unless they quit at least 3 months before the operation.
Surgeons are finding that smokers take longer to heal and are more prone to infection,. This places an added burdon on the system as well as costs.
He has said that it would take a smoker between 6 weeks to 3 months to be able to return their bodies to a similar state as non smokers to be eligable for the same surgery if they gave up smoking.
Do you think that smokers should be allowed access to the same medical treatments as non smokers if they refuse to give up?
Do you thgink smokers should also be candidates for transplant surgery?
2007-01-05 19:25:22 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Health ➔ Diseases & Conditions ➔ Other - Diseases
Up until 25 years ago, it was unknown that so much damage was caused by smoking tobacco, and inhaling second hand smoke, so not every smoker (or past smoker) can be found fully responsible for the damage done to their body.
The point made by the surgeon is fair, that surgery should only be available to smokers who have stopped within the previous 3 months.
Approximately 1 out of 10 deaths are tobacco related, so imagine how much money would be saved through the healthcare system if we dont have to pay for the health (or rather decline) of these people.
I agree that there should be some sort of force preventing smokers who refuse to give up smoking, yet use up much needed government resources,expecially for transplant surgery, which is scarce.
Its unfair to those who suffer from non-lifestyle related diseases, and wait almost endlessly for donor organs, whilst those who have put themselves in that particular prediciment, recceive what could possibly be their, kidney or lung.
2007-01-05 19:50:23 · answer #1 · answered by bec.k 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Theroetically. The surgeon is probably right in a socialized medicine setting, or altrusitic setting.
But realistically, most dotors are about making money, and if all the elective surgery paid for by smokers dissappeared, there'd surgeons looking for work and empty hospital beds -- raising the price of the filled ones.
However, if anyone could pull it off, it would be the insurance companies. They could refuse to pay for elective procedures if your a smoker---oops!!!---- they refuse most elective procedures anyway.
2007-01-05 19:38:35 · answer #2 · answered by mt_hopper 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wait you said elective surgery which means you want to have it i know its not like all elective surgery are boob jobs and nose jobs but if you are going to elect to go through it you should also do all things the doctor tells you which will also include not eating for about 24 hrs im pretty sure the doctor isnt saying if you NEED surgery you better make sure you havent smoked for 3 months so if a medical doctor tells you to prevent infection and death and you suing my *** you have to quit smoking for 3 months yes i believe he has the right to make that claim
2007-01-05 19:33:59 · answer #3 · answered by Danielle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I bet you that if the patient who will undergo elective surgery were a paying patient and not on HMO, that surgeon wouldn't mind taking him in at all, whether he is a smoker or not.
2007-01-05 19:43:50 · answer #4 · answered by Rene B 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And then what other destructive behaviors will you bar from surgery? Alcoholics? People who eat too much salt or fat? People who don't exercise?
2007-01-05 19:35:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