Smokers and alcoholics 'should pay for operations'

Smokers who need heart bypasses and alcoholics who need liver transplants should not get them free on the NHS, according to four out of 10 hospital doctors. A quarter of those questioned in a survey also believe obese patients should not be given free anti-obesity drugs or receive free orthopaedic treatments.
The majority also oppose free gender reassignment and cosmetic surgery, and a third believe that patients suffering from infertility should have to pay for IVF (in vitro fertilisation) treatment.

The findings emerged in a poll conducted by the medical pollsters Medix for the Hospital Doctor newsletter sent to all 70,000 hospital doctors.

It comes amid increasing awareness of drug rationing - provoked by the "postcode lottery" over the breast cancer drug Herceptin - and of financial constraints imposed by the NHS's £1.3bn deficit. It follows a smaller poll earlier this year for the British Medical Journal which found that 40% of doctors believed that obese people, smokers and heavy drinkers should be barred from treatments.

At present, doctors are supposed to oppose treatment only if there is a clinical reason for doing so, such as a patient being so obese that there is too great a risk of their dying if they undergo surgery. But financial reasons were cited by one primary care trust, East Suffolk health trust, last year as it barred obese people from having hip and knee operations.

The survey, of 663 doctors, reveals that only 42% believe that alcoholics should receive liver transplants on the NHS, with 41% opposing this. Nearly half believe that smokers should be able to have heart bypasses on the NHS, but 37% do not, and 13% are undecided.

Only 63% believe obese patients should be given free anti-obesity drugs, and only 59% believe they should receive orthopaedic treatments such as hip and knee replacements. More than three-quarters back charges for herbal medicine and homeopathy treatments and 63% fees for cosmetic operations such as breast reductions, nose jobs and varicose veins.

Nearly a third (31%) believe elective caesarean sections should be paid for. Opinion is split on IVF, with 33% saying patients should bear the whole cost, the same number believing it should be partially subsidised and a quarter saying it should be provided to those with significant need. At present, infertile couples are meant to have one free cycle on the NHS.

Comments from those surveyed suggest frustration with patients treated after excessive smoking or drinking and a demand that they take responsibility. One doctor said: "In a health insurance culture, a habitual smoker who suffers a [heart attack] or lung cancer should expect to 'pay' a premium for their lifestyle." Another said: "There is no point in putting joints into very obese people or doing vascular surgery again and again if the obese patient has not shown efforts at weight reduction before the op, or if the vascular patient demands to smoke his first post-op cigarette on day one."

But Chris Spencer-Jones, chairman of the BMA's public health committee, accused such colleagues of wanting to "ration healthcare on the basis of prejudice". "Most taxation is paid by poor people, many of whom smoke, are obese and drink too much, and we should be helping rather than criticising them. The public health perspective is very clear: we don't blame people."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jun/29/health.healthandwellbeing

OK....So this is an older article, but i wanted to gauge some opinion here.

Some 'supposed' Liberals think that smokers, drinkers and obese people should be left to die on a hospital trolley and only be given counselling, without any sort of pain relief etc.

....So since people that drink and smoke etc....They pay a lot of tax on the products that they buy, shouldn't they be treated more fairly, since they have paid very high tax on these products?

It is a fools short sighted argument that any simple consideration will show is flawed.

The young lad playing football bust his cruciate ligament - well it was his fault for playing football or trying to hard so he should pay.

The reckless driver who breaks his back in a crash - its his fault he was reckless driving
The ordinary driver who takes his eye of the road for a second and breaks his back in a crash - well its still his fault isnt it?

The rugby player who breaks his back?

How many people are injured or left needing long term care doing things that are classed as good for them and healthy? Yet they are still to blame - if they did not do those things they would not get hurt

So what divide activities into acceptable and non acceptable?

Where does that leave the person who goes on a mock hunt (no quarry or even scent trail just a group trying to get from a to b with galloping and jumping) and has their horse spooked by a drunk?

I would agree if smokers never paid taxes on their cigarettes , bit they do!..as do alcoholics on their booze, but I understand they do put a strain on the NHS.

Joy Division wrote:I would agree if smokers never paid taxes on their cigarettes , bit they do!..as do alcoholics on their booze, but I understand they do put a strain on the NHS.

What and sportsmen and idiot drivers dont?

Joy Division wrote:I would agree if smokers never paid taxes on their cigarettes , bit they do!..as do alcoholics on their booze, but I understand they do put a strain on the NHS.

...But why don't they ban cigs completely JD?

Why didn't they put a minimum price on alcohol?

If the major corporations want to encourage such illicit behaviour, and they are garnering so much in taxes from these people, then surely these people should be given priority, since they are indeed propping up the NHS!

Why don't we follow the US lead?....(might be going a little bit of topic here, but who gives a fuck)

We should make cannabis legal in this country, for pain relief, my argument being...Some people might be using alcohol, which is chemical as a means to control pain relief..The cannabis plant is natural.

.....I mean the taxes there, would be further monies to support the NHS!

just cos its "natural dont mean its harmless...I mean strychnine is natural  
oh and so is alcohol....the natural by product of yeast fermenting sugar.....

grumpy old git wrote:just cos its "natural dont mean its harmless...I mean strychnine is natural  
oh and so is alcohol....the natural by product of yeast fermenting sugar.....

.....So do you think that people that have indulged in illicit substances, like alcohol and tobacco, should be left to die on a hospital trolley, or should they receive the same care that other patients do?

Why don't they make cannabis legal in this country, they are starting to do that in the US?

Doug used to smoke it like a trooper, his problems only began when he stopped smoking it like a trooper!

Catman wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:just cos its "natural dont mean its harmless...I mean strychnine is natural  
oh and so is alcohol....the natural by product of yeast fermenting sugar.....

.....So do you think that people that have indulged in illicit substances, like alcohol and tobacco, should be left to die on a hospital trolley, or should they receive the same care that other patients do?

I most certainly DONT think that Phill. it is nonsense...smokers put far more into the economy than they cost the NHS for a start, and health care should be there for all.
As Sphinx so rightly says...what about all the other injuries that folks do to themselves.

a better question is ...should an employee who is injured at work, through no fault of his own, expect to be able to receive front line, private level heath care as long as needed, at his employers expense..I'd say yes..
but hey ho...it never goes both ways.

grumpy old git wrote:

Catman wrote:

.....So do you think that people that have indulged in illicit substances, like alcohol and tobacco, should be left to die on a hospital trolley, or should they receive the same care that other patients do?

I most certainly DONT think that Phill. it is nonsense...smokers put far more into the economy than they cost the NHS for a start, and health care should be there for all.
As Sphinx so rightly says...what about all the other injuries that folks do to themselves.

a better question is ...should an employee who is injured at work, through no fault of his own, expect to be able to receive front line, private level heath care as long as needed, at his employers expense..I'd say yes..
but hey ho...it never goes both ways.

Agreed!

But some would suggest otherwise!

Looking forward to hearing the other side of the argument....hark!   

I would invite the opinions of Les over this subject.

Do obese people have to pay for illnesses caused by obesity?

краљица од Хартс wrote:Do obese people have to pay for illnesses caused by obesity?

No, but a lot of people have suggested taxing junk food, fast food and sugary soda for that reason exactly.

I'd like to see the numbers on how many people are running up bills for the NHS for football injuries vs. smoking-related illnesses. Meanwhile ...

It's an interesting dilemma, what a nation that funds its own people's health insurance needs to do about encouraging the public to lead healthier lifestyles. In the U.S., lots of insurance companies have incentive programs for being healthier (because being healthy is of course no incentive in its own right :D )

Ben_Reilly wrote:

краљица од Хартс wrote:Do obese people have to pay for illnesses caused by obesity?

No, but a lot of people have suggested taxing junk food, fast food and sugary soda for that reason exactly.

I'd like to see the numbers on how many people are running up bills for the NHS for football injuries vs. smoking-related illnesses. Meanwhile ...

It's an interesting dilemma, what a nation that funds its own people's health insurance needs to do about encouraging the public to lead healthier lifestyles. In the U.S., lots of insurance companies have incentive programs for being healthier (because being healthy is of course no incentive in its own right :D)

It's plain to see, that the UK, is adopting the US model, over welfare etc...Will they abolish the NHS over time?

What is Obamacare?

Catman wrote:Smokers who need heart bypasses and alcoholics who need liver transplants should not get them free on the NHS, according to four out of 10 hospital doctors. A quarter of those questioned in a survey also believe obese patients should not be given free anti-obesity drugs or receive free orthopaedic treatments.
The majority also oppose free gender reassignment and cosmetic surgery, and a third believe that patients suffering from infertility should have to pay for IVF (in vitro fertilisation) treatment.

The findings emerged in a poll conducted by the medical pollsters Medix for the Hospital Doctor newsletter sent to all 70,000 hospital doctors.

It comes amid increasing awareness of drug rationing - provoked by the "postcode lottery" over the breast cancer drug Herceptin - and of financial constraints imposed by the NHS's £1.3bn deficit. It follows a smaller poll earlier this year for the British Medical Journal which found that 40% of doctors believed that obese people, smokers and heavy drinkers should be barred from treatments.

At present, doctors are supposed to oppose treatment only if there is a clinical reason for doing so, such as a patient being so obese that there is too great a risk of their dying if they undergo surgery. But financial reasons were cited by one primary care trust, East Suffolk health trust, last year as it barred obese people from having hip and knee operations.

The survey, of 663 doctors, reveals that only 42% believe that alcoholics should receive liver transplants on the NHS, with 41% opposing this. Nearly half believe that smokers should be able to have heart bypasses on the NHS, but 37% do not, and 13% are undecided.

Only 63% believe obese patients should be given free anti-obesity drugs, and only 59% believe they should receive orthopaedic treatments such as hip and knee replacements. More than three-quarters back charges for herbal medicine and homeopathy treatments and 63% fees for cosmetic operations such as breast reductions, nose jobs and varicose veins.

Nearly a third (31%) believe elective caesarean sections should be paid for. Opinion is split on IVF, with 33% saying patients should bear the whole cost, the same number believing it should be partially subsidised and a quarter saying it should be provided to those with significant need. At present, infertile couples are meant to have one free cycle on the NHS.

Comments from those surveyed suggest frustration with patients treated after excessive smoking or drinking and a demand that they take responsibility. One doctor said: "In a health insurance culture, a habitual smoker who suffers a [heart attack] or lung cancer should expect to 'pay' a premium for their lifestyle." Another said: "There is no point in putting joints into very obese people or doing vascular surgery again and again if the obese patient has not shown efforts at weight reduction before the op, or if the vascular patient demands to smoke his first post-op cigarette on day one."

But Chris Spencer-Jones, chairman of the BMA's public health committee, accused such colleagues of wanting to "ration healthcare on the basis of prejudice". "Most taxation is paid by poor people, many of whom smoke, are obese and drink too much, and we should be helping rather than criticising them. The public health perspective is very clear: we don't blame people."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jun/29/health.healthandwellbeing

OK....So this is an older article, but i wanted to gauge some opinion here.

Some 'supposed' Liberals think that smokers, drinkers and obese people should be left to die on a hospital trolley and only be given counselling, without any sort of pain relief etc.

....So since people that drink and smoke etc....They pay a lot of tax on the products that they buy, shouldn't they be treated more fairly, since they have paid very high tax on these products?

What say you Les?

....Can you quote some Lib/Con ideas over this please.

Ta!

Catman wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

краљица од Хартс wrote:Do obese people have to pay for illnesses caused by obesity?

No, but a lot of people have suggested taxing junk food, fast food and sugary soda for that reason exactly.

I'd like to see the numbers on how many people are running up bills for the NHS for football injuries vs. smoking-related illnesses. Meanwhile ...

It's an interesting dilemma, what a nation that funds its own people's health insurance needs to do about encouraging the public to lead healthier lifestyles. In the U.S., lots of insurance companies have incentive programs for being healthier (because being healthy is of course no incentive in its own right :D)

It's plain to see, that the UK, is adopting the US model, over welfare etc...Will they abolish the NHS over time?

What is Obamacare?

Obamacare is basically something like what they have in Switzerland -- most insurance is run by private companies, while some insurance (for example, for senior citizens, military personnel, some government employees and some living near the poverty line) is public. Everyone's required to have insurance through one of those entities; if not, the IRS (our tax collection agency) can fine them. On the other hand, because of this, insurance companies are not allowed to turn away your business or drop you from your plan if you become seriously ill (as they were pre-Obamacare).

