The Joker Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Can you imagine Tesco promoting better shopping because they banned all over 65s during weekend opening hours? that would be heaven. I'd be in and out in ten minutes for my full weekly shop, instead of being stuck behind a bunch of old biddies all afternoon who are holding up the entire queue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Yeah. Once that's in we can do it for the elderly because it wont benefit them for long. And children because they've not contributed. etc.... Hate to tell you, but the NHS has been rationing care (unofficially) on that basis for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil752 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 But if your Dr tells you to loose weight or stop smoking (for years) or it'll kill you - why should they then provide an intervention when his prophecy comes true? Any monies paid in taxes has been used already,for the previous years provision of giving"you" advice "you" choose to ignore. I read the details and it links to stuff like hip and knee replacements - how successful would a new hip or knee be with 3 or 4 times the load on it? Don't get me wrong i'm overweight - not obese, all my other medical conditions are perfect. But i dropped 10 kilos in 4 weeks by reducing food intake. That's within the limit of most people if i can do it. All the while trying to stuff you full of unwanted, unneeded pills they get kick backs on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangerousedd Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 All the while trying to stuff you full of unwanted, unneeded pills they get kick backs on always a good idea to check the warnings provided with drugs since the doctors sometimes don't check them or the drug interactions. I used to use http://www.drugs.com to check drug interactions on my dads pills after the gp nearly killed him giving him 2 medications that interacted with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stifflersmom Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 This happens anyway in large numbers of procedures; the difference is now a Trust is speaking out in order to highlight the funding crisis in the NHS and to educate people about the pressure the NHS is under. Already 1 pound in 10 is spent on diabetic care, closely linked to obesity (Type 2 diabetes, not Type 1) and this will increase. Smoking increases the anaesthetic risks, affects heart function which can impact post-surgery, and increases healing time. Obesity has the same kind of impact and both raise the risk of post-operative complications. People need to take responsibility for their own health and make choices which will maximise their chances of a successful clinical outcome. If that means losing weight or stopping smoking that is not discriminatory, its just good sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hogg Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 I think it important that we do all we can to fight discriminatory rationing of care - one day it might be you they decide not to help. Perhaps they will refuse to treat those who injure themselves whilst driving a car, or those who fall of their bikes, or walkers who sprain their ankles. They could refuse to treat those who fall down the stairs, or burn themselves cooking. Perhaps they will extend this lack of care to diabetics or even cancer patients if they consider the cause might be 'lifestyle'. It is a dangerous and slippery slope to having everyone on private health insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobinfoot Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Treating or not is nothing new. I worked at the NGH for years and once saw a consultant discharge a patient for smoking telling him if he was not prepared to help himself then it was pointless carrying on with his treatment and someone else could have his bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilldig Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 I think it important that we do all we can to fight discriminatory rationing of care - one day it might be you they decide not to help. Perhaps they will refuse to treat those who injure themselves whilst driving a car, or those who fall of their bikes, or walkers who sprain their ankles. They could refuse to treat those who fall down the stairs, or burn themselves cooking. Perhaps they will extend this lack of care to diabetics or even cancer patients if they consider the cause might be 'lifestyle'. It is a dangerous and slippery slope to having everyone on private health insurance. Yes, exactly, and I have said the same on threads before when the issue has cropped up. Once it really starts it won't know where to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 It's not right. If you have paid in you deserve your treatment, even if you smoke or are obese. Angel1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 It's not right. If you have paid in you deserve your treatment, even if you smoke or are obese. Angel1. yebbut, where does that end? For instance, I hate the Tories. Surely you will allow me to avoid paying a proportion of income tax and VAT to this government while they are in power? I also hate Our Nige' Can I avoid paying a proportion of my income tax and VAT to fund his millionaire expenses lifestyle and his Germanese wife and kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now