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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Should certain people be denied medical treatment?

  • 28-04-2012 10:58pm
    #1
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    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
    A majority of doctors support measures to deny treatment to smokers and the obese, according to a survey that has sparked a row over the NHS's growing use of "lifestyle rationing".
    Some 54% of doctors who took part said the NHS should have the right to withhold non-emergency treatment from patients who do not lose weight or stop smoking. Some medics believe unhealthy behaviour can make procedures less likely to work, and that the service is not obliged to devote scarce resources to them.
    However, senior doctors and patient groups have voiced alarm at what they call "blackmailing" of the sick, and denial of their human rights.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Pottler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    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.:)


  • #3
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    The tax on the cigarettes and fatty foods pay their wages

    they can go fcuk themselves


  • #4
    Mr. Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    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.


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


    Any hope they might deny service to gingers? Never trusted em. Give me a fat smoker anyday.


  • #6
    Hande hoche!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,791 ✭✭✭Hande hoche!


    Seems a very slippery slope.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    arse..biscuits
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,878 ✭✭✭arse..biscuits


    Yes. People who are healthy.


  • #8
    Roger Scarce Tummy
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Roger Scarce Tummy


    At first I was a bit eh no wtf - give them care
    but then I thought, what about stuff like kidney or liver ops/transplants to alcoholics who won't try quit?
    So there is a line somewhere

    then from the article
    One doctor said that denying in-vitro fertilisation to childless women who smoked was justified because it was only half as successful for them.
    Another said the NHS was right to expect an obese patient or alcoholic to change their behaviour before they underwent liver transplant surgery.

    But obesity could merit such bans, Gerada said. "Obesity is a different matter. Operating on a very fat person is more dangerous. Anaesthetically it's harder, the surgery is harder and the rehabilitation takes longer. So it's medically legitimate to withhold treatment from some very overweight people. But it should not be done for social reasons," she said.

    It doesn't sound off the wall to me


  • #9
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Mr. Incognito wrote: »
    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 hypocratic 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.

    I think the reality of health care is vastly different, shrinking budgets, wasted money and an increase in demand is starting to take a toll. I know a few doctors, nurses and medical students and there seems to be a constant worry about the rising demands on the health care system.

    I don't think it's a lot to ask that people take a little better care of themselves and if something can be done to improve a person health without needing medical intervention then there is nothing wrong with pushing that option.

    I am also unsure how the survey means nothing...it's obviously a reflection on how certain doctors feel so I think it's worth discussing.

    Finally, how the hell is my post "trolling"?

    Is simply wishing to discuss a contentious issue in AH enough for something to be branded trolling now?


  • #10
    monkeypants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭monkeypants


    Fat people have rights?


  • #11
    cartell_best
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭cartell_best


    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.:)

    Took the words right out of my mouth! fair play to ya!


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    I think that doctors should be the ones making the call as to whether or not patients should receive treatment based on their individual assessment of that patient - not some blanket ban, or some bureaucratic decree. The examples in the article makes a pretty clear statistical case for withholding some kinds of medical treatments due to obesity or a smoking habit, and that makes sense.


  • #13
    Pottler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    I think that doctors should be the ones making the call as to whether or not patients should receive treatment based on their individual assessment of that patient - not some blanket ban, or some bureaucratic decree. The examples in the article makes a pretty clear statistical case for withholding some kinds of medical treatments due to obesity or a smoking habit, and that makes sense.
    since when did we start taking Doctors seriously? Every feckin Doctor I know smokes like a chimney anyway. Most of the Nurses I know do too. If they find it hard to operate on fat people, just get them bigger knives, longer handles and step ladders. Miners lights might be handy as well. We can't start letting Doctors make life and death decisions.


  • #14
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Mr. Incognito wrote: »
    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 hypocratic 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.

    Most organ transplants have long waiting lists. Why should a doctor recommend someone for a liver transplant if they don't have their drinking under control - especially when there are other patients who are willing to make the lifestyle changes necessary in order to increase the likelihood of a successful transplant?

    People need to take some responsibility for their health, and I would imagine that it would be very frustrating for doctors to see patients who are unwilling to make long-term lifestyle changes instead of having expensive, invasive medical procedures that are often just a short-term solution anyway (gastric bypass and stomach-banding being a prime example).


  • #15
    Dubhlinner
    Registered Users Posts: 456 ✭✭Dubhlinner


    But obesity could merit such bans, Gerada said. "Obesity is a different matter. Operating on a very fat person is more dangerous. Anaesthetically it's harder, the surgery is harder and the rehabilitation takes longer. So it's medically legitimate to withhold treatment from some very overweight people. But it should not be done for social reasons," she said.


    For safety reasons, Dr.Trollsberg requires that you get yourself down to a healthy BMI before we start your gastric band surgery operation. UMAD fatty?


  • #16
    girl2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 654 ✭✭✭girl2


    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.:)

    Am not a smoker, but have a tendency to agree with this.

    Plus then there's the whole human rights argument if ya wanna go there??


