N H S

Acrylic-bob · 15-12-2005, 05:38

Following on from the recent revelations that Bedfordshire NHS Trust has considered denying treatment to fatties because they are, well, frankly, fat! The NHS claims it would represent money wasted because their condition would make treatment irrelevant. Now there comes the heartening tale that smokers could face the same fate. Who is going to be the next target of the penny-pinching health fascists? Oh, I know, the elderly are said to be high on the target list.

It all goes to make me wonder just what is the point of the NHS if it is not to be there to help us when we are in need of treatment. What do we pay National Insurance contributions and Income Tax for, if it is not to provide a service that is free to all at the point of need?

Are we looking at a time when the NHS will find excuses for disqualifying everyone on the grounds that, at some stage, whatever ails them was their own fault?

chav1 · 15-12-2005, 07:21

only this morning there was an item on te news about pregnant mothers coming to the uk and gettingtheir babys delivered on the NHS free of charge

at least they are actualy going back to their countries but it is non the less another huge drain on the NHS along with illigal and legal imigrants who havnt paid into the NHS system

i suppose victimising the ill is easier than sorting out illigals and scroungers from abroad

lettie · 15-12-2005, 08:10

I believe that the NHS is on it's way to privatisation. The government will deny this vehemently but you only need to look at what has happened to NHS dentistry and what is currently happening to PCT's. It may not happen within our lifetime, but it will happen eventually.

Chav is right that many women come here to have babies, some are claiming asylum therefore free care, some are failed asylum seekers who have not yet left the country threrefore free care, some are married to British citizens and come from commonwealth countries = free care. It is very difficult for our patient services to actually get anyone to pay for anything.

The issue as to whether smokers, drinkers or druggies should or should not be treated is now on the agenda. Basically it is seen as why treat someone on the NHS when they are not going to give up their habit and make the treatment ineffective. A friend of mine has had a hip replacement this year and had to download a couple of stone in weight before her operation. This is an expensive operation the results of which do not last if someone is too obese. The other side of the argument is would the NHS treat sporting injuries???? People who play football, rugby etc. are just as likely to continue playing their sport after being treated for fractures and other injuries.... If a window cleaner fell off a ladder and was treated for a couple of months for his multiple fractures, is he never going to use a ladder again when he's better???

Quite frankly, I think the whole issue stinks, as I'm sure that most of my colleagues do too. If you need to know what is happening in the NHS and why, look no further than the Dept of Health website. There's some lengthy, boring reads on there but it does explain some of the priorities.

By the way the Dept of Health is now known as the DH instead of the DoH. I don't think they liked the Homer Simpson connection...

www.doh.gov.uk

chav1 · 15-12-2005, 08:16

i wouldnt be too much against smokers getting put lower down on the priority list if smokers wernt so heavily taxed

smokers pay into the nhs like everyone else and also pay a hell of a lot of tax on the cigrettes they smoke

if the govenment want to victimise smokers they should make smoking illigal and loose all the revenue created from it

i wonder if people with hereditory cancers who smoke will get refused treatment because they would have got the cancer regardless if they smoked or not

there are so many cancers out there these days been a non smoker is far from been a gurentee you wont get cancer

my brother has had cancer twice in his life so far and he has never smoked a cigrette in his life

i have had cancer once and i am a smoker but my cancer was the same as one of my brothers which was hereditory , i would have got it regardless just liek my dad , uncle and grandfather did , all non smokers by the way

edit:

i am currently in the process of giving up

lettie · 15-12-2005, 08:27

The only thing that this will achieve is that people will lie when asked about their habits. It is a well known fact that people already lie to some extent. Most of our doctors reckon that if someone tells them that they smoke 10 a day they usually smoke 20. I can see folk fibbing left right and centre and not only will that delay diagnosis of illness but may also lead to misdiagnosis.

garinda · 15-12-2005, 14:33

You are quite right Chav if the Government wanted to they could ban smoking today. It would cut the number of smokers drastically, it would be like people smoking dope now. It would certainly help people to give up, as they wouldn't be on display in every corner shop, and lots of smokers wouldn't want to break the law and find a dodgy dealer to supply the banned weed. Of course they won't do this in the near future, they are making a fortune from the taxed on the twenty two million smokers in the UK.

Less · 15-12-2005, 14:38

I had read in last Fridays Daily Telegraph, about the thoughts not to treat Fatties, Smokies and Drinkies because these were self inflicted.

But that leaves the list open to far more people, the amateur footballer or rugby player that smashes their knee, sorry self inflicted you didn't need to be playing that game! The hillclimber/mountaineer slips off, falls breaks his back, sorry we know you only climbed it 'because it's there', we class that as self inflicted.

I thought the idea of the NHS was to give treatment to people that needed it 'without prejudice', we have all taken trips to out patients for those silly little accidents in the home or whilst persuing a hobby no doubt all of these could in some way be classed as 'self inflicted'.

If the attitude of the doctors is to be we only treat the successes then I think they are in the wrong job, it is supposed to be a caring profession and not supposed to criticise people because of their life-style.

garinda · 15-12-2005, 14:43

Where will it end?

Will treatment be refused for car crash victims, until it can be proved they weren't speeding or driving dangerously?

Tealeaf · 15-12-2005, 14:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Where will it end?

Will treatment be refused for car crash victims, until it can be proved they weren't speeding or driving dangerously?

Why not? The insurance companies should pay.

garinda · 15-12-2005, 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Why not? The insurance companies should pay.

Yes they could, but who would pay for it?

That's right the motorist.

Health care companies aren't charities, they are there to make a profit like any other business. Which is unlike the NHS, which people have no choice but to contribute to.

If you favour a free market economy, and want fully privatised health care, at your age good luck. As like I said, they are there to make a profit, as anyone who has tried to make a claim that wasn't for a relatively small claim will know.

lettie · 15-12-2005, 17:03

If more people had to use private healthcare then it would have to be a more organised system like that of other countries. Health insurance would be mandatory for a private system. We all know that smokers pay more for health insurance, critical illness policies etc. Either way smokers pay for their care in this country whether it be through tax on fags or a private policy.

Bad-Wolf · 15-12-2005, 17:57

It is very difficult to say how the NHS will be in the future. However, whilst it is funded by the tax payer then anyone who pays Tax should be enititled to treatment whether their conditions were self inflicted or not. Whilst I have little sympathy for people who fall ill as a result of their own stupid habbits they have still payed for NHS treatment.

In any case, unless I am very much mistaken then as things currently stand the average working smoker probaly pays more tax than most!

geoff70 · 15-12-2005, 18:03

it seems as if the nhs is operating on a different agenda now!!! like insurance firms who look at all angles to get out of paying claims ..the nhs is now targeting the very people who prop this great white elephant up ..drinkers smokers and to a certain extent over weight people who are probebly part of already said lol.all your comments are sound you can see whats happening and what is in store for us in the future ...why cant we do anything about it????...oh and before i go do we really think if the nhs is privatised that tax and national insurance will come down ...no dont think so .....ah!! the uk what a pleasure to live in

WillowTheWhisp · 15-12-2005, 23:31

I suspect there is a "fattist" attitude even now because in my experience thinner people seem to be taken more seriously even when the problem is not weight related.

SPUGGIE J · 16-12-2005, 09:23

The attitude prevailing is why should the NHS pay for something that is self inficted. Yet people pay all their lives for this service and then get nelsoned when they need it most. So someone who has never worked and needs an operation would be put ahead of a 68 year old smoker that has worked all their life and paid for what they need on the NHS. It stinks and I am glad I have access to private medical services because the NHS is driving me bonkers.