Org Mobile Site
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...d=968332188492
What do you guys think of this?
In a country with public health care can a doctor refuse surgery for a patient (who presumably has paid his share of taxes toward the health care system) because he happens to smoke cigarettes, which are perfectly legal and the right of any adult in the country to enjoy if they so please?
What do you guys think of this?
In a country with public health care can a doctor refuse surgery for a patient (who presumably has paid his share of taxes toward the health care system) because he happens to smoke cigarettes, which are perfectly legal and the right of any adult in the country to enjoy if they so please?
Maybe if the intake of cigarettes is reasonable. But we would run into problems with this. Food has just as bad of an effect if abused, and so do many substances. Where do we draw the line? I think if we are all paying for something we should all also take personal responsibility. The money that could be saved from most of us being healthy could help advance research for children's deseases.
If his blood flow is being inhibited due to his smoking it will make recovery from surgery very hard.
That and putting him under may be problematic.
That and putting him under may be problematic.
Definitely not. For the reasons you've stated above:
1) Cigarettes are legal
2) He/she has payed the same taxes as anyone else
3) The smoking has nothing to do with the accident
This is probably just the usual cynical ploy to cut spending on health and try to find a popular justification for it, instead of actually combatting tobacco addiction or the doctor is trying to start his own mini crusade against smoking at this man's expense. A heroine addict would probably be better treated.
1) Cigarettes are legal
2) He/she has payed the same taxes as anyone else
3) The smoking has nothing to do with the accident
This is probably just the usual cynical ploy to cut spending on health and try to find a popular justification for it, instead of actually combatting tobacco addiction or the doctor is trying to start his own mini crusade against smoking at this man's expense. A heroine addict would probably be better treated.
Originally Posted by Beorhtwulf:
Definitely not. For the reasons you've stated above:
1) Cigarettes are legal
2) He/she has payed the same taxes as anyone else
3) The smoking has nothing to do with the accident
This is probably just the usual cynical ploy to cut spending on health and try to find a popular justification for it, instead of actually combatting tobacco addiction or the doctor is trying to start his own mini crusade against smoking at this man's expense. A heroine addict would probably be better treated.
I admire the USA's antismoking campaign...to give up so much cash that was circulating in the cancerspreading business...Definitely not. For the reasons you've stated above:
1) Cigarettes are legal
2) He/she has payed the same taxes as anyone else
3) The smoking has nothing to do with the accident
This is probably just the usual cynical ploy to cut spending on health and try to find a popular justification for it, instead of actually combatting tobacco addiction or the doctor is trying to start his own mini crusade against smoking at this man's expense. A heroine addict would probably be better treated.
I just wish that heroin gets legalised then Ill come and say that these are "adults" that pay taxes and that have any right to pleasure themselves.
Hellenes
Originally Posted by hellenes:
I admire the USA's antismoking campaign...to give up so much cash that was circulating in the cancerspreading business...
I just wish that heroin gets legalised then Ill come and say that these are "adults" that pay taxes and that have any right to pleasure themselves.
Hellenes
No one is saying that they have a "right to pleasure themselves" what I am saying is that as tax payers, and/or as those in need of hospital treatment for an accident, not due to their addiction or even related to it, then surely they are entitled to this treatment and should not be refused purely on the grounds that they are an addict? Addicts are victims of the people that sell this crap, whether tobacco companies or drug pushers. Victims are generally supported in a civilised society, not shown the door.I admire the USA's antismoking campaign...to give up so much cash that was circulating in the cancerspreading business...
I just wish that heroin gets legalised then Ill come and say that these are "adults" that pay taxes and that have any right to pleasure themselves.
Hellenes
If the person that was refused treatment died as a result of their injuries and lack of said treatment, then, in many countries, the doctor would be liable as would the health authority because refusal to treat people is both illegal and against a doctor's code of conduct in some countries. Should a doctor be making these sort of decisions as to who he should or should not treat anyway?
Smokers pay MORE taxes than non smokers Due to the heavy taxation of cigaretts.
If you are a smoker and theres no Physical reason for you not to have surgey,
That is Unfair discrimination.
Its not right to introduce smoking to the people, Say its fine.
and take there money and taxes from them Then say.
Sorry mate.
No surgery for you you've been a bad smoker havent you.
if smokers arent allowed surgery,
Then the smoker should be helth Tax exempt. (NI)
And the tax on cigaretts/ tobaccko should be removed.
Its not right to make smokers Pay for other peoples health service,
and then deny them theirs.
If you are a smoker and theres no Physical reason for you not to have surgey,
That is Unfair discrimination.
Its not right to introduce smoking to the people, Say its fine.
and take there money and taxes from them Then say.
Sorry mate.
No surgery for you you've been a bad smoker havent you.
if smokers arent allowed surgery,
Then the smoker should be helth Tax exempt. (NI)
And the tax on cigaretts/ tobaccko should be removed.
