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?

2

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Pottler wrote: »
    unlucky.

    I'm sure you have too. I'll bet your mother sucked a ginger cock in her day too ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 763 ✭✭✭H2UMrsRobinson


    Gyalist wrote: »
    What evidence do you have that smokers contribute more to the Exchequer than the cost of their habit?

    The fact that they're still available to purchase legally in shops is evidence enough for me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 464 ✭✭Knight who says Meh


    woodoo wrote: »
    I'm sure you have too. I'll bet your mother sucked a ginger cock in her day too ;)
    A ginger cock? Like Rhode Island reds?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    The fact that they're still available to purchase legally in shops is evidence enough for me.
    More of a political decision I would say.


  • Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭Jimmyhologram


    Gyalist wrote: »
    What evidence do you have that smokers contribute more to the Exchequer than the cost of their habit?

    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 ...


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


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    'Withholding' is the wrong word to use in these circumstances. Rather giving preferential treatment to someone else, who it is felt would benefit more.

    Cancer patients get treated differently depending on what stage/grade they are at. Money in the health system is finite and difficult decisions need to be made.

    'Withholding' is not my word , its the previous posters.
    I didn't know that about cancer patients, how do you mean treated differently ?
    I can understand pain management in terminal cases rather than sustaining life.


  • Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    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.

    Exactly. We alread have a proposal withholding medical treatment here based on lifestyle - the Abortion legislation issue in Ireland. People proposing to legalise abortion if there is a danger to the life of the mother, or if the pregnancy is a result of rape, if its not her fault in other words.

    But, if you are a slapper who got knocked up on a drunk night out or your contraception failed, nope, you dont deserve off the hook for your sins.

    So if we can make judgement calls on giving less health care to those who dont keep healthy, those who have addictions such as nicotine, food, alcohol, drugs, why not? Its already an acceptable theory to most of the population for women who dont want to continue with a pregnancy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


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

    Health care should never be refused to anyone. Ever.

    Okay let's say you work as a doctor in a head trauma unit

    Patient 1. A journeyman boxer comes in with head trauma from a boxing match (mid 40's - told to quit because he'll sustain brain damage but refuses).

    Patient 2. A man in his mid 40's with head trauma comes in who's been in a car accident.

    Both men have a similar urgency for care but the services are under pressure so one has to be prioritised.

    Who should be prioritised for care?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭Gyalist


    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 ...

    I'm challenging the assertion that I regularly see being made by smokers: that their contribution to the Exchequer is cost positive.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    woodoo wrote: »
    I'm sure you have too. I'll bet your mother sucked a ginger cock in her day too ;)
    She did indeed. Mick Hucknall it was I believe. She sucked his ear.
    I'll have you know my Mommy wouldn't know what to do with a cock, a virgin she is. Your Ma even agreed the other day when I asked her, and god knows, she'd know a slapper if she met one. BTW, and back on topic, (if I can get over the shock of being so bitterly attacked):P smokers do indeed contribute more to the economy, if only in the taxes paid on feckin propane used to heat all them pub balconies...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,534 ✭✭✭KKkitty


    Neyite wrote: »
    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.

    Exactly. We alread have a proposal withholding medical treatment here based on lifestyle - the Abortion legislation issue in Ireland. People proposing to legalise abortion if there is a danger to the life of the mother, or if the pregnancy is a result of rape, if its not her fault in other words.

    But, if you are a slapper who got knocked up on a drunk night out or your contraception failed, nope, you dont deserve off the hook for your sins.

    So if we can make judgement calls on giving less health care to those who dont keep healthy, those who have addictions such as nicotine, food, alcohol, drugs, why not? Its already an acceptable theory to most of the population for women who dont want to continue with a pregnancy.
    I hate the fact that our own women have to go on a plane to terminate a pregnancy for umpteen reasons. It's not the women's fault they got pregnant totally for reasons you've mentioned but as highlighted on the Late Late a few weeks back not all pregnancies are viable and even if a baby is carried to term it will either be stillborn or have little chance of survival. Abortion alienates the women of Ireland by the fact they're sent across the water to unfamiliar territory and isolates them after the procedure due to not being around the people who can support them the most. So many health problems are not the sufferers fault like conditions that are familial.


