Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should certain people be denied medical treatment?

13»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 672 ✭✭✭Battered Mars Bar


    Thanks, I appreciate that :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭LH Pathe


    I'm a smoker and if and when I do get terminal cancer I'll be taking my own life purely to save myself the suffering from the the final ravishing throngs of the disease. This is purely for my own convenience as I'd be a private patient anyway, I never have and never will cost this state a cent..

    no don't think cancer... It's all in the mind, resistance training you can do from your couch.

    Don't just smoke the cigarette. embrace it


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,389 ✭✭✭mattjack


    Absolutely, the ginger comments in this thread not that I bothered to read them sound racist hence why I didn't read them, disgusting to say the least. But giving medical treatment to fat people and smokers is ridiculous, I've no time for their disgusting selfish habits and they don't deserve any medical treatment for their self indulgent ignorant habits, imo.

    Maybe if you read them you might realise that its good humoured banter regularly tossed around by the night time inhabitants of AH.
    '
    Just to add to your point of not treating 'fat people' and smokers because they disgust you with 'their selfish habits' , how would you go about about treating somebody with skin cancer contacted from lying in the sun, does their laying suggest they are stupid given the amount of information available on the prevalence of skin cancer ?

    or are you just trying say 'you don't like smokers and fat people' ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,939 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    There is a lot of rubbish being talked here. I have both a medical card and VHI (and its my own business what I choose to spend my money on).

    I have been admitted to Emergency on VHI and on the MC on a number of occasions and the treatment is precisely the same regardless of whether you are public or private. The only difference if you are admitted is a slight difference in the number of beds in a room.

    You do not necessarily get to see a consultant, depending on need (you can ask to see one but if you need one s/he will see you anyway).

    It is probably true that with VHI you can get to see a consultant more easily (at a cost of at least €120 on top of your VHI payments). That is down to the hold the consultants have on the system, which I do not agree with.

    The business about people being treated if they have some medical issues, such as obesity or smoking, well that has always gone on and is not nearly as dramatic as it sounds.

    If you are seriously obese or have lungs destroyed by smoking it can be very dangerous to operate, as well as pointless. Equally if you had serious breathing issues caused by other than smoking it might be just as dangerous to operate and the risk would have to be balanced against the benefit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,389 ✭✭✭mattjack


    My family have VHI and medical cards 'for a particular health issue' the treatment is same but its time scale that's the difference.
    There is quite difference between an emergency admission and a scheduled admission.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭Show Time


    Article on the Guardian site about a survey of doctors, with the highlight being that 54% of them felt that smokers and obese people should be denied certain treatments until they improve their health situation.

    The main concern seemed to be that the effectiveness of certain procedures would be affected by their lifestyle.

    Having thought about it I can't really think of anything wrong with the concept, once a condition is not life threatening or too serious then a patient should be required to show an improvement and acceptance of responsibility for their own well being.

    What say you AH?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/28/doctors-treatment-denial-smokers-obese
    What the f**k ever happened to first do no harm??

    Has it been replaced with first do nothing until i am paid??


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    For issues of limited physical resources, i.e. transplants, sure. I'd rather a heart go to someone who is healthier than I am, being both a smoker and being a fatty. They'll have a better prognosis than I would. But it can't be the only consideration. Have to take age and other stuff into account too. But if you have myself and someone exactly like me except for the fact that they don't smoke or that they aren't as overweight, and there's only 1 organ for transplant and we both need it, then give it to the other guy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 672 ✭✭✭Battered Mars Bar


    mattjack wrote: »
    '
    Just to add to your point of not treating 'fat people' and smokers because they disgust you with 'their selfish habits' , how would you go about about treating somebody with skin cancer contacted from lying in the sun, does their laying suggest they are stupid given the amount of information available on the prevalence of skin cancer ?

    or are you just trying say 'you don't like smokers and fat people' ?

    I suppose I don't have the best username to be continuing with that view :D
    It's just the smokers I don't like now :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Mr.Biscuits


    No.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    If I needed medical treatment where my quitting smoking would greatly enhance my recovery I would be worried were my doctor not at least hesitant if I flat out refused to quit.

    Were I obese I would be worried if a surgeon was happy to immediately perform surgery even though a couple of months losing weight would greatly enhance the chances of success.

    I would be absolutely appalled to hear of an alcoholic receiving a liver transplant without showing adequately that they are recovering.

    As far as I am aware, in these cases the patient is indeed expected to improve their wellbeing before receiving treatment, and I really don't see what's wrong with that. People crying eugenics are being a bit dim if I must be honest, none of these are inherent characteristics, all that is required of a patient is to change their behaviour.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Dear lord. AH is really full of Trolls tonight.

    You treat the person that is in the greatest need. It's called Triage and is one of the basic tenants of Medicine. Google it. TRIAGE. The fact is it DOESN'T matter in emergency situations.

    Now if there is a finite amount of medical resources- e.g transplants then it should go to the person that will give the greatest opportunity for that to be a success to pay respect to the person that donated.