Its not right to make smokers Pay for other peoples health service,
and then deny them theirs.
This is rediculous. He's paid his taxes for the health system, they can't deny him because he chooses to do a legal activity.
Crazed Rabbit
Crazed Rabbit
It's a legitimate medical order that the doctor has given therefore if the man will not follow doctor's orders then he deserves to die.
For future cases the government should just make all smoking illegal.
For future cases the government should just make all smoking illegal.
Originally Posted by :
It's a legitimate medical order that the doctor has given therefore if the man will not follow doctor's orders then he deserves to die.
Dude. Talk about "expert power"... [student mode off]It's a legitimate medical order that the doctor has given therefore if the man will not follow doctor's orders then he deserves to die.
What a complete crock.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
You sure it's not just like one of those "can't drink milk within four hours of taking Medicine X or the effects get buggered" things...?
Every man and woman has the abslute and unalienable right to do what they will to their bodies. It is not a law, but it is as necessary as universal representation and the absolute right to free speech. Infringement upon this right is Facism, pure and simple, and it tramoles all over the very ideas and basis of socialism.
Well accept for the fact that he's going for surgery in New Brunswick. 
The request is resonable. The Doctor feels that the mans smoking habit will impede his recovery.
The request is resonable. The Doctor feels that the mans smoking habit will impede his recovery.Originally Posted by Zorba:
Every man and woman has the abslute and unalienable right to do what they will to their bodies. It is not a law, but it is as necessary as universal representation and the absolute right to free speech. Infringement upon this right is Facism, pure and simple, and it tramoles all over the very ideas and basis of socialism.
Well if you consider that "socialists" imprison people that disagree with the reality or the extent of Holocaust, then its very sad to support any notion that there is any kind of "freedom of speech".Every man and woman has the abslute and unalienable right to do what they will to their bodies. It is not a law, but it is as necessary as universal representation and the absolute right to free speech. Infringement upon this right is Facism, pure and simple, and it tramoles all over the very ideas and basis of socialism.
Hellenes
EDIT: should have read the article before posting...
I think that in this case the doctor does have a point. The guy smokes 2 packs a day and this is detrimental to his recovery process. It's not as if he's withholding treatment because smoking costs the state money because of increased health care cost.
Refusing treatment is over the top, though. The doctor has a duty to provide the best care possible to his patient and shouldn't use blackmail to force him to quit a certain habit, even if it's for his own good.
It would be different of course if the surgery would weaken the patient and the recovery would be brutal if the patient doesn't stop smoking, in wich case the patient would be better off with a bad yet functioning leg.
I think that in this case the doctor does have a point. The guy smokes 2 packs a day and this is detrimental to his recovery process. It's not as if he's withholding treatment because smoking costs the state money because of increased health care cost.
Refusing treatment is over the top, though. The doctor has a duty to provide the best care possible to his patient and shouldn't use blackmail to force him to quit a certain habit, even if it's for his own good.
It would be different of course if the surgery would weaken the patient and the recovery would be brutal if the patient doesn't stop smoking, in wich case the patient would be better off with a bad yet functioning leg.
First off: there are many other things that the smokers and drinkers do like fight, drink and drive (and of course second hand smoke).
The other factor is that there are increasingly larger numbers of treatment to keep these Gomers alive. And guess what? All are increasingly expensive!!!
Whereas there used to be the fact that people would die they can be kept alive for longer at increased cost to the state.
The solution would be to increase tax to the point where it did pay for the services that are required. How people who get hit by drink drivers and die of second hand smoke get their renumeration is a difficult one though...
The other factor is that there are increasingly larger numbers of treatment to keep these Gomers alive. And guess what? All are increasingly expensive!!!
Whereas there used to be the fact that people would die they can be kept alive for longer at increased cost to the state.
The solution would be to increase tax to the point where it did pay for the services that are required. How people who get hit by drink drivers and die of second hand smoke get their renumeration is a difficult one though...
Most smokers eventually die without having contracted cancer or other serious diseases, so the point is moot. And if smoking causes shorter life expectencies, that actually saves money because supporting the elderly costs money to the state. If you're going to argue that the huge amounts of cash the government rakes in because of taxes on alcohol and tobocco don't weigh up against the health care costs you're going to have to prove that with figures.
Lastly, if you're goign to substantially raise taxes on alcohol and tobacco be sure to introduce a "fat tax" also for the people who eat at McDonalds on a daily basis and make no effort to stay in shape. Otherwise it's just pure hypocrisy.
Lastly, if you're goign to substantially raise taxes on alcohol and tobacco be sure to introduce a "fat tax" also for the people who eat at McDonalds on a daily basis and make no effort to stay in shape. Otherwise it's just pure hypocrisy.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
How do deliciously ironic that you light up after both those posts. 
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO