Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Not in the UK, where the health system is funded from general taxation.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should socialized health care deny/delay treatment to smokers and the obese?
- Thread starter MD
- Start date
Not in the UK, where the health system is funded from general taxation.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
Er, that rather defeats the entire point of God's plan of salvation.
How so?
Thanda
Well-Known Member
Why give someone something they don't want. Why give someone health when they clearly don't want it?
God's plan is to rely on God to help and save you, not yourself, which will always lead you into trouble.
Do you even believe in the teachings of Jesus, what the heck are you talking about, the single most strong message of Jesus was helping the poor and disabled and sick, not keeping money for the wealthy Pharisees.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I'm not proposing anything. I'm observing that in a health system funded from general taxation like in the UK there will never be enough money and there will always a need for rationing, so judgements have to be made by medical professionals, based on who can get the most benefit.
The problem is becoming more acute because of an ageing population, the whole system is at breaking point. It's a political issue too of course, politicians know the NHS needs a lot more money but are very reluctant to raise taxes to pay for it.
God has to save us because we can't save ourselves. Duh. That "God helps those who help themselves" crap isn't found in the Bible.
Addiction is a disease, with genetic aspects, and nicotine is extremely hard to quit. That in mind, the culpability of the person is less clear.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
You understand it differently to the way I do then. Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments". When the young ruler asked what he needed to do get eternal life Jesus said "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
I could go on. Anybody who conceives of a Jesus who gives salvation to those who do not care about their salvation, who do nothing to show that they desire to be free from sin; they have all imagined a Jesus who is not mentioned in Bible.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
We don't really have much of a choice when it comes to physical activity, as we are expected to be sedentary for school and work. I think it is safe to say that at no other time in our species history have we done so much sitting, which is a social mandate despite it being against our biological nature and terribly unhealthy.
It's not banned "everywhere" as it is used medically and goes by the name diamorphine.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
Of course he must save us. But are you saying he saves even those who do not care about their salvation. Can a man be saved while he continues to sin? If he is saved, that what is it that he has been saved from.
My understanding of salvation is that God saves us from sin. He does this by turning our hearts from evil. This process however, requires our participation. If we don't do our part we will not be saved. Hence helps those who help themselves.
Indeed. And I would be glad to have my tax money used to cure people of this disease. But I would not be as happy for my tax money to be used cure them of the consequences of this disease while they refuse to be cured of it.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
Smoking cigarettes or being obese is not a sin, you don't need salvation because you smoke, that's all BS, Jesus didn't even say anything against drinking or hashish smoking, both of which were prevalent at the time, you're confusing your own twisted version of morality with Jesus'.
Then you have no heart.
Having an addiction to a substance is "sin"?
Where are you getting that smokers don't want to quit? Most of the ones I've talked to regret ever starting to smoke. I'm trying to quit, myself. Why do you have such a lack of empathy for those struggling with addiction? It's not only smokers, either. It's drug addicts of all sorts.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
No, you are twisting things. I never said not smoking would give you salvation. You're the one that brought Jesus into a discussion about medical care. As far as I was concerned we were only using salvation for allegorical purposes. At no point did I think we were talking about smoking as a requirement for salvation
Thanda
Well-Known Member
What are you on about? At no point have I said smoking is a sin
I believe in fixing problems at the source rather than just patching up the symptoms. The respiratory diseases smokers end up with are the symptoms. Let's focus our money and effort on getting you to stop smoking. This doesn't mean we shouldn't give smokers any medical care, but that should not be where most of our scarce resources are going.
Lung cancer is a "symptom" of smoking? What? Are you saying that we shouldn't focus on treating lung cancer but focus on smoking cessation?
What "scarce resources"? In America, at least, we're not actually broke, the money is just badly mismanaged. A small part of our national budget goes towards health care, but we spend around $1 trillion on "defense".
Thanda
Well-Known Member
Lung cancer is a "symptom" of smoking? What? Are you saying that we shouldn't focus on treating lung cancer but focus on smoking cessation?
What "scarce resources"? In America, at least, we're not actually broke, the money is just badly mismanaged. A small part of our national budget goes towards health care, but we spend around $1 trillion on "defense".
