Morbidly obese will be refused routine surgery

[alternageek]

Any idea what routine operations morbidly obese people (obviously once you start you can slide that scale to obese then just overweight people) won't get done? Fix a broken leg? Ingrowing toenail? Are we happy to have fat people in pain just because they're fat? .

^^ this ^^

 

Heh even at my healthiest weight, I'd still be considered risk by most GPs as they go by the bloody BMI factor (borderline overweight/obese - even though non-plus sized clothes hung off me) so Id lose whatever I do.

 

First they go after the smokers and the overweight - next it will be the elderly and drug users. Eventually, no one will qualify for treatment if we all go in with that mentality.

[Daven]

---------- Post added 03-12-2014 at 21:08 ----------

 

[/color]

^^ this ^^

 

Heh even at my healthiest weight, I'd still be considered risk by most GPs as they go by the bloody BMI factor (borderline overweight/obese - even though non-plus sized clothes hung off me) so Id lose whatever I do.

 

First they go after the smokers and the overweight - next it will be the elderly and drug users. Eventually, no one will qualify for treatment if we all go in with that mentality.

 

With all due respect I think you have jumped the gun rather here. Those who chose to smoke and those who are morbidly obese ARE at a high risk of death during or after surgery and that is fact - not discrimination. Devon NHS Trust have been brave enough to come out and state the facts and the truth hurts.

It's not groundbreaking news - it's reality.

I again repeat - we are talking about morbid obesity here.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Daven

[tzijlstra]

---------- Post added 03-12-2014 at 21:08 ----------

 

[/color][/b]

 

With all due respect I think you have jumped the gun rather here. Those who chose to smoke and those who are morbidly obese ARE at a high risk of death during or after surgery and that is fact - not discrimination. Devon NHS Trust have been brave enough to come out and state the facts and the truth hurts.

It's not groundbreaking news - it's reality.

I again repeat - we are talking about morbid obesity here.

 

With all due respect, I don't think she has. UNIVERSAL healthcare should be universal, start pulling at the threads and the whole thing will come undone.

 

If you don't want universal healthcare, fine, but then don't be upset when the goal-posts move to an area that you are affected by.

[aliceBB]

With all due respect, I don't think she has. UNIVERSAL healthcare should be universal, start pulling at the threads and the whole thing will come undone.

 

If you don't want universal healthcare, fine, but then don't be upset when the goal-posts move to an area that you are affected by.

 

With any 'universal' healthcare system that is funded by society and free at the point of service, there has to be some responsibility taken on the part of the patient in order to ensure that they can benefit from the treatment provided.

 

For example, an alcoholic with liver failure who needs a liver transplant to survive will not be given one if s/he continues to drink. Is that unfair?

 

Resources are never infinite. It's all very well pontificating about everyone's 'rights' to free healthcare, but every minute of every day, because of financial constraints/cuts, doctors and managers have to make judgement calls about treatments - decisions which mean that some patients will get a certain treatment (as their chances of it working are higher) and some will be refused it (as the clinical outcome would be poor).It is happening already - the obesity/smoker issue is all part of it.

 

It's bad enough, and difficult enough, in cases where the patient is desperately unlucky (particularly aggressive cancer, terrible road accident), as those decisions still have to be made, on a clinical outcome basis. But in cases where the patient could actively improve their own chances of a treatment working, surely they have a responsibility to do their part.

Edited December 3, 2014 by aliceBB

[Daven]

With any 'universal' healthcare system that is funded by society and free at the point of service, there has to be some responsibility taken on the part of the patient in order to ensure that they can benefit from the treatment provided.

 

For example, an alcoholic with liver failure who needs a liver transplant to survive will not be given one if s/he continues to drink. Is that unfair?

 

Resources are never infinite. It's all very well pontificating about everyone's 'rights' to free healthcare, but every minute of every day, because of financial constraints/cuts, doctors and managers have to make judgement calls about treatments - decisions which mean that some patients will get a certain treatment (as their chances of it working are higher) and some will be refused it (as the clinical outcome would be poor).It is happening already - the obesity/smoker issue is all part of it.

 

It's bad enough, and difficult enough, in cases where the patient is desperately unlucky (particularly aggressive cancer, terrible road accident), as those decisions still have to be made, on a clinical outcome basis. But in cases where the patient could actively improve their own chances of a treatment working, surely they have a responsibility to do their part.

 

Excellent post AliceBB - you are clearly a girl who has been there, done that and got the tshirt many times over - as, indeed, have I.

I will repeat myself yet again and at risk of sounding like a parrot - those who choose to smoke or allow themselves to become morbidly obese are at a very high risk of dying either under the anaesthetic or shortly afterwards - this is not discrimination - this is fact.

[tinfoilhat]

With any 'universal' healthcare system that is funded by society and free at the point of service, there has to be some responsibility taken on the part of the patient in order to ensure that they can benefit from the treatment provided.

 

For example, an alcoholic with liver failure who needs a liver transplant to survive will not be given one if s/he continues to drink. Is that unfair?

