New N.H.S. rules

No I wasn't asleep. I was busy gardening. The guy mext to where I have my veg plot asked my in laws if he could rip out the hedge. I went down and he had taken out half the hawthorn. I couldn't leave him to it could I? So have been ripping out trees, had to go down over 3 feet and then undercut some of the bigger ones. Quite pleased really. Have not felt strong enough to do that since before my heart op and thats nearly two years ago. For the first time in yonks i don't feel like a invalid.
Back to the question...I don't think they would be suggesting withdrawing treatment for illnesses unrelated to the particular habit. I would think it is a matter of taking a stronger line over treatment for illnesses related to smoking or obesity.Basically they are taking the view that they are self inflicted illnesses. I can see the logic. I have heard people grumble about expensive treatment for people who have self harmed. I also read the other day about someone who felt that we should not spend money or risk people to rescue people who participate in risky sports.
How it would work I don't know. I have heard doctors really having a go at a patient who was a heavy drinker and I am right behind that and all the nagging they are giving to smokers...I have lost too many people I care about to that habit. However that is a world away from denying treatment. What doctor is going to deny treatment? I suppose it will come down to priorities. If you are limited in what you can afford do you treat a patient whose lifestyle means that the outcome is likely to be less than someone where the outcome is more likely to be successful? I can see that being the case with obesity and in fact quite often any operation is more likely to be fatal with an obese patient. However I don't think you can make a judgement because you don't agree with the patients past lifestyle. That would be subjective and I am not so sure it would be professional. It would be like me not teaching a kid because I thought he was an idle or arrogant little sod. Some teachers are like that but not me.
I think the smoking ban is seperate. If smokers want to smoke then in their own space. I have had to inhale smoke in my work place, when I went to the cinema, when i socialised with friends in pubs. Somebody said I should have gone elsewhere. But there wasn't elsewhere. Smoking was allowed in all those places and it was horrible. So just because somebody wants to smoke those who can't face it are denied access. To put it in perspective if I went in a pub and broke wind at frequent intervals in a particularly malodorous fashion would that be acceptable. Of course not. For some of us cigarette smoke is many times worse - it makes our eyes hurt and water, affects our breathing and makes our clothes stink.

 

re the smoking in public places, i'm a smoker but i think it's much nicer having to smoke outside. even at home i dont like smoking infront of non smokers as i remember what it was like when i wasnt a smoker, it aint pleasant for them.

 

Course, what most of you are overlooking is that this selection goes on anyway and has done for years! I have a dear friend who smokes and drinks heavily. About 20 years ago he was diagnosed with severe arteriosclerosis in both legs for which an endarterectomy (removal of the gunge in the artery) was urgently required. The new lady vascular surgeon to whom he was referred asked him if he would cease the booze and fags immediately. He hesitated and said he'd find it a bit difficult as he had smoked since he was 12 and drunk since he was 18. As she turned and walked out, she said "My time's too valuable to waste on someone who won't help himself."

Harsh? Yes, very. He was terribly upset.

But - it was a fact and probably still is, that we regularly had people (mostly men) who would have very successful endarterectomies, taking several hours of theatre time and expense, only to turn up in clinic about 4 months later with their arteries in exactly the same condition as they were before, because, obviously, they were still smoking like chimneys and drinking like fishes!

So the surgeons became very leary of embarking on such treatment when the patient would not meet them halfway.

Mind, there wasn't a lot of help about in them days either. But just wanted to illustrate that it's nothing new. It's only new because it's moved into the political arena.

THAT's what's new about it!


BTW, my friend, having never had surgery, is now in his late 70s, still smokes like a chimney and drinks like a fish, is still with us, still mobile and apart from having developed diabetes which he ignores!, has never looked back! hmph! so much for 'experts'!!

 

I agree with John if a sportsman falls and breaks his leg he only harms himself,if someone smokes in my space then he harms me and thats a no no, I agree everyone should be treated regardless of weather their ailment is self inflicted(thats what makes us human) or not, as to it being a waste of time and resources as most smokers and lifestyle abusers usually die early (there are exceptions as you point out Daisees) doesn't this save money on pensions in the future.

 

Daisees, I nearly agree with you.

There are limited resources available and a consultant has to make a decision where to allocate them. It is not a case of setting yourself up to be God. If two people, one a smoker and one a non-smoker, with similar backgrounds and symptoms, need extensive treatment and there are only enough resources to give one of them the full treatment called for, any consultant, medical or surgical will devote those resources to the patient with the best prognosis. All other things being about equal, that will be the non-smoker.

To argue that both deserve full treatment is laudable but try telling that to the tax payer who gets an increase of 50% on his/her tax bill to pay for it. Even then there will be a several years time lag whilst extra surgeons (of all grades) and specialist nursing staff are trained. Plus the many auxillary services that are also important to the welfare of the patient. I could make even more of a case but I think most sensible people can follow it through for themselves.

Where I do not agree with you Daisees is your decrying of the 'experts'. They are experts, that is all, and will be right more often than a layman. Only God is omnipotent and gets it right every time. All the mortal expert has to go on are the statistics, and we all know that statistics are far from infallible. Perhaps putting all the names in a hat and drawing for 'winners' would be better? I don't think so, God does not influence lotteries.

Your friend is I am afraid, the exception that proves the rule. He is still alive and presumably has a reasonable quality of life. Great. I (and I am sure his consultant) am delighted for him. Perhaps the fact that he is still with us is a vindication of the decision to give no extra treatment?

To decry the person who has to make the decision, especially without knowing how it was reached, on the allocation of scarce resources is somewhat naive and shows a lack of understanding of the real world.