  • #17
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Mr. Incognito wrote: »
    Health care should never be refused to anyone. Ever.
    Nobody is saying it shouldn't but in a healthcare system where funds are limited there is a certain amount of compromise to be made. Think of it as medicine by numbers.

    Anyway as some posters have pointed out, it isn't unusual for a doctor to postpone certain surgery/treatment until the patient has lost weight.


  • #18
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    girl2 wrote: »
    Am not a smoker, but have a tendency to agree with this.

    Plus then there's the whole human rights argument if ya wanna go there??

    So IVF is a human right? A right that someone whose refusal to quit smoking will significantly reduce the effect of?

    People need to get some cop-on.


  • #19
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    I don't see how it could work tbh. Are they talking about only refusing treatments for conditions directly caused by whatever unhealthy lifestyle choices the patient has made, or for any and all conditions they may have?


  • #20
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    I have recently had a debate about whether the state makes money from smokers or not and the numbers are by no means conclusive that smokers contribute more to the exchequer than they take out in services.


  • #21
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    The most important part of that article
    Doctors.net.uk, a professional networking site, found that 593 (54%) of the 1,096 doctors who took part in the self-selecting survey answered yes when asked: "Should the NHS be allowed to refuse non-emergency treatments to patients unless they lose weight or stop smoking?"

    So basically the people with strong opinions did it amounting to bias and **** results.

    This story comes under the ryanair school of advertising if you ask me. Say something controversial to get your organisation some free press


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    girl2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 654 ✭✭✭girl2


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    So IVF is a human right? A right that someone whose refusal to quit smoking will significantly reduce the effect of?

    People need to get some cop-on.


    Look, I hate cigarettes, I hate everything about them, but that person is right about the taxes they pay on cigarettes.

    I don't know that IVF was mentioned in the original post. I was referring to the fact people should not be refused medical treatment.


  • #23
    mattjack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,389 ✭✭✭mattjack


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    I think that doctors should be the ones making the call as to whether or not patients should receive treatment based on their individual assessment of that patient - not some blanket ban, or some bureaucratic decree. The examples in the article makes a pretty clear statistical case for withholding some kinds of medical treatments due to obesity or a smoking habit, and that makes sense.

    By allowing doctors that choice to decide who they provide treatment to creates exclusion to different members of society.

    What guidelines would you use ?


    Withholding treatment is denying health care which is regarded as a need and also withholding treatment also unbalances equalisation between more and less fortunate at all levels in society.


  • #24
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Mr. Incognito wrote: »
    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 hypocratic 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.

    Well said


  • #25
    Pottler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    If it's any consolation, I don't want IVF- the thought of being forced to perform, ...shudder. We are talking about Involentary Vaginal Fellatio right? No idea what being forced to pleasure strange women against my will has to do with the provision of healthcare though.:confused:


  • #26
    Knight who says Meh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 464 ✭✭Knight who says Meh


    Only catholics should be treated. They own the hospitals and pay all the wages. Non catholics and Atheists can build their own hospitals if they want treatment.


  • #27
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    mattjack wrote: »
    Withholding treatment is denying health care which is regarded as a need and also withholding treatment also unbalances equalisation between more and less fortunate at all levels in society.
    '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.


  • #28
    KKkitty
    Registered Users Posts: 7,537 ✭✭✭KKkitty


    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.


  • #29
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Pottler wrote: »
    Any hope they might deny service to gingers? Never trusted em. Give me a fat smoker anyday.

    That's kind of an anti-Irish British attitude to give **** to ginger people. When did Irish people start it. Most of us have red haired family friends or relatives.


  • #30
    Gyalist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭Gyalist


    girl2 wrote: »
    Look, I hate cigarettes, I hate everything about them, but that person is right about the taxes they pay on cigarettes.

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


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Pottler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    woodoo wrote: »
    That's kind of an anti-Irish British attitude to give **** to ginger people. When did Irish people start it. Most of us have red haired family friends or relatives.
    unlucky.


  • #32
    woodoo
    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 ;)


  • #33
    H2UMrsRobinson
    Registered Users Posts: 777 ✭✭✭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.


  • #34
    Knight who says Meh
    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?


  • #35
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    H2UMrsRobinson wrote: »
    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.


  • #36
    Jimmyhologram
    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
  • #37
    mattjack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #38
    Neyite
    Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Mr. Incognito wrote: »
    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?


  • #40
    Gyalist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭Gyalist


    Jimmyhologram wrote: »
    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.


  • #41
    Pottler
    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
  • #42
    KKkitty
    Registered Users Posts: 7,537 ✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    mattjack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,389 ✭✭✭mattjack


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    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 .


  • #44
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    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.


  • #45
    Pottler
    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


  • #46
    Chuck Stone
    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.


  • #47
    Robdude
    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.


  • #48
    Ficheall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,034 ✭✭✭Ficheall


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


  • #49
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    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


  • #50
    Pottler
    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


  • #51
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,505 ✭ [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
Advertisement