I am looking for your comments please. Do you feel that this is right or should we leave the system as it has always been. After all what about alcoholics, drug addicts, people with eating disorders and even those sports people who injure themselves by taking chances.
2007-02-12 05:14:00 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I 100% agree with you.
It is discrimination.
There are many different and avoidable ways that people try to kill themselves and yet they are not denied treatment.
It seems fahionable to single out certain groups.
Annorexics get treatment. Has anyone thought that extreme over eating is also a disorder?
2007-02-12 05:21:20 · answer #1 · answered by n b 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think while the government is happy to rake in HUGE revenue in tobacco and alcohol, they should equally be happy to pay for the consequences.
Obesity is not always down to overeating - I eat like a savage, and love nothing more than to binge out on junk food, but I'm as thin as a rake and always have been. My friend on the other hand eats extremely well, doesn't have a sweet tooth, yet is about 4 stone overweight.
The biggest problem I have is with drug addicts. The main reason I have a problem is that like the smokers and drinkers, they made lifestyle choices for themselves, but they chose to go outside the government's rules and laws, and I don't see why the government (ie us) should pick up the bill for that. And by God, there are huge resources poured into methadone programmes and treatments, while people are still waiting offensively long times to get cancer treatments.
The minute cigarettes and alcohol are made illegal and the government no longer profit by them, I'll probably feel the same about those (and I'm a smoker).
2007-02-12 06:25:57 · answer #2 · answered by RM 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe that someone who is obese or is a smoker or an alcoholic or a drug addict or a bullimic, etc., should be denied treatment. However, there is a point where you have to draw the line and say "OK, it is a very common and well-known fact that (fill in the blank) is bad for your health, so if you decide to do that then you'll have to pay some or all of the medical expenses out of your own pocket that result from (fill in the blank)." How would we address the obese in this case? We would notify an obese person that he/she is obese and is therefore at risk, and then we advise that person that he/she is required to get treatment and make progress or else his/her status will change and he/she will then have to start paying out-of-pocket for medical services. Ditto that for smokers, drug addicts, and people with eating disorders. We're not ordering anyone to do anything, and we're not denying anyone treatment in this scenario -- we're saying "It's up to you, but if you continue to do something that you know is harmful for you then you're going to pay for it." We have to stop looking upon those who abuse food and drugs and their own bodies as victims and start holding everyone accountable for their actions equally across the board.
2007-02-12 05:32:36 · answer #3 · answered by sarge927 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Smokers and obese people still pay their taxes (smokers on their ciggarettes as well) into the system so should still get assistance. The problem is not that the health service cant afford to treat these people its that the Health service is badly managed. Too many managers and not enough nurses. If the money went on the staff and hospital beds etc instead of the red tape and stupid `art` and other `crap` then there would be plenty to go around.
2007-02-15 03:32:12 · answer #4 · answered by bluegirl 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Everyone who needs medical treatment should get it.What they should do is not treat ANY non medical conditions. Plastic surgery should not be free unless you have suffered an accident or disfiguring illness. Breast enlargements,tummy tucks,penis enlargements,dare I say it IVF should not be free. Unfortunately the NHS does not have a bottomless pit of money and it was setup to help people who need medical treatment not to give people treatments they feel they have a god given right to. I am sorry for people who can't have children or those who feel inadequate if there boobs are too small but they should pay for these things themselves. People with illnesses need the money spent on them.In an ideal world then every one would get help but as this is not possible then priority must go to the needy and suffering first.
2007-02-12 05:32:32 · answer #5 · answered by karenr 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's really hard to say either way, but there is an argument both ways. Some people may say that people become addicted to food or smoking and therefore can't help it. However, others may think that it is always possible to give up a habit.
Personally, i think obese people should b allowed treatment as obesity is not always avoidable, but smoking can always be stopped, no matter how 'addicted' a person may claim to be.
2007-02-12 05:23:06 · answer #6 · answered by Ant 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In this country we have a right to say what we like. . If a person continues on a course of action that they know has damaged their health and continue to do that action then any treatment they have is unlikely to enable them to be fully healthy again. Therefore I would give priority to those willing to help themselves, as the NHS is underfunded it is unlikely that they would receive treatment. . Give the one with the most chance of a successful outcome the treatment.. The more I have dealings with alcoholics and drug users the less sympathy I have. It is always someone elses fault. I have sympathy for those who take responsiblity for their own actions.
2007-02-12 07:21:04 · answer #7 · answered by chewystuff 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
NHS Trusts sometimes can't give everyone the treatment they need due to budget or other resource limits. If they have to select patients for treatment they will normallly choose those who have the best chance of benefitting from that treatment. If someone is obese or smokes they are usually less likely to respond well so will often be blocked from access to treatment in favour of those with fewer adverse factors.
2007-02-12 08:36:51 · answer #8 · answered by Huh? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't believe that it is solely a matter of whether or not they recieve surgery. They are given 3 months in a smoking cessation clinic in which they should try to give up the habit, and at the end of that period, they may still be operated on even if they haven't quit, depending on their need. The reason for this is that smokers develop post-operative complications at a much higher rate than non-smokers. Would you consider it wrong if you were required to be sober while being operated on?
2007-02-12 05:28:19 · answer #9 · answered by fishermaniac 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think its just an excuse not to treat people on the NHS
These people have paid national insurance all their working lives
So what if some people drink ,smoke or are obese its their money
Before long it will be if you drive a car you wont be treated if you are in a car accident
2007-02-12 05:28:44 · answer #10 · answered by Black Orchid 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