It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Uk bans Operations For Fat Smokers

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: LondonMan
No, the assessment form i showed is the only one i could find from 3 years ago. But this is now happening in ALL NHS hospitals, as i said i broke my arms two years ago and had to do FOUR assessment for my Four opertions.
(quote)
The NHS will ban patients from surgery indefinitely unless they lose weight or quit smoking, under controversial plans drawn up in Hertfordshire.
(/quote)

www.independent.co.uk...


Did you overlook the words I've bolded in the bit you quoted?
edit on 22-10-2017 by audubon because: format fix




posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: LondonMan

Sorry to hear about your aunt, but you aren't alone in this regard.

This is what happens when government is in charge of healthcare.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 07:11 AM
link   
so no operation cause you are fat and can control it...

what about when there is no operation if you have high BP and do nothing to control it?

what about when you have this or that and can not control it? sucks to be you with the #ty hand i guess.

what is the point of giving you can operation for this thing when you have cancer and only have 10 years left anyway?



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: LondonMan

Sorry to hear about your aunt, but you aren't alone in this regard.

This is what happens when government is in charge of healthcare.


Surely if it were a ptrivatised doctor he would still have have the right to refuse treatment on the same basis?

Unless of course the government forced the doctor to perform the operation but that would not be the American way would it?



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

I suppose that any doctor could refuse treatment. But all doctors? We're stepping into serious strawman territory now.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nonspecific

I suppose that any doctor could refuse treatment. But all doctors? We're stepping into serious strawman territory now.


As with mst things I guess it comes down to money and the different way oerations are paid for and my understanding of US medical care is lacking.

the operations in question are non life threatening and for things like hip or knee operations from what I understand. In the UK this is funded by the NHS that is paid into in the States it is a private insurance company that is paying for it right?

So will your insurance company pay for an operation under the same circumstances? A mate of mine needed a new knee and was about 20 stone. He was told that if he wanted a new knee then he needed to loose a set amount of weight as at 20 odd stone the new knee would not last and in a few years would need to be replaced and need another expensive operation so the ball was in his court.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: SilverOwls

Man you truly suck , I don't get for one second why you're being such a jerk. Thank god you are not in charge. Basically with your line of thinking , every surgery is avoidable so no one should ever need any.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi




she'll get treatment based on need


Better get my eyes tested.

I read that as 'she'll get treatment based on weed'.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

All this is because the NHS is under funded, the smoking and overweight thing is just an excuse to refuse service as it's easy to pass the blame on to the patient. As can be seen by a few posts in this thread, some people seem to think that is aceptable.

What about those that risk their lives in other ways? Fell off your bike did you? Well it was your own fault you'll just have to heal yourself... And numerous other examples I won't go into.

How is it I can stuff my face with as much food as I like and I don't get fat? I don't exactly exercise, though do have quite a physical job. Does it not have something to do with my metabolism perhaps? Or how is it I've participated in extreme sports most of my life but never broken anything or needed treatment? Is it my inate skill? My superior genes perhaps? Actually that may be it, after all some are born diabetic, some are born with or soon develop cancer, should those unfortunate ones be refused treatment? Or are we just going after those that knowingly risk their health? If so where exactly do we draw the line at risking ones health?

In fact why are there so many more obese people today than compared to say 30 years ago? Could be some conspiracy there in itself...

Let's face it, there is faction in society that would like to get rid of the NHS altogether simply because they don't want to pay for it. Or in some cases because they can see themselves making a tidy profit from private health care.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   
A few years ago, here in the US, I had to get my knee replaced for the 2nd time (there is a reason my kids call me RoboMom, lol). I’d been chewing nicotine gum instead of smoking- which I did for most of my life. He wouldn’t do the surgery until I quit, and had to be “clean” for 4 weeks. My chances for a good outcome were less. Guess what? I quit. It was hard, but I HAD to do it. I had the replacement done.

I’m very sorry that your aunt was turned down until she quits and loses weight, but at some point you have to take responsibility for your choices in life. I realize my situation was non life threatening like hers, but she CAN do it. No doctor wants to see his/her patient have a bad outcome. They do actually care.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: SilverOwls

originally posted by: LondonMan

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
Liberals wonder why they are looked on how they are,this is what happens when you let the government control you,we are trying to avoid being like UK,Germany etc,but we are getting close,and true fact what do we care about UK,we don't live there they have their own voice
Socialists, Liberals and their ilk put £ or $ on a human being, NORMAL PEOPLE just want to give everyone a chance regardless of the cost, just like how the whole world wanted to save Charlie Gard


Socialists, liberals and their ilk gave you the NHS lol and lol. You should take your fat aunt to a private hospital instead of complaining.

Obesity and heart disease equals higher rates of death in serious operations. Yeah no let's blame the NHS and liberals because your aunt eats too much and doesn't exercise. Blame the surgeons because visceral fat and constricted arteries are impediments to surviving operations. Give her the surgical team when she's got a shorter life expectancy than a non smoking heart patient in good shape.




Ah, yes ... the old "After you pay for what *we* want you can pay for what you want or need ... assuming you have the cash left over after paying for what *we* want that we told you you also needed that now will not also benefit you ..."

Socialism is great until you are forced to pay for something that suddenly doesn't cover your needs but forced you to go it alone, assuming you can afford to after you pay for what no longer benefits you.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

A new knee is a bit different.

Mom was in the same boat, but they told her why she needed to drop some weight first. It was because with certain weight levels, the lifetime of the knee dropped off dramatically and at her age, they wanted to make sure they weren't looking at having to go in and try to replace the knee again before she passed away. At the weight she was at, she was looking at a replacement by the time she in her 80s almost certainly, so they told her to lose weight first because doing surgery on an 80-year-old is something no one wants to ever have to do unless it is absolutely necessary, and knee replacements aren't.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lolliek
A few years ago, here in the US, I had to get my knee replaced for the 2nd time (there is a reason my kids call me RoboMom, lol). I’d been chewing nicotine gum instead of smoking- which I did for most of my life. He wouldn’t do the surgery until I quit, and had to be “clean” for 4 weeks. My chances for a good outcome were less. Guess what? I quit. It was hard, but I HAD to do it. I had the replacement done.

I’m very sorry that your aunt was turned down until she quits and loses weight, but at some point you have to take responsibility for your choices in life. I realize my situation was non life threatening like hers, but she CAN do it. No doctor wants to see his/her patient have a bad outcome. They do actually care.


So as a UK member can I ask if it was the doctor who stipulated this or the insurance company paying for the operation?

Is this a standard practice do you know or the actual choice of your individual doctor?



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Sounds like the surgeries they might need to be sound enough to get back into shape are what they're being denied.

Those very conditions could help weaken people, that final tipping