Posted on 02/24/2008 2:02:35 PM PST by wagglebee
AN astonishing survey of medics for their in-house Doctor magazine has revealed they believe those suffering from what they see as self-inflicted diseases, like smokers, drinkers and the obese, should not receive free treatment. Have they got a point? PHIL DOHERTY reports . . .
WHEN football legend George Best underwent a liver swap operation because of years of drinking it is said to have led to a fall in those signing up to donor cards.
The argument was he brought it on himself and the organ should have been given to a more deserving cause. That the Manchester United legend, pictured below right, was an alcoholic and thus suffering from a disease cut little ice.
After his death in November 2005 some doctors demanded that no alcoholics receive transplant organs.
Thanks to the poll in Doctor Magazine, this argument has gone one step further, calling for the obese, smokers, heavy drinkers, the elderly, infertile couples and women seeking abortions all to be banned from receiving free medical treatment.
With one in 10 hospitals already denying some surgery to obese and smokers is it time to call an end to universal healthcare for all?
Dr Tony Calland, chairman of the British Medical Association’s Ethics Committee, believes someone’s age or lifestyle choices should have no impact on their eligibility for medical treatment.
He said: “It is outrageous to suggest because someone is old they would not have a right to be considered for treatment. The BMA believes decisions about NHS treatment should be based on clinical issues.
“For example, if someone’s weight makes an operation too risky then this would need to be discussed with the patient and perhaps they would be advised to lose weight before surgery could safely go ahead.
“Equally, if a patient’s age made them too frail to survive surgery, a decision may need to be taken to consider alternative treatment. These are clinical decisions based on individual circumstance and not blanket bans.”
According to North East’s Strategic Health Authority treating alcoholism in the region annually costs around £100m.
The number of clinically obese has more than doubled from 283 in 2003/04 to 666 in 2006/07 costing the region’s NHS Trusts at least £1m.
The survey of 870 medics by Doctor magazine found one in three medics believe old people should be denied treatment, half thought smokers should be banned from heart bypasses, and a quarter that the obese should not get hip replacements.
A huge 94 per cent said alcoholics should not be allowed liver transplants.
Vanessa Bourne, spokeswoman for the Patients’ Association, said: “There may be good clinical reasons why a particular treatment will or will not work on an individual patient.
“But there is a world of difference between that and a blanket ban on getting care because you do not do as you are told.”
One in five doctors in the survey said women seeking abortions should pay.
The Marie Stropes international charity, the biggest provider of abortions in the UK outside the NHS, said such a policy would see poor women seeking back street abortions.
Spokesman Tony Kerridge said: “As is often the case, the rich and the middle classes would find the financial resources to access abortion services privately, while the poor would be placed at great risk.
“There would be a return to cheap, unsafe, back-street abortions and incidences of women attempting to self abort and see a sharp rise in maternal deaths and also serious injuries. Treating these injuries would probably place a greater burden on the national health system than providing safe abortion services ever will.”
Help the Aged believes there can never be any justification for denying medical treatment on the grounds of age.
Spokesman Paul Cann said: “Not only is such a suggestion morally abhorrent and ageist, it runs counter to every founding principle of the NHS itself. Age is not a ‘lifestyle choice’ it is a fact of life. Older people have paid taxes through their lives, have worked and made contributions towards the health system on which they should expect to rely.”
This figure by comparison, sounds grossly underestimated (no pun intended).
Being politically correct, any other lifestyle choice is credited with illnesses and death, not obesity, even though it may in fact be the major contributor to a shortened life.
The Holocaust started with the mentally ill and those with birth defects. From there, the Gypsies and Gays, and Jews....
This started years ago when the NHS began to limit or eliminate hemodialysis for those over 65, so the camel's nose is in the tent. Studies are attempting to subsitute peritoneal dialysis:
"These issues are associated with poor outcomes for patients aged over 65 years and an excessive cost burden to limited NHS budgets ."
Or to say it with a little nostalgia for the Good Old Days when no one questioned:
"Diese AusgabenSIND mit schlechten Resultaten für die Patienten verbunden, die über 65 Jahren und einer übermäßigen Kostenbelastung zu begrenzten NHS Etats gealtert werden."
That is why we cannot even argue with those who want to emulate Britain's NHS. We simply have to remove them as quickly as they appear.
read
Surprise, surprise. Isn't communism wonderful?
Any person who thinks smokers, overweight people and old people shouldn't have health care are first class a******s.
“Universal Health Care”
is
“Universal Health Care Rationing”
almost immediately.
Use the word “rationing” whenever discussing the issue.
______
It’s just a matter of time before everyone
gets on the not-covered list.
The number of clinically obese could just have occurred because they adjusted the numbers, not because there was that dramatic an increase in actual fat people.
And the health cost increase due to obesity is a judgment call. Someone has to decide that the condition was actually caused by obesity.
And you can bet that there’ll be a different set of rules for the politicians and doctors themselves.
If they get to decide who gets treated and who doesn’t, they’ll make sure they do first. After all, their job is so much more important than the unwashed masses. Who would be around to make decisions for everybody if they don’t?
You better believe it.
Their families, too. And their senior staffers.
How about industrial workers who get sick from chemical exposure?
I got into an arugment with my brother and his wife yesterday about this, they claim this will never happen in the USA and Obama is against this kind of thing. (They also want lower taxes and more money so they will vote for Obama)
“calling for the obese, smokers, heavy drinkers, the elderly, infertile couples and women seeking abortions all to be banned from receiving free medical treatment. “
What “FREE” medical treatment?! The “ obese, smokers, heavy drinkers, the elderly, infertile couples and women seeking abortions” ALL pay TAXES that is used to provide the “free healthcare”. Are they going to STOP requiring that the “obese, smokers, drinkers, etc.” pay taxes? I bet they won’t. They take their money and refuse to provide them anything for it — they might as well just hold them up with a gun.
This is total outrage — rationing healthcare based on who the government decides are “worthy”. Shades of Nazism, but then Nazism and socialism are kissing cousins, which many in the US don’t understand.
This is what we can look forward to, if Obama or Hillary get elected, with a Dem Congress.
Would conservatives cheer rationing of health care for “obese, smokers, heavy drinkers, the elderly, infertile couples” — just as long as they also include as a class to be denied healthcare the “women seeking abortions”???
Note they didn’t talk about not giving free abortions, they talk about BANNING these people “from receiving free medical treatment”.
How conservative is to be in favor of rationing healthcare — while those same class of people are FORCED to pay taxes to provide healthcare for others, but are BANNED from getting healthcare themselves?! If all these “undesirables” died tomorrow, and stopped paying taxes, how could the government afford to pay for healthcare for the others?
This is NOT a “pro-life” issue — this is an issue of rationing healthcare.
YES, it is.
When the government completely controls the health care system and they deny someone treatments that are proven to be effective, they are culpable in that person's death. And that is a pro-life issue.
Not to metion trannies!
Not to mention trannies!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
How come they didn’t include homosexual AIDS patients
Hell if they refused to treat those who brought on the illnesses or problems themselves or the aged they could get rid of 90% of the doctors
My dad just turned 80, and he has a leaky heart valve. He’s already had it replaced 2 times. The docs won’t replace it again.
I think they already limit medical care on individuals based on the circumstances.
been down this road before ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.