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


    Okay let's say you work as a doctor in a head trauma unit

    Patient 1. A journeyman boxer comes in with head trauma from a boxing match (mid 40's - told to quit because he'll sustain brain damage but refuses).

    Patient 2. A man in his mid 40's with head trauma comes in who's been in a car accident.

    Both men have a similar urgency for care but the services are under pressure so one has to be prioritised.

    Who should be prioritised for care?

    That's a little out of context , I think the concern is the decisions could be made at a bureaucratic level rather than at frontline level.

    I know giving anecdotal examples is pointless , but I have a family member who was so badly injured in an accident, that paramedics decided to treat his passenger first,because they felt he was going to die in the car .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Okay let's say you work as a doctor in a head trauma unit

    Patient 1. A journeyman boxer comes in with head trauma from a boxing match (mid 40's - told to quit because he'll sustain brain damage but refuses).

    Patient 2. A man in his mid 40's with head trauma comes in who's been in a car accident.

    Both men have a similar urgency for care but the services are under pressure so one has to be prioritised.

    Who should be prioritised for care?

    I think everyone should be treated. Because where does it all stop otherwise. They could be asking did the driver cause the accident himself by speeding etc.

    Also, what happens with sport. A footballer heading the ball, golfer getting hit with a golf ball, a runner falling and hitting his head.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    This sh1te is one step away from eugenics(I think that is the word, but the Nazis did it so a grammar Nazi can correct me here) - if this is taken to its logical conclusion, people who might cost a fair bit in healthcare(ie disabled, genetically pre-disposed to an illness, gingers:P etc) would be more financially beneficially terminated at birth. Absolute b0llox. Healthcare should be universal and available free of charge to all, yes, even gingers. btw, I find red-headed women very attractive, it's the lads I am alightly predjudiced against:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    woodoo wrote: »
    I think everyone should be treated.

    So do I. The question is who should be prioritised?
    Because where does it all stop otherwise. They could be asking did the driver cause the accident himself by speeding etc.

    That's the problem - it has to stop somewhere. Human desires are infinite and resources are finite. If resources were infinite then there'd be no such thing as triage in an A&E. People would be seen the second their problem was diagnosed. The person with a sprained ankle is way down the list of urgency compared with the person having a heart attack.
    Also, what happens with sport. A footballer heading the ball, golfer getting hit with a golf ball, a runner falling and hitting his head
    .

    Compared to the boxer who's been told he'll sustain brain damage but wont quit?

    Top of the queue.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Robdude


    Denied is a strong word; it invites people to take an extreme stance on the issue without really thinking about it.
    I'm sure a lot of people will gloss over the 'Non-emergency' part of the article too.

    De-prioritized would be better.

    In a perfect world - everyone would magically get the best of everything. No argument there. And not giving someone something in this perfect would be the result of hatred or prejudice.

    When people hear 'deny' group X medical treatment - they think of hatred and discrimination. That people who hate obese people are trying to DENY obese people medical treatment! That people who hate smokers are trying to PUNISH them, by not giving them medical treatment. To teach them a LESSON!

    While I'm sure there is some vocal minority who would support that; most of this stuff is actually a lot more reasonable. We live in a world of limited resources and as much as we hate to admit it - nobody wants to pay for everyone to get the best medical treatment available. It's a black hole for money, there will always be more research, more treatment options, more expensive drugs....

    So, in the real world, with limited financial resources, we know that the effectiveness of certain medical treatments are higher or lower based on the health of the patent. When medical treatments have higher complication rates, lower success rates, and even greater risk of death for certain subgroups of people - like obese and smokers and really old and really sick people - something that makes sense for someone else; doesn't make sense for them.