Before Obamacare (technically the Affordable Care Act) was passed, there were an estimated 50 million Americans with no health care insurance. Most physicians require you to show proof of insurance before you can be treated; the only exception was for emergency treatment at hospital emergency rooms, where they are required to treat everyone.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obamacare will reduce the number of uninsured Americans to slightly under half that amount over the next 5 years.

In short, it's certainly an improvement over what came before it, but by no means does it solve everything and it does need to be improved. A critical component called the Public Option, which would have set up non-profit, government operated insurance "companies" from which people could buy coverage (of course, at presumably lower non-profit prices) was cut from the final law in an attempt to get at least a few Republicans to vote for it; in the end the bill didn't get any Republican votes.

It's a step in the right direction. We need to move over to a single payer system, the government.

Republicans are frightened to death of the law. They fear it will become popular...which it will.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

краљица од Хартс wrote:Do obese people have to pay for illnesses caused by obesity?

No, but a lot of people have suggested taxing junk food, fast food and sugary soda for that reason exactly.

The foods associated with obesity are not the sole causes of obesity though.

If you eat large amounts of normal otherwise healthy food and don't get enough exercise you'll become an obese fuck anyway.

краљица од Хартс wrote:If you eat large amounts of normal otherwise healthy food and don't get enough exercise you'll become an obese fuck anyway.

Again, we're back to the argument that football players getting injured also costs the NHS. Sure, you can get obese from otherwise healthy foods, but what percentage of the obese population do you think avoids fattening foods?

If you were to compare the amount of money spent on treating people for smoking and fast-food related health problems to the amount of money spent on treating people for sports injuries and being obese despite eating otherwise healthy foods, which amount do you think would dwarf the other?

It's just like how in the run-up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Republicans kept insisting that it would have to limit malpractice lawsuits against physicians, despite the fact that those lawsuits contributed less than 2 percent to the rising costs of health care in the U.S.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

краљица од Хартс wrote:If you eat large amounts of normal otherwise healthy food and don't get enough exercise you'll become an obese fuck anyway.

Again, we're back to the argument that football players getting injured also costs the NHS. Sure, you can get obese from otherwise healthy foods, but what percentage of the obese population do you think avoids fattening foods?

If you were to compare the amount of money spent on treating people for smoking and fast-food related health problems to the amount of money spent on treating people for sports injuries and being obese despite eating otherwise healthy foods, which amount do you think would dwarf the other?

How can you go on about free healthcare if it's only free under certain circumstances?
It kind of goes against the entire god damned principle behind the thing which is that everyone should be entitled to healthcare and medicine.

Please, don't get me wrong -- I support universal (single-payer) health care, and I do question how far the government should go as to ensuring that people lead healthy lifestyles. I don't think anybody wants the government dictating to them whether they're allowed to light up or eat at McDonald's.

I think a healthy lifestyle should be encouraged, not forced. And I do think that any idea of taxing things like cigarettes and fast food should be weighed against the effect doing so would have on the poor, who tend to smoke more and eat more fast food.

I see the argument is trying to polarise into healthy (sports) injuries versus unhealthy (smoking drinking wrong eating) costs with it being assumed healthy stuff will cost way less.

Firstly how much something costs is irrelevant - every person in the UK has already paid for their health care through taxes and NI. Our health care may be free at the point of access but it most definitely is not free (NI is 11% of income). Secondly smokers and drinkers are already paying much increased "premiums" if you like for not being healthy this is done through taxation on the product.

Also what about the middle activities - who cannot be easily marked good or bad? The driver who is careless just once and crashes and needs care? Or "hazardous" pastimes like paragliding or horse riding or motocross? How about sports such as boxing? Ultimate fighting? Then there is things like DIY, the dad that has to have a go on his sons new skateboard, and the people that just dont do anything much - they dont drink or smoke are not obese but take no exercise either. All of these things can be considered at fault for causing illness and injury.

Maybe the problem in the UK is we have been raised to think our health care is free because we dont hand over the actual money ourselves and the money that pays for it is not marked out or highlighted. Maybe if they started calling NI "health insurance" and on things like tobacco and alcohol had part of the price marked as "health premium" people would pay more attention.

sphinx wrote:I see the argument is trying to polarise into healthy (sports) injuries versus unhealthy (smoking drinking wrong eating) costs with it being assumed healthy stuff will cost way less.

