Re: Doctors - The Final Arbitrator?

I think you are being too simplistic to say that smokers, obese, alcoholics etc should go to the back of the queue. There are lots of factors contributing to lifestyle issues and these need to be considered in a more holistic way.

Re: Doctors - The Final Arbitrator?

well we could have a points system that recorded marks against for smokers and alcoholics and overweight due to bad diet - so they would get higher scores than non-smokers, moderate drinkers and sensible eaters and therefore get first choice for treatment whilst they others go to the back of the queue - so they would still be offered treatment but be on a waiting list?

Re: Doctors - The Final Arbitrator?

On that basis then mindbender you would have to include those who play sport, whether they are fit in body or not. They take risks with their bodies every time they play a game. If a rock-climber falls off the cliffside, breaking his bones and needing to be rescued, it could also be said he doesn't deserve treatment - he knew there was a risk - he shouldn't have taken that risk with his health and welfare so he is to blame for the situation he has put himself in.

Re: Doctors - The Final Arbitrator?

NO - that's not the 'basis' - rock climbers and sports persons have healthy bodies - I'm talking about the obvious abusers of their bodies - those unfit - unhealthy people who ignore all the health messages

Re: Doctors - The Final Arbitrator?

The whole point of NI contributions was to pay in advance for any health care a British person may need - many go through most of their lives not requiring the services of the NHS so those funds are accrued for use by others: that's how the system works (it's how any insurance policy works - you bet you'll need it and they bet you won't, if you need it - you win).

If certain people are to be excluded, sorry, I mean put to the back of a never ending queue of more deserving people, then their various taxes should reflect that change of prioritising the services on offer; to do anything else could be seen as breach of contract between health provision and people.

Re: Doctors - The Final Arbitrator?

So putting yourself at the risk of falling off a rock face (which, correct me if I'm wrong, has actually happened - many times) is putting a healthy body at risk - ditto for potholers, scuba divers, bungee jumpers, motorbike racing, skiing - heck, even running marathons has killed some people. If we are all to preserve our healthy bodies, maybe we should just sit at a work station and generate income for the government and nothing else - just eat veg and drink water? Oh hang on - they're heavily contaminated so what would happen about that if you knowingly eat foodstuffs or drink other liquids you know contain chemicals harmful to the human body? Who do hold reponsible for people who fall ill (and die sometimes) due to poor air quality? Should we insist people stop using the combustion engine and if they don't, refuse them treatment as they caused ill health to others by their selfish actions?

Re: Doctors - The Final Arbitrator?

Ok what about people who become fat when their life style is arrested by their condition, my husband was a healthy weight until he had to stop walking because he needed a knee replacement. He has been on the list because he is too young for nearly 5 years now, and put on weight while he waited.

Never smoked or drunk alcohol. Tax payer since he started work at 15 he is now 53.

Does he make a contribution to the country ? I think so he was a milkman for 17 years, until his knee stopped him. He used to work in various community projects until he was in so much pain he had to take painkillers so strong they make him fall asleep.

Who judges who makes a contribution anyway - sportsmen and women are no more contributing than anyone else IMO

Re: Doctors - The Final Arbitrator?

If smoking's so dangerous gov. should ban the ruddy things, in 50 yrs of smoking ( which was heavily advertised and promoted when I was a teenager) I've never had hospital treatment and reckon I've paid for umpteen lung transplants just thru' the taxes I've paid thru' cigs alone never mind working from 15yrs old , never had kids nor been a burden to society in any way , until now, you think I should be refused treatment while folk new to the country who've never worked get first treatment if they don't smoke? how democratic! ( applicable to Oz too)

Re: Doctors - The Final Arbitrator?

I say as ben-varrey says in response mindbender.
Many sports can result in injury and/or long term damage. This also could be considered abuse - e.g. the rugby player who has to have surgery to repair cauliflower ears and other physical damage sustained, the person who plays high impact games and ruins his joints. They might start out healthy in body, but the damage they can do playing their sport can leave them needing treatment they otherwise wouldn't have sustained if they had not played the sport - They took a risk with their bodies exactly the same as the person who eats or drinks or smokes too much takes a risk with his.

Re: Doctors - The Final Arbitrator?

You are absolutely right Aerolor - I used to work at the School of Sport & Exercise Sciences at a very well known University (my particular department was second, in the country, only to Loughborough) and not one single lecturer didn't have some form of permanent disability from sport. And they wondered why I declined to go on skiing trips with them! Been there and seen all the hobbling around in plaster casts and on crutches (that's after the emergency air ambulance has been called out to rescue them). Sporting activities can be very damaging to joints if people have not been taught how to do something even like jogging correctly - human joints were not made to take that level of punishment day in and day out - damage is inevitable.