Delay routine surgery for smokers and obese people

[Guest sibon]

I have a friend who genuinely weighs 40 stone. She needs all manner of surgical work which would be classed as routine; bad joints, spinal issues etc and has been refused them all because she'd likely die under general anesthetic. Refused on the NHS, by the NHS. Do you think they are wrong?

 

 

Clearly not. If someone is going to die during an operation, then the best course of action is to not operate. That pesky Hippocratic Oath would tell you that much.

 

Beyond this extreme example, did you have a point?

[mikem8634]

Clearly not. If someone is going to die during an operation, then the best course of action is to not operate. That pesky Hippocratic Oath would tell you that much.

 

Beyond this extreme example, did you have a point?

 

Quite correct, I don't think anybody is opposing clinical reasoning.

[the_bloke]

Clearly not. If someone is going to die during an operation, then the best course of action is to not operate. That pesky Hippocratic Oath would tell you that much.

 

Beyond this extreme example, did you have a point?

 

Yes; it's well documented that obese people and heavy smokers carry extra risks at the point of surgery and subsequent recovery that can be mitigated by losing weight or quitting smoking for an extended period of time. Delaying non life threatening surgery so they can do this is surely a good thing?

 

It's different to your cyclist example, as whilst his need for surgery may be the result of biking - such as an accident - it doesn't increase the risk of complications when he has surgery does it.

[Cyclone]

So, should they refuse to treat cyclists who are involved in RTAs, on the basis that they would have been safer travelling by car? Or on the basis that they are likely to climb back onto a vulnerable machine as soon as they can?

 

The NHS does have limited resources, it also has a duty to treat the sick and injured. it shouldn't be too difficult to imagine a few ways that they could use those resources more effectively, whilst allowing people to make their own lifestyle choices.

 

That would be a stupid argument, cycling is good for your health, even with the risk of accidents factored in.

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2016 at 08:03 ----------

 

That matters not. If someone needs treatment, they should get it. Making lifestyle judgements about whether they deserve it is wrong. For the most part, these people will have paid in and are as deserving as other people with risky lifestyles.

 

My pop at cyclists was tongue in cheek, but you could extend it to rock climbers, pilots, promiscuous people, drug addicts, drivers of fast cars. Choose your risk group really. Who is to say which group deserves NHS resources and which doesn't?

 

The example, hip and knee operations, and obesity, can you see a link?

Unexpected injury from something going wrong is entirely different to a lower chance of a successful outcome and likely further health issues to an ongoing problem with obesity though.

 

That said, obesity is a disease that affects the poor disproportionately, and that problem needs tackling. Withholding surgery isn't a means of tackling it.

[ANGELFIRE1]

I have a friend who genuinely weighs 40 stone. She needs all manner of surgical work which would be classed as routine; bad joints, spinal issues etc and has been refused them all because she'd likely die under general anesthetic. Refused on the NHS, by the NHS. Do you think they are wrong?

 

If there is an easily mitigated risk to the patient during surgery, do you not think that risk should be lessened or eliminated beforehand, or should the surgeons just 'go for it' anyway?

 

Edit: You can add alcoholics to the list as well; the NHS is known to refuse liver transplants to alcoholics who could not be certain they would stop drinking after receiving a new liver. They later died.

 

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/eight-birmingham-patients-denied-liver-7769731

 

Should they have been given a new lease of life just to drink themselves to death anyway, when someone else could have had the organ?

 

I have sent you a PM.

 

Angel1.