I live in South Africa, we have very scarce resources.
As for America: As far as I know you guys are heavily in debt.
Perditus
へびつかい座
Boy, this is really a tough question. I'm split on it. I used to be a smoker and I miss it every day, and I'm not exactly a lightweight now that I'm older and left tobacco behind because of my heart.
As I age it gets harder and harder to control my weight as my metabolism slows down. I eat a very healthy diet, but it doesn't seem to matter.
I refuse to condemn smokers. I've walked in their shoes. I love good cigars and, oh my God, there is so much good pipe tobacco out there!
Since beginning this post I've decided that, yes, we should provide health care to all. In many cases, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
We probably shouldn't refuse to provide health care to individuals who have a difficult time controlling their vices. I, myself, understand how one turns to these vices to relieve the depression of everyday life.
The obvious answer to the thread's titular inquiry is no. Care should not be delayed based on parameters of smoking or obese.
The question in OP as it relates to the article in OP is I find intellectually distorting the position of NHS. I had to read through entire article to come to this conclusion, then hoped someone else in the thread brought this up, but in my skim of the posts on this thread, I am not seeing that.
Me being pro-smoking rights and willing to do battle with anyone that buys into anti-smoking dogma (I relish such a debate) would've thought when I first entered the thread that I would be arguing in the way I see others in this thread arguing - which is essentially saying there is not a reason to discriminate, in terms of withholding treatment, to people that need healthcare simply because they are a smoker. Were such a policy in place (for all forms of healthcare), I'd want that whole system of care undone. I'd seek to undermine it at every possible turn.
BUT, that's not what the article is saying. In the 2nd paragraph of the article it says:
Seems the whole 'non-life threatening conditions' part is not being presented in thread's title or OP. Instead, the question is based, I believe, on emotional appeal. The article is fairly specific about the medical conditions/treatments it is alluding to: hip and knee replacement. As I have recently cared for person that had knee replacement, I can understand why medical person would (strongly) suggest a delay in that type of treatment to address other health considerations. I could also see a case being made that opposes this, but do think that case would be short sighted - in that you do knee replacement for obese person, and their recovery time is far greater due to the excessive weight on their body. So, they have new knee due to treatment, but unable to really use it because physical therapy would (very likely) be far different than if they had lost some, much of the weight before that type of treatment. Thus possible, perhaps likely, they need a lot more care in the year (or longer) after that surgery than had they taken steps to address all that a year before.
As someone who vapes now, and smokes moderately, and has had decades of adult life being an ex-smoker and also decades of being abusive smoker, the politics and stigmatization around smoking matters to me. Now (or in recent years) more than ever. I would guess from what I currently understand about England stance, that vaping would be permissive while smoking would not be (in regards to these types of treatments). I would assume using nic gum would be accepted. And I would get that anti-smoking types would be pushing for complete and unconditional cessation (thus no use of vaping or gum) before such treatment could be done. If they are of the nazi variety of anti-smoking, they'd probably push such a policy for all healthcare. I would seek to defeat them, and would not back down regardless of their alleged status or title.
So, with all that said, I assumed (before linking to the article) the possibility the article was perhaps saying smokers must cease from smoking before any treatment could be done on them. Again, had it said that and been in vein of unconditional cessation (no nicotine replacement therapies allowed), I'd be resisting the policy I believe more than anyone in this thread. And doing it based on rationale arguments, plausibly defeating some of the nonsense that average people espouse about smoking, but are gravely mistaken (i.e. that passive smoking causes cancer, you be mistaken if you hold that belief.)
BUT, the article isn't saying that. The policy could be that. I don't think it currently is, but given the stigmatization around smoking, I'd not be terribly surprised if the policy did move in that direction. Yet, I scrutinized the article looking for the (anti)smoking angle being taken, and found near the end this quote:
With that perspective, the whole framing of the discussion is being presented I would say in an intellectually dishonest way. It's not the smokers (over there) and the obese (over here) and let's deny them all healthcare until they shape up. Instead it's obese people who are ALSO smokers and wish to have hip or knee operation. And is squarely about giving that up to a year (which means 3 months may be all that is asked for) to reasonably prep such an individual for that specific treatment.