 

Resources are never infinite. It's all very well pontificating about everyone's 'rights' to free healthcare, but every minute of every day, because of financial constraints/cuts, doctors and managers have to make judgement calls about treatments - decisions which mean that some patients will get a certain treatment (as their chances of it working are higher) and some will be refused it (as the clinical outcome would be poor).It is happening already - the obesity/smoker issue is all part of it.

 

It's bad enough, and difficult enough, in cases where the patient is desperately unlucky (particularly aggressive cancer, terrible road accident), as those decisions still have to be made, on a clinical outcome basis. But in cases where the patient could actively improve their own chances of a treatment working, surely they have a responsibility to do their part.

 

We're happy to treat addicts though aren't we?

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2014 at 23:17 ----------

 

Excellent post AliceBB - you are clearly a girl who has been there, done that and got the tshirt many times over - as, indeed, have I.

I will repeat myself yet again and at risk of sounding like a parrot - those who choose to smoke or allow themselves to become morbidly obese are at a very high risk of dying either under the anaesthetic or shortly afterwards - this is not discrimination - this is fact.

 

We are short on facts here - you can't name the aforementioned routine ops. Do you know anyone who has needed a knee replacement (which can be done on a local by the way) - the pain can get excruciating. And good luck to tubby trying to get a bit of exercise without a fully working knee or hip joint.

 

Old people are at risk under general anesthetic. People with dementia who have to have an op under general anesthetic see their dementia symptoms get massively worse. We treat them - if we have to. I'd like to see some hard and fast procedures named or it sounds to me like an Nhs trust trying to kick people off waiting to shorten them and save s few quid.

[Daven]

Oh dear.

This will be my last post since I have repeated this over and over again.

This is not discrimination against morbidly obese people - this is fact.

People who are morbidly obese are far more likely to die when under a general anaesthetic. The facts are there for anyone who cares to take the time to read them.

http://www.bjmp.org/content/anaestheic-management-obese-parturient

Good night and good bye.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Daven

[JFKvsNixon]

We're happy to treat addicts though aren't we?

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2014 at 23:17 ----------

 

 

We are short on facts here - you can't name the aforementioned routine ops. Do you know anyone who has needed a knee replacement (which can be done on a local by the way) - the pain can get excruciating. And good luck to tubby trying to get a bit of exercise without a fully working knee or hip joint.

 

Old people are at risk under general anesthetic. People with dementia who have to have an op under general anesthetic see their dementia symptoms get massively worse. We treat them - if we have to. I'd like to see some hard and fast procedures named or it sounds to me like an Nhs trust trying to kick people off waiting to shorten them and save s few quid.

 

Knee replacements cannot be done, "on a local". When they're done awake, 99 times out of 100 they'll have it via a spinal block given via an infection into the back.

 

It can be very difficult for an anaesthetist to administer this injection to someone who is obese for a couple of reasons. The patient cannot get into the position needed and the anatomy of the patient would create a challenge.

 

The injection often includes a strong opiod, which can lead to respiratory problems later on, and also after the spinal block has worn off further strong opioids will be needed.

 

Then there is the issues of the rigorous physiotherapy needed to help the operation become a success.

 

This is just one of the issues though. Another issue that is being raised is that for smokers and obese people, the surgery can have less chances of being successful, and the NHS in Devon is saying is that they want to funnel the money to where the operations are more likely going to succeed and where there are less chances of mishaps occurring during the surgery.

 

I still feel uncomfortable about patients being denied healthcare for these reasons because some motivated patients who need a helping hand will be caught up and put into the same bracket as the unmotivated patients, who refuse to take responsibility for their health.

 

So instead of sending patients away to sort their lives out I'd like to see the NHS actively helping the patient to change their lifestyle and then bringing them back in the system to be operated upon.

[Fudbeer]

With any 'universal' healthcare system that is funded by society and free at the point of service, there has to be some responsibility taken on the part of the patient in order to ensure that they can benefit from the treatment provided.

 

For example, an alcoholic with liver failure who needs a liver transplant to survive will not be given one if s/he continues to drink. Is that unfair?

 

Resources are never infinite. It's all very well pontificating about everyone's 'rights' to free healthcare, but every minute of every day, because of financial constraints/cuts, doctors and managers have to make judgement calls about treatments - decisions which mean that some patients will get a certain treatment (as their chances of it working are higher) and some will be refused it (as the clinical outcome would be poor).It is happening already - the obesity/smoker issue is all part of it.

 

It's bad enough, and difficult enough, in cases where the patient is desperately unlucky (particularly aggressive cancer, terrible road accident), as those decisions still have to be made, on a clinical outcome basis. But in cases where the patient could actively improve their own chances of a treatment working, surely they have a responsibility to do their part.

 

Good post.

 

As you say resources are not infante a lot of people seem to forget this.

[skinz]

I don't have a problem with the morbidly obese going under the knife as long as they're made quite aware of the risks involved. Also signing a document which doesn't allow rabid "claim culture" to escalate should the risk pointed out have a detrimental effect. Not just morbidly obese but any self induced harmful diagnosis also.