Skip to comments.In UK survey, doctors support denying treatment to smokers, the obese
Posted on 04/29/2012 7:06:05 AM PDT by John W
A majority of doctors in a United Kingdom survey supported measures to deny non-emergency medical services to smokers and the obese, The Observer newspaper reported Sunday.
Although the survey by the networking website doctors.net.uk was a self-selecting poll, the site's chief executive called the response "a tectonic shift" for the profession.
The results feed into a British debate about "lifestyle rationing" by the National Health Service, the Observer reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at vitals.msnbc.msn.com ...
Being a gay male is worse for heath than either of the above... I assume they're going to deny non-emergency medical services for gay men next, right?
As I understand it, the biggest problem for the NHS is cost. OK, here’s how you fix it. When the patient-to-be comes to the clinic or hospital for any reason, give them a cyanide capsule and send them away. When it gets bad enough, they’ll take it and the health problem goes away.
Now, having saved money on treatments, we can save further by laying off surplus staff. [If you have decreased numbers of patients, you don’t need staff.] When the staff protests, give them a cyanide capsule and tell them they have no benefits. The only down side is the government may have a shortage of pills for awhile — until demand and supply catch up.
This logic would extend to the denial of emergency and critical care as well. There would be where the real savings would be. Perhaps, since the majority of our illnesses are the result of either careless exposure to sick people, lifestyle or old age (to which there is no cure), we can just do away with health care entirely and save a whole boatload of cash.
Long ago I was in a class where the distinction was made between active and passive euthanasia.
It was euthanasia and (sounded like)athanasia????
I was awake for the whole class?
Less people smoke now than ever and health costs have never been higher. I know there are tons of other variables, but there is no evidence smokers cost the system. 30 years ago it seemed everyone smoked and my medical insurance was probably 10% of what it is now, adjusted for inflation. Targeting smokers is just using a scapegoat to distract from the real problems. I have been smoking for 20 years and I have been to the doctor a total of one time in the last 6 years and that was because I got the flu, unrelated to smoking... and that visit was paid out of pocket toward my $3,000 deductable.
Then they should not have to pay taxes for the NHS, right?
Discrimination. Some habits have more civil rights than others. Why not deny treatment for Sexually Transmitted Diseases TOO????
I’ve been smoking for 60 years and here I am.
What a world !
Nanny State PING!
They’ll never deny non-emergency medical services to male homosexuals.
Thanks for the ping!
Most liberals I know would fully support similarly punitive policies here.
“Since I am a fat smoker the doctor will just have to kill me.”
You and me both. England is a pit and from some of the comments above some here would like to jump in with them.
“Kill everyone over 22”
I have a better idea. Kill everyone under 22.
Oh yeah, the HEALTHY who don't need care. Unless they get shot breaking into a private home.
It is beginning to look more and more like the only purpose of the UK is to serve as a cautionary example for the United States.
OK, then I assume they also support exempting everyone who's going to smoke or be obese in thirty years from the premiums (taxes) that pay for that care, and that they also support the establishment of a separate for-pay health care system? Even when insurance companies exclude people they don't take their money first and destroy any other means of obtaining care.
You are on a very dangerous road if you would support denying healthcare based on any lifestyle issues.
Be very careful.