But the last line of the above quote really defeats what I see as the emotional appeal being made. Again, were it the case of what the emotional appeal is suggesting (ban all treatment to smokers until they completely stop), I'd be responding far differently than I am in this post. But because of that quote then my bottom line is:
Yes, they ought to invoke such a policy, not just for 'management of resources within the system' but for providing best care to the patient before, during and after the desired, non-life threatening surgery.
The question in OP as it relates to the article in OP is I find intellectually distorting the position of NHS. I had to read through entire article to come to this conclusion, then hoped someone else in the thread brought this up, but in my skim of the posts on this thread, I am not seeing that.
Me being pro-smoking rights and willing to do battle with anyone that buys into anti-smoking dogma (I relish such a debate) would've thought when I first entered the thread that I would be arguing in the way I see others in this thread arguing - which is essentially saying there is not a reason to discriminate, in terms of withholding treatment, to people that need healthcare simply because they are a smoker. Were such a policy in place (for all forms of healthcare), I'd want that whole system of care undone. I'd seek to undermine it at every possible turn.
BUT, that's not what the article is saying. In the 2nd paragraph of the article it says:
Seems the whole 'non-life threatening conditions' part is not being presented in thread's title or OP. Instead, the question is based, I believe, on emotional appeal. The article is fairly specific about the medical conditions/treatments it is alluding to: hip and knee replacement. As I have recently cared for person that had knee replacement, I can understand why medical person would (strongly) suggest a delay in that type of treatment to address other health considerations. I could also see a case being made that opposes this, but do think that case would be short sighted - in that you do knee replacement for obese person, and their recovery time is far greater due to the excessive weight on their body. So, they have new knee due to treatment, but unable to really use it because physical therapy would (very likely) be far different than if they had lost some, much of the weight before that type of treatment. Thus possible, perhaps likely, they need a lot more care in the year (or longer) after that surgery than had they taken steps to address all that a year before.
As someone who vapes now, and smokes moderately, and has had decades of adult life being an ex-smoker and also decades of being abusive smoker, the politics and stigmatization around smoking matters to me. Now (or in recent years) more than ever. I would guess from what I currently understand about England stance, that vaping would be permissive while smoking would not be (in regards to these types of treatments). I would assume using nic gum would be accepted. And I would get that anti-smoking types would be pushing for complete and unconditional cessation (thus no use of vaping or gum) before such treatment could be done. If they are of the nazi variety of anti-smoking, they'd probably push such a policy for all healthcare. I would seek to defeat them, and would not back down regardless of their alleged status or title.
So, with all that said, I assumed (before linking to the article) the possibility the article was perhaps saying smokers must cease from smoking before any treatment could be done on them. Again, had it said that and been in vein of unconditional cessation (no nicotine replacement therapies allowed), I'd be resisting the policy I believe more than anyone in this thread. And doing it based on rationale arguments, plausibly defeating some of the nonsense that average people espouse about smoking, but are gravely mistaken (i.e. that passive smoking causes cancer, you be mistaken if you hold that belief.)
BUT, the article isn't saying that. The policy could be that. I don't think it currently is, but given the stigmatization around smoking, I'd not be terribly surprised if the policy did move in that direction. Yet, I scrutinized the article looking for the (anti)smoking angle being taken, and found near the end this quote:
With that perspective, the whole framing of the discussion is being presented I would say in an intellectually dishonest way. It's not the smokers (over there) and the obese (over here) and let's deny them all healthcare until they shape up. Instead it's obese people who are ALSO smokers and wish to have hip or knee operation. And is squarely about giving that up to a year (which means 3 months may be all that is asked for) to reasonably prep such an individual for that specific treatment.
But the last line of the above quote really defeats what I see as the emotional appeal being made. Again, were it the case of what the emotional appeal is suggesting (ban all treatment to smokers until they completely stop), I'd be responding far differently than I am in this post. But because of that quote then my bottom line is:
Yes, they ought to invoke such a policy, not just for 'management of resources within the system' but for providing best care to the patient before, during and after the desired, non-life threatening surgery.