Should the NHS pay for treatment for Lung Cancer

[Zak33]

...if the person suffering is a smoker?

It has occured several times recently, where the Hospitals have refuesed to carry out heart operations on people who refuse to give up smoking....so same rules I guess.

If you got Lung Cancer, would YOU expect the NHS to pay for your Medical Attention if you were a smoker?

[Iain]

Only if you can prove the person is a smoker and hasn't contracted it as a result of passive smoking. Should be relatively easy if you just lock them in a room for a day or two and watch them twitch.

If they are a smoker then no. Why should my taxes pay for someone who was stupid enough to start a habit they knew would kill them ?

[daniel_owen_uk]

But your taxes don't the taxes that the smoker pays on cigarettes will probably pay for it on its own.

For this reason I will say yes.

Should someone who breaks their leg playing football be treated on the NHS? Its their fault playing a dangerous sport surely?

[Jonny M]

I'm with daniel_owen_uk on this one, either the NHS treats everyone, or nobody, you can't start trying to be selective.

[nichomach]

In duty and VAT the UK government receives over £8bn in taxation every year from the sale of tobacco products. If you're going to deny public services to smokers then I suggest removing the excise duty upon the cigarettes which comprises about 41% of the price of them.

[Zak33]

so howcome people with illnesses that they could not avoid (brain tumours...or similar) who dont drink or smoke have to wait for beds and medical attention in the same que as 40 per day smokers who brought it upon themselves?

Doesnt sound right to me.
The bloke who breaks his leg playing footy has paid tax all his life maybe? And he is only in for a few hours...then a visit a month later.

He's not in and out for years on end

[nichomach]

Because smokers have paid all the same taxes that everyone else has AND THEN MORE ON TOP. They've already been charged £8bn extra per year for having the vice in the first place, and you're suggesting that having been charged extra they should in addition go to the back of the queue until all the "nice" people have had their go.

edit: I have a friend who used to go climbing. He fell off a rock that he was going up. He was rescued by RAF helicopter, taken to hospital, received a lot of care over a period of months. Now this was as a consequence of undertaking a purely recreational activity for no-one's benefit or enjoyment but his own. Should he have been denied access to that care? I don't think so.

[Swafe]

It has occured several times recently, where the Hospitals have refuesed to carry out heart operations on people who refuse to give up smoking....so same rules I guess.

If you got Lung Cancer, would YOU expect the NHS to pay for your Medical Attention if you were a smoker?

thats not right- the NHS is for everyone, whether they smoke or not, they deserve treatment, if they REFUSE to give up - its not out of choice, its out of addiction, i know loads of smokers who HATE smoking, but just dont have the willpower/balls to quit, and actually carry it out

as for having lung cancer, id expect treatment - i dont smoke, so i dont expect to get it, even if i smoked, id expect help, smokes could be 50p a packet of 20 easy, the rest if tax, its a couple of quid a box, surely if your paying that much towards things, such as healthcare you should get something back ? its sort of like a pension scheme, in a way, you pay so much every month, and in the end instead of getting a lump sum - you get some of it back in the form of healthcare

i think its out of order they dont treat them - you get addicted and hooked on them - you get cancer, your goin to die - you expect some sort of help dont you ? you pay taxes all your life, and the government takes so much money off you, you deserve something back, its not right that some people have got it and some havnt, on the basis whether they are willing to quit smokes or not


admittedly, smokers are more likelt to get cancer, and yes, they cost us a BOMB - but most of that money is from theirs, say u smoke 20 a day, thats 1200 a year - in a lifetime 50-60 grand - 30 or 40 of this will go to the government, there more than paying for it, whether or not they like it

[Zak33]

He fell off a rock that he was going up. He was rescued by RAF helicopter, taken to hospital, received a lot of care over a period of months. Now this was as a consequence of undertaking a purely recreational activity for no-one's benefit or enjoyment but his own. Should he have been denied access to that care? I don't think so.

Right..but he didn't JUMP off the rock....he fell. Like being hit by a bus on the bit of road you cross to save a longer journey...yeah its possibly risky..maybe even very risky...but its not delilerate. He did not hurt himself on purpose...

contrary to the dude who KNOWS smoking will do SOMETHING to him...first he coughs...then he reads about it...but he carries on.

Blood pressure, potential blood clots, high cholesterol, lung and heart diesease...but nope...he just carries on...regardless...

and sadly...he ends up where he always KNEW he'd end up. With people draining his lungs

[nichomach]

1. No-one intends to get lung cancer.
2. The majority of smokers don't get lung cancer.
3. As I've already pointed out, unlike the rock climber, smokers already pay billions per year in extra taxation.
4. The rock climber took an entirely avoidable and high risk for recreational purposes.

So essentially what you're arguing is that smokers should pay billions per year extra in taxation that non-smokers profit from, and be denied access to the services that those billions per year actually paid for.

And that's your idea of fair?

[Zak33]

....and be denied access to the services that those billions per year actually paid for.

And that's your idea of fair?

So we should ALL smoke to benefit the NHS ? Is that what you mean?

[nichomach]

How is that a logical continuation of what I said? It isn't. That's a purely argumentative nonsense statement Zak.

All that I have argued is that given that smokers pay billions in extra tax revenues every year, which supports public health services, it is inequitable to then deny them access to those services.

[Gunbuster]

I'd say yes, in the same way it pays for liver disease in drinkers and AIDs in people that have unprotected sex. However if a doctor tells you to stop doing 'Y' or you will endanger your life again, its fair incentive to stop if you know they aren't willing to pore the treatment down the drain for you.

[nichomach]

Hmm...let's introduce the morality test for access to NHS services:

Do you drink? Back of the queue. Smoke? Ditto. Ever had unprotected sex? Unlucky. Eat fatty foods at all? That's a shame...

[daniel_owen_uk]

If you had all of those we would all be at the back of the que, and by the way you missed playing any kind of sport nicho

But you make a good point nicho, the majority of health problems are created by us.

Smokers are just one section, and they pay the majority of the bill, so to take treatment away from them is just crazy imo.

[Swafe]

I'd say yes, in the same way it pays for liver disease in drinkers and AIDs in people that have unprotected sex. However if a doctor tells you to stop doing 'Y' or you will endanger your life again, its fair incentive to stop if you know they aren't willing to pore the treatment down the drain for you.

beer pays for liver dieses

smokin pays to cover the cost of curing lung cancer


what about people with aids? they dont pay the goverment stupid amounts of money to the government for having unprotected sex?