Firstly how much something costs is irrelevant - every person in the UK has already paid for their health care through taxes and NI.  Our health care may be free at the point of access but it most definitely is not free (NI is 11% of income).  Secondly smokers and drinkers are already paying much increased "premiums" if you like for not being healthy this is done through taxation on the product.

Also what about the middle activities - who cannot be easily marked good or bad?  The  driver who is careless just once and crashes and needs care?  Or "hazardous" pastimes like paragliding or horse riding or motocross?  How about sports such as boxing?  Ultimate fighting?  Then there is things like DIY, the dad that has to have a go on his sons new skateboard, and the people that just dont do anything much  - they dont drink or smoke are not obese but take no exercise either.  All of these things can be considered at fault for causing illness and injury.

Maybe the problem in the UK is we have been raised to think our health care is free because we dont hand over the actual money ourselves and the money that pays for it is not marked out or highlighted.  Maybe if they started calling NI "health insurance"  and on things like tobacco and alcohol had part of the price marked as "health premium" people would pay more attention.

Yes Sphinx but you are missing one point from this and I am a smoker myself, to many people smoking and drinking are very bad for you and you increase the possibilities of not only shortening your life but also having many medical problems. You will find a range of things in life where people will be responsible for how they have come to need medical help, that is not the point here, it is more a frustration at why people do like myself continually damage their body. Now agreed everyone should be entitled to health care, that is not my point here, but many people including myself are being irresponsible by continuing to damage our bodies, something which to some people will have little sympathy for and you can hardly blame them, when even more so it costs the NHS billions. So yes NHS care should be there for all but some responsibility on how we look after our bodies should also matter. Though smoking is a darn bugger to try and give up!

  

sphinx wrote:I see the argument is trying to polarise into healthy (sports) injuries versus unhealthy (smoking drinking wrong eating) costs with it being assumed healthy stuff will cost way less.

Firstly how much something costs is irrelevant - every person in the UK has already paid for their health care through taxes and NI.  Our health care may be free at the point of access but it most definitely is not free (NI is 11% of income).  Secondly smokers and drinkers are already paying much increased "premiums" if you like for not being healthy this is done through taxation on the product.

Also what about the middle activities - who cannot be easily marked good or bad?  The  driver who is careless just once and crashes and needs care?  Or "hazardous" pastimes like paragliding or horse riding or motocross?  How about sports such as boxing?  Ultimate fighting?  Then there is things like DIY, the dad that has to have a go on his sons new skateboard, and the people that just dont do anything much  - they dont drink or smoke are not obese but take no exercise either.  All of these things can be considered at fault for causing illness and injury.

Maybe the problem in the UK is we have been raised to think our health care is free because we dont hand over the actual money ourselves and the money that pays for it is not marked out or highlighted.  Maybe if they started calling NI "health insurance"  and on things like tobacco and alcohol had part of the price marked as "health premium" people would pay more attention.

Says who?

In fact sphinx - the ones most likely to be obese, drink and smoke are those who do not pay anything!!!!

BigAndy9 wrote:In fact sphinx - the ones most likely to be obese, drink and smoke are those who do not pay anything!!!!

I think that is a bit of a generalisation. Do you have a link to back this up?

BigAndy9 wrote:
In fact sphinx - the ones most likely to be obese, drink and smoke are those who do not pay anything!!!!

 

"..not pay anything!!!!" is it, L'ilAndy ?

NOT even for their food, grog and ciggies..

AND all that sales tax and "excise".

Beekeeper wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:
In fact sphinx - the ones most likely to be obese, drink and smoke are those who do not pay anything!!!!

 

"..not pay anything!!!!" is it, L'ilAndy ?

NOT even for their food, grog and ciggies..

AND all that sales tax and "excise".

I fear you are at it again Mr Bee - involving yourself in debates which you just don't understand.

Do not pay anything - it means exactly that!

Here, I will explain, for you. These people are paid a sum of money (sometimes a large amount) because of the generosity of hard working individuals such as myself. They then buy food which is easy to make and swallow (because they are lazy) and lots of fags and cheap alcohol.

Therefore, they have paid for nothing!

As an Australian, with that knowledge, you should now be able to join in. Crack on lad.