    Medicine generally though is something that should not be rationed, or rationalised or doled out according to morals or religion, or weight, or health, or colour, or monetary consideration, or addiction. Period.

    That's what they hippocratic oath means.

    Be careful................. Once you start deciding that one group is "better" and "more deserving" its a small step from segregation to class to slavery. Don't believe me? Read your history.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

    Basically what you are saying here is that you agree with the doctors under certain circumstances that they have highlighted in the article ( I assume you read the article).


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,239 ✭✭✭KittyeeTrix


    Absolutely, the ginger comments in this thread not that I bothered to read them sound racist hence why I didn't read them, disgusting to say the least. But giving medical treatment to fat people and smokers is ridiculous, I've no time for their disgusting selfish habits and they don't deserve any medical treatment for their self indulgent ignorant habits, imo.
    Thanks, I appreciate that :)

    if your werent so blatant you might actually get somewhere with your posts!!
    :D


  • Site Banned Posts: 2,037 ✭✭✭paddyandy


    I've known people who had little or no regard for their health and i saw one man kill himself on fry-ups almost disgusting to list out here .Everyday the pan was on with cookeen first and then everything else .I warned him twice but he did'nt care and told me so . Suicide of a sort ? Overdosed on grease from pigs .Coroner could'nt enter that .Did'nt hesitate to run down the doctors' either for a remedy .They cost the state ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 595 ✭✭✭omega666


    They don't, apparently. From Journal.ie:

    "According to the Department of Health the cost of smoking-related illness is going to be €23 billion over the next 10 years at current rates. Yet based on last year’s yield, the tax take over the next decade will be just €14.7 billion."

    Still, I presume this doesn't take into account the fact that smokers who die younger cost the state less in pensions, nor the fact that non-smokers tend to get ill and require health care also ...


    The tax based on last year is not equal to what is going to be collected in 10 years as you can guarentee that the tax will increase.

    Also what about all the other tax smokers pays through thier life along with those with private health insurance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,042 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    What about the millions of people that live sedentary lifestyles these days. People should be required to show that they exercise for at least 10 hours per-week before they be considered for any medical treatments, but I'm guessing that applies to too many people for their liking.. I'm sure it applies to some here who want to see the idea used on smokers and fat people.

    Personally I think it should be applied to everyone who isn't me or a family member/friend of mine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Not unless it's 100% certain that such treatment would be a risk to the patient given those lifestyle traits.
    For instance, I would hesitate to give an open alcoholic a box of paracetamol tablets since it's a scientific fact that taking paracetamol while drunk can cause acute liver failure and death. That kind of thing.

    On the wider issue though most certainly not. It should not be for a health service to discriminate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,054 ✭✭✭luckyfrank


    knackers


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,536 ✭✭✭Stiffler2


    Hah - I thought Doctors / Medical Staff worked under ethics.

    Looks like they only care about their fat wallets tho..


  • Registered Users Posts: 174 ✭✭DonQuay1


    Pottler wrote: »
    Yeah right, us smokers contribute more in taxes than the rest of ye. I demand my right to be cut open and have stuff replaced. I've paid €9.10 a packet for long enough to have earned it.:)

    Actually ... I would have thought that the additional tax paid by smokers ... would barely pay for the additional trials and tribulations that is caused by a smokers second-hand smoke - to non-smokers. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 174 ✭✭DonQuay1


    Okay this as AH so we expect trolling but seriously.............

    This one is fat and this one smokes. No treatment for them.

    What's next- oh yeah, poor people.

    Lets all go watch movies sponsored by drink and fast food companies, lets go watch formula one promoted by cig companies.

    Health care should never be refused to anyone. Ever.

    And those Doctors took a hippocratic oath so that survey meanings nothing.

    What sort of society do you want to create here?

    Jebus, I though health care was the most basic level of human decency.


    Bluntly? Yes - to a certain extent health care SHOULD be refused to those that bring on their own health problems.

    What's your alternative?
    10 men dying of starvation.
    One man dying of lung-cancer.

    Lets' divert money from growing food and treat the mans cancer.
    Result ... maybe not all starving men saved from death. Maybe Smoker saved from death 'til he starts his habit again when out of hospital. (I know - very simplistic).

    Problem: Why should resources be diverted from other - just as needy or even needier areas - to individuals that have been told what smoking can cause ..... but still smoke anyway - and want the public purse to pick up the tab neglecting other needy areas of need by default.

    All you smokers and drinkers, those that gorge on fast foods, etc, out there - discuss!
    What makes YOUR self harming more justifiably treatable - than say new schools or roads or hospitals that everyone can use??


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    KKkitty wrote: »
    Who's next in that firing line, the elderly. Oh sorry sir but it's your fault you got old and needed a hip replacement so feck how much tax you've paid to the country you're not getting it.
    The number of elderly people making unnecessary journeys in the ice conditions we had a while back. Some of them already with replacements. One slip and it's a very good chance they'll require full time care for the rest of their lives.


Advertisement