If you want to complain about the number of 'administrators' in the NHS, that's a different matter.....

 

How can there be limited resources when the NHS keeps people alive that have no chance of recovery and say themselves that they would rather die.
I am of course refering to euthanasia, that word that no one likes to mention.
If keeping a basically dead person alive by artificial means is not playing god, I dont know what is.

 

...Or spending resources creating life for couples who without the NHS would be unsuccessful.

Cosmetic surgery for burns victims "well you should have been more careful sir!"

Casualty departments..."and it was your wife you say who bought the nail gun ? Well I am sorry we don't treat stupid people here!"

X-ray Department..."you say you broke your arm reaching for a cigarette slipping on a mars bar left on the floor by one of your obese children, sorry sir I think you know I can't take your picture today you leather lunged careless child abuser!"

Apparently you can get exercise on presciption too, discounted sessions at your local sports/gyms !!!

Mental, certainly the NHS needs reforming but not in isolation and not focused on "tabloid" issues that are easy targets for spending cuts. I don't know what the answers are but I think the NHS is too big a beast to tame without some definative and brave policies. Some of those policies aren't necessarily anything to do with the NHS as such but in areas that draw resources away from it.

 

Originally posted by Pete:

Who do you think is responsible for that Pete?

A recent survey amongst consultants showed that support, with careful safe-guards, for assisted mortality in certain cases is at 73%.

The decision is not with them though. It is with politicians who take advice not only from doctors but other groups as well, especially the churches and ethical groups.

 

I'm not actually blaming anyone John, in my last post, ("last post", thats a good one) :D
Although I must admit perhaps my last line did infer that I was putting blame on the doctors, which I apoligise for.

Yes BM, I think you have summed it up pretty well. :D

 

Well - this got me going.

Am I a smoker, Obese &/or drinker? Well guess.

I love your posts Pete in this respect. BM & Sarr, yes agree somewhat.

Think of people having IVF. Is it not 'their fault' for not being able to have children? Why is NHS money being spent on them?

People (& i say people cos it takes both sexes) having abortions. What do they cost the NHS. & don't say it costs less in the end, cos if it doesn't effect them personally, it will someone else.

Think of 'servicemen'. They joined the 'armed forces' volentarily. Don't they expect to get injured? Why should they get treatment quicker than others?

Smokers - the worst people on earth. Don't give them any treatment. Forget the fact that if it wasn't for the fact that it is an addiction & that the uk government hasn't been getting billions from tax, we wouldn't be doing it. oh yes, that little thing called tax. Because we (the UK) got greedy on tax when the EU started, people got their tobacco from elsewhere. Now, years on the government aren't getting it -tax millions. So stop smoking.

NO, i'm not stupid i know it causes cancer etc. i still think it was a good point earler on here, if i didn't want to get it, i wouldn't go.
As to where you can go, lets leave it to individuals. if you want to go where smoking is allowed then so be it. if you do and then years later cancer is diagnosed then so be it. you probably will not be treated and will die, albeit more quickly & NOT without care.

Drugs - again, if that's your thing do it. don't bother anyone else. Oh - it doesn't work like that does it? If you are on the street and using drugs then you are nearly worse than a smoker. but i've never heard of a smoker mugging, prostituting, killing or anything for a cigarette. Drug users get help. smokers do too. can anyone tell me why one might help, the other doesn't?

I'm not political. Just would like to hear others points of view carrying this on.

cheers

 

"How can there be limited resources when the NHS keeps people alive that have no chance of recovery and say themselves that they would rather die".

Pete, I completly agree with your sentiments but as John points out the consultants have their hands tied on this matter.

Perhaps a better stament might be how come the NHS has limited resources when we can aford to illegally invade and ocupy iraq.

Or possibly:

How come the NHS has limited resources when we can aford to support backward eastern european countrys by taking in thier imigrant workers to scrounge of our welfare state.

 

Gordon Brown got a short memory or has all his stealth taxes as chancellor clogged it
a few years ago he hit smokers with a 25p rise in cigarette duty which was to go directly to the nhs to help with the cost of smokers treatment
so will he order the new chancellor to cut that 25p now that he doesnt want smokers to get treatment on the nhs he cant have it both ways

 

Borrowers,I object to your comments about couples having Infertility treatment on the NHS.Mr Kandy and myself went down that route in the early eighties desperatly wanting a baby.

I started working on my 15th Birthday and carried on working in total for 32 years before having a much needed break.In all that time I and Mr Kandy who is still working aged 56 years paid full National Insurance Contributions.I often worked a 60 hour week and for 18 months I was working 7 days a week 12 hour days.When I got my wage packet,I could have wept at the amount of Tax and National Contributions I had paid.The more I worked the more of both Contributions I paid.

A lot of the drugs I was prescribed I had to pay for out of my own pocket,even the Laporoscopy to see if my Fallopian tubes were blocked.

The only free treatment which we received were for the drugs whilst having IUI treatment.I had to early misscarriages and then our friend Maggie Thatcher took away the NHS funding saying that IVF wasn't life saving.

We were told that if we wanted to carry on then we would have to start paying for it but in the end we had to forget the idea because we couldn't afford the hundreds and I mean hundreds of pounds per cycle that it would have cost us.

So we have remained childless,but still carried on paying NIC throughout our working life.Perhaps we ouught to get a refund for all the money we have paid into the system over the years along with thousands of others...

[ 06. January 2008, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Kandyfloss ]

 

Originally posted by Pro Gard

Learn the facts before stating racist drivel please.

 

I think you can call pro's post drivel John,but its not necesserily racist.
I dont think any RACE was mentioned.