should smokers be forbidden from medical treatment?

Question

not just smokers but asnyone who puts themselves in danger I.E alcoholics, drug users, adrenaline junkies.

Oh and i am not argueing that they should - just looking at the other side of the coin.

Answer 1

well if a smoker is refused treatment because he is a smoker then where would it stop? how about overweight ppl should they be denied treatment? they run high risk of blood pressure,diabetes,heart attack or how about women who have babies late in life ? down syndrome should the child be denied treatment because the mother knew the risk? not just ppl who smoke get sick my mom died of cancer she never smoked or drank alcohol in her life should she have been denied treatment because she had cancer? thank god we live in America a non-Communist country where you wont be denied treatment due to age,race,religion,sexuality

Answer 2

No, because drugs such as alcohol and tobacco have been accepted into general society by law and tradition. Tax revenues are raised on the basis of them and they are still part of the human condition. Maybe society will change in the future (certainly with smoking this is the case in Western societies) but for the moment, the majority of adult populations use either one, the another or both.

With illegal drugs the above argument will not do. Then one is forced to look at the humanitarian issues. Sure, people do make themselves very sick with drugs. Should they then be turned away when help is asked for? The answer is no because

a) it is unethical not to render assistance to somebody in trouble when it is in society's power to help.

b) It is uneconomic not to help. It has been found that it costs less for the state to help somebody with a destructive drugs habit than they would steal in order to keep the habit going.

Answer 3

Hmmm following that logic taken to its extreme... construction workers, medical personnel, pilots, tattoo artists etc. should be denied medial treatment. If you have ever driven a car or crossed the street you have put yourself in danger. :-)

I know what you mean but I think all of us have done things that we knew were foolish. How smart does it sound to dive miles beneath the surface of the ocean with just a little tank that could malfunction at any moment as the only thing keeping you alive? :-)

Answer 4

I think in countries that allow lung transplants that smokers should be required to quit. or be denied

Smokers pay higher premiums for health and life ins

Answer 5

probably not, smokers, alcoholic drinkers should get medical treatment, for it is fair for them to have a right to get medical care, despite them doing harm to theirselves.

also, they should have access to medical need, for it could help them to caught down on their bad addictions.

also most addicts pay taxes which helps to fund government plans for good educations, or even to pay our salaries. therefore it is fair for them to get medical attentions.

Answer 6

ok I see what you're saying and that i completely accept as true with you. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, extensive-unfold socialized wellbeing care isn't what's being reported the superb option now in our u . s .. So comparing us to the Canadians is rather like comparing apples and oranges. what's being reported the superb option now's a public determination. enable me repeat that determination that runs alongside with inner maximum insurers. in case you like your crappy wellbeing care coverage that robs you of you funds so an govt can purchase an even bigger yacht then you definately can shop it or on the different hand in case you like a extra cost-effective scientific coverage that makes you wait 17 weeks to be sure a expert then you definately could have that too. relatively everyone is familiar with that the government run healthcare is in basic terms no longer as stable simply by fact the indoors maximum wellbeing care, yet as long as people get something, this is extra appropriate then no longer something. look, the superb option now individuals are turning out to be unfastened wellbeing care in emergency rooms. they do no longer pay for scientific expenditures and that cost gets unfolded between each physique, in case you provide them an coverage from the government then they're going to be lined. Emergency room visits will bypass down subsequently simply by fact they have popular medical doctors and the charges for hospitals and tax payers will bypass down. As for me, i might shop my coverage or bypass with public determination we will see how issues bypass. i assumed a stable concept might desire to be to kill the tax shrink for companies who supply workers with heatlh care coverage. this might reason relatively everyone to bypass out searching for his or her very own coverage, to that end increasing opposition, to that end reducing expenses. I wrote to my congressman approximately it, waiting to take heed to lower back from him nonetheless, any innovations?

Answer 7

No, they should not be denied treatment, but they should pay for it. As is it now, ALL of us pay for the health care of a FEW of us.

If smokers had to pay their share, they couldn't afford the cigarettes.

Answer 8

DONT FORGET ABOUT FAT PEOPLE , THOSE FAT PEOPLE SAY THAT SMOKING IS BAD FOR US (YES IT IS, I SMOKE ), BUT I PAY JUST AS MUCH OR MORE TAXES THAN EVERY ONE ELSE, AND I PAY A HEALTH CARE PREIMUM EVERY WEEK OUT OF MY PAY CHEQUE, TAKE A LOOK AT FAT PEOPLE , HEART PROBLEMS, BLOOD PRESSURE, ECT, SAME AS SMOKERS, BUT FAT PEOPLE NEVER GET TOLD BY SOMEONE IN A RESTRAUNT, THAT THOSE FRENCH FRYES ARE BAD FOR THEM, AND BECAUSE OF YOUR WEIGHT YOU BOTHER ME.

Answer 9

yes and no.
i feel that the should be given substance abuse counseling not more medical treatment

Answer 10

I smoke and my Dr. won't treat anything he thinks is related to smoking. But, he also won't help me try to quit.