do you all think this is wrong? that smokers are now to get this new drug on the nhs?

Question

how unfair that patients that have altziemers are refused a drug that will aid their condition i have nothing against smokers i have family members that smoke but they have made that choice to smoke. this is so wrong

Answer 1

I see your point


http://www.starnow.co.uk/allanhatucker

Answer 2

I have always had mixed feelings about the message of anti-smoking drugs being on the NHS. Since they were added to the drugs tariff there has certainly been no significant fall in smoking. There is also no doubt that statistically no more than 1 in 5 patients who uses them succeeds in giving up. This means that you could say 80% of the money spend on them is wasted anyway!

On the other side the cost of smoking to the NHS is massive, not to mention the cost to the community and families of the early deaths and disability it causes. After all 50% of smokers will die of diseases related to their habit. So any help in getting even a few people to give up is perhaps justified.

In reality I am sure that allowing them to be NHS prescribed is much more a political measure than a medical one.

Answer 3

I am not fully with this.I am not sure what drug that smokers are to get on the NHS but if it helps them stop smoking and in the long run saves the NHS money in treating smoking related diseases then fine.As regards sufferers of Alzheimer's disease I believe the drug in question has been evaluated and has found to be expensive and to not give very good value for money.The advantages to the sufferer are not thought to be sufficient to justify the high cost involved.While these sufferers have our sympathy there has to be a balance struck between cost and effectiveness of all NHS treatments so that the maximum number of people can be treated for their various ailments.

Answer 4

smoking related diseases cost the nhs a fortune, A lot of people who smoke do not want to, they are trapped by an addiction. I fthey can be helped to give up by a nhs drug then ultimately ther should be more money in the pot to pay for drugs for other diseases. Well that's the thinking behind it., but I somehow think if money is saved the nhs managers will find some way to waste it.

Answer 5

The tobacco companies are responsible for a great deal of tax contributions and they make enormous donations to political parties...so yeah, it's fair that the group that profitted off of tobacco sales try to implement something to get people off of those things. The smokers themselves pay a whole lot of taxes themselves too.

What people forget is that the taxes smokers pay fund a great deal of social services NOT related to smoking illnesses. I think it's only fair that they reap the rewards of the outrageous taxes they've paid over the years. The medical costs of smoking related illnesses are far less that those of paying for uninsured women having several kids off of the system, school donations and many community service benefits.

Besides, with everyone that complains about smoking, it seems that they would be satisfied with providing a drug where there's potential to get a lot of people off of the nicotene instead of "paying" for the health related illnesses.

But remember, if everyone quit smoking, those billions of dollars in tax revenue would have to come from somewhere...who's sure they would be happy with the government digging into their pockets to compensate by taxing groceries, land and luxuries at a higher rate to make up for the deficit?

Answer 6

it is unfair that any patients are refused treatment which will help aid their condition.

it is a choice to smoke but its not a choice to get addicted to them. if this drug will help people to give up smoking surely its worth the money, as it will ave on other treatments...lung cancer, asthma etc.

plus i smoke and i claim no benefits...i hardly ever go to the doctor..once in 2 years...why shouldnt i get it if it helps me give up...i have tried but i failed. i can admit that i have an addiction. if we dont give this then maybe we should stop treating alcoholics and drug addicts at the same time...after all, they made their choice to take the drugs or have the drink.

Answer 7

I think the way the Government views it is that, to help smokers stop doesn't just benefit them but also benefits the rest of society because it will cut down Cancers, other illnesses caused by passive smoking and everything else that goes with it.

Answer 8

Maybe it is unfair, but anything that eliminates a health problem that causes emphysema, etc., for the smoker AND the non-smoker is a GOOD thing.

BTW: Look up AB40 and AB42 - it might be some VERY good news for Alzheimer's patients.

Answer 9

I understand how you feel but every (but not genetic or idiopathic) illness one could argue is the result of living badly or indulging ourselves to the detrement of our health.. I'm thinking of overeating, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, stress, etc, etc. what about someone who injures themself whilst bungy jumping, horse-riding, driving? No, I think that everyone should be acknowledged as a flawed human being that messes up occasionally and needs a bit of help to get back on track. Therefore - give smokers, druggies, boozers, and anyone else who needs it the help to become, or remain, productive members of society.

What's your vice?!!

PS - I don't think that Alzheimers treatment was ever pitched against smokers as an 'either/or' scenario. I could think of plenty of other things that I feel should be 'rationed' on the NHS, but don't get me started!

Answer 10

why not drug addicts get perception drug on the nhs smoking is just a diff rent form addiction shouldn't the question be who is going to fund the nhs when every one stops aft re all that's were most of the taxes go from the sale of cigarettes

Answer 11

Agree, especially when you have cancer drugs available but not given because of the costs. A lot of cancer victims (I don't say all as smokers get lung cancer) have no choice in their disease.
Same with alkies and druggies