Should Smokers Be Refused Surgery?

Science Daily ^ | January 6, 2007 | BMJ-British Medical Journal

[HarmlessLovableFuzzball]

Surgery, is a commodity in the open market like everything else. If you are willing to pay for it you should get it.

[Toespi]

So if a driver who is drunk runs into a tree, they refuse him or her treatment? As a matter-of-fact, just don't call 911.

[berdie]

When all of us can say we lives completely healthy and non-addicted, I will think we are all educated and rich. Addictions come in many forms, you must admit. So when over eating, lack of exercise, alcohol and drug (including legal) consumption become situations that preclude medical treatment, maybe things will be fair. Let's not leave out injuries caused by mountain climbing, race car driving , snow skiing and any number of extreme sports. Those injuries are self-induced..so should there be no care available?

[berdie]

sorry..lives=live

[trumandogz]

I oppose refusing surgical treatment to smokers because it will have an undue impact on minorities, the poor, the uneducated, the addicted as well as those with psychological disorders.

[honolulugal]

RE: Minorities smoke more than than whites. The poor smoke more than the rich. The uneducated smoke more than the educated. Addicts smoke more than the Addiction Free. The clinically insane smoke more than the normal people. Gee - I don't fall into those categories. Although I do question my sanity, at times. Now I need to wheel outside and have a smoke.

[TAdams8591]

"You can expect this and worse from socialized medicine. Why play this game only with smokers? We can make all kinds of moral judgments about who should be able to get surgery."

Absolutely. If we are going to do this to smokers, let's do it with drinkers, drug addicts, the overweight, and homosexuals with aids, to name a few.

[TAdams8591]

Ping!

[trumandogz]

Yes, there are white, well educated, wealthy people that do smoke but there numbers in proportion are smaller than minorities, the poor and uneducated.

[honolulugal]

And let's not forget to include stupid people.

[Gorzaloon]

Last year a primary care trust announced it would take smokers off waiting lists for surgery in an attempt to contain costs. In this week's British Medical Journal, two experts go head to head over whether smokers should be refused surgery.

Oh GOOD! After all smokers indulge in elective, self-destructive risk-taking behaviour. (Never mind all the fudged "Budget Reasons")

NOW that the precedent will be established, and treatment can be refused to those who indulge in elective, self-destructive risk-taking behaviour:

1) No HIV-infected homosexuals will be treated.

2) No heroin overdoses will be intervened.

3) No morbidly obese patients will be treated.

4) No gamblers will be treated for depression.

5) Fault will be determined in all auto accidents before ER treatment. Speeding, lack of a seat belt, or driving while cellphoning constitute elective, self-destructive risk-taking behaviour.

6) Drunks will not be treated.

7) Motorcyclists lacking helmets will not be treated.

At LAST! National Health is running in the black!!

Because there are NO PATIENTS!

Better yet, there are NO PEOPLE DYING inside the NHS any more!

[honolulugal]

That about sums it up, Gorzaloon!

[HarmlessLovableFuzzball]

The real question is not whether smokers should be refused surgery. The REAL question is, whether the GOVT. should have control over your health care (or most things for that matter).

Once you turn over the responsibility of your well being to a federal bureaucracy, expect to be required to live by stringent guidelines in exchange for shoddy service that you will be lucky to get.

[Bahbah]

Let's not leave out injuries caused by mountain climbing, race car driving , snow skiing and any number of extreme sports. Those injuries are self-induced..so should there be no care available?

It's a bad road to go down, isn't it? Will no smokers be treated? What about the 22 year old who is injured in a car accident when he is struck by a drunk driver and has internal injuries? No surgery for him...because he smokes. Let's develop the list of those who are not going to be entitled to surgery. That will be an interesting exercise.

[Toespi]

What about the person who fails to get an annual physical runs on a Sunday morning and because of their lack of attention to their health drops dead of a heart attack?

[berdie]

I think I understand what you are trying to say. But sadly, it was once very fashionable to smoke, by the rich, famous and Hollywood types. And your friend and neighbor. Of course these guys quit smoking ..but very often died of lung cancer.

So, if I understand that you are speaking out for those who have ever smoked..for any reason..I commend you.

[microgood]

I oppose refusing surgical treatment to smokers because it will have an undue impact on minorities, the poor, the uneducated, the addicted as well as those with psychological disorders.

I also oppose it because the greatest minds in the last two hundred years were smokers. If they had done that in the last century, we would not have had Einstein, Oppenheimer, or Winston Churchill, to name a few. In fact, it is hard to think of any great person in the last hundred years that did not smoke.

[adtris]

Don't know where you live, but Texas has just implemented a new tax on cigarettes to the tune of $1.00 a pack. The VERY strange reason for this is to help defray the cost of public education. So now you can smoke for a good cause in TEXAS! You can also buy lottery tickets for the same good cause.

[Gorzaloon]

What about the person who fails to get an annual physical runs on a Sunday morning and because of their lack of attention to their health drops dead of a heart attack?

Hey, I couldn't think of ALL of them. Strangely enough, that very thing happened to an old minister of mine!!!

So I guess I should have thought of that one.

[LibFreeOrDie]

Maine is planning to raise cigarette taxes another dollar to $3 a pack:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1763363/posts