.

S

Answer 8

If you're going to deny free medical care because of their own self inflicted disease or injury, you could pretty much end medical care for everyone. Pregnant women with complications - they didn't cause the complication, but they got pregnant on their own knowing there are risks to getting pregnant, or children that are doing things they've been told a million times not to do, like hanging on a chair and hit their heads on the floor and now need stitches - the kid was doing something he knew he shouldn't and caused his own injury, people injured in a car accident - they chose to drive knowing the risks are good that they could be in an accident. The list is endless, because in some way, most medical care given is either the direct or indirect result of peoples choices.

Answer 9

Cars cause more pollution,illness,& death than smokers,so,why aren't cars banned & drivers forced on public transport?After all,it would save a lot of lives,& also billions in healthcare.Once you go down the road of putting a price on everything,then no-one is safe from being hassled by the Government.

Answer 10

get of your high horse please,everyone is entitled to help I'm a smoker but why doesn't alcohol carry a government health warning as well,as that causes much more harm than any cigarette does,if any one should be denied any treatment it should be you!!! for your ignorance