    Now, a lot of people are stupid. And they'll think that even though *THEY* smoke, they aren't any less healthy. Or they'll think all it takes is a GOOD doctor and they'll be fine! So they'll *insist* on a treatment they heard someone else had. And when the Doc says, 'Actually, you aren't a good candidate for that because you are clinically obese - the safest treatment is to do this other thing and adopt a healthier diet, lose 80kg and then we could consider that original treatment' - people are quick to call out DISCRIMINATION!

    And it is. But it's absolutely justified - certain conditions make you less healthy and they limit your medical options.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,018 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    So no more treating the drunks in A&E then?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    So do I. The question is who should be prioritised?

    I would say at all times the order of treatment in Irish hospitals should be:

    (1.) Me (if i needed treatment regardless of how serious it was)
    (2.) The most urgent patient
    (3.) Everyone else in order of descending urgency


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    woodoo wrote: »
    I would say at all times the order of treatment in Irish hospitals should be:

    (1.) Me (if i needed treatment regardless of how serious it was)
    (2.) Pottler/Mrs Pottler, \Little Pottlers/Pottlers Virginal Mam.
    (3.) Everyone else in order of descending urgency
    FYP


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I would agree with prioritising people in cases of transplant only.

    Cost, or judging whether or not a person had it coming e.g. in the case of the boxer mentioned already, should not affect medical care, in my opinion.

    However when a person has given up their organs to save the life of another, I don't think they should be given to someone who will put their habit ahead of their respect for what another human being has given to them.


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


    I would agree with prioritising people in cases of transplant only.

    Cost, or judging whether or not a person had it coming e.g. in the case of the boxer mentioned already, should not affect medical care, in my opinion.

    However when a person has given up their organs to save the life of another, I don't think they should be given to someone who will put their habit ahead of their respect for what another human being has given to them.

    For an alcoholic to be approved for transplant in Ireland, he/she must be in recovery for six months.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    People with private health insurance getting treated before non private patients but still using public hospital facilities is even worse.


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


    woodoo wrote: »
    People with private health insurance getting treated before non private patients but still using public hospital facilities is even worse.

    The reality is that there is no such thing as comprehensive private hospital facilities in Ireland, no private hospitals for kids ..VHI etc fooling people for years with that one,nine private beds in the Rotunda, you can certainly pay for Blackrock clinic etc but what private health does is allow you skip the queue.

    I'm agreeing with you..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    Lets face it, this whole arguement is sh1te anyway. There already is a pervasive system for deciding who deserves treatment and who does not. It's called money and if you have lots, you get treated. If you don't, you don't. All the other rules/factors are just window dressing over the glaringly obvious. Funny how when a premiership footballer has an injury they are whisked off for the best of scans/treatment at once. If you are a poor joe soap, you can hobble around for years with your worn out hip etc.


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


    Pottler wrote: »
    This sh1te is one step away from eugenics(I think that is the word, but the Nazis did it so a grammar Nazi can correct me here) - if this is taken to its logical conclusion, people who might cost a fair bit in healthcare(ie disabled, genetically pre-disposed to an illness, gingers:P etc) would be more financially beneficially terminated at birth. Absolute b0llox. Healthcare should be universal and available free of charge to all, yes, even gingers. btw, I find red-headed women very attractive, it's the lads I am alightly predjudiced against:D

    There are so many leaps of logic and logical fallacies in there it's almost profound.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with the article i linked to though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    There are so many leaps of logic and logical fallacies in there it's almost profound.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with the article i linked to though.
    I posted that to test your powers. You have passed and may continue to use your username.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    Okay let's say you work as a doctor in a head trauma unit

    Patient 1. A journeyman boxer comes in with head trauma from a boxing match (mid 40's - told to quit because he'll sustain brain damage but refuses).

    Patient 2. A man in his mid 40's with head trauma comes in who's been in a car accident.

    Both men have a similar urgency for care but the services are under pressure so one has to be prioritised.

    Who should be prioritised for care?

    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


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


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭DesperateDan


    I thought doctors didn't take a hypocratic oath anymore? But we all agree fat people taking up 1.5 seats should be charged more on planes right?!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    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..


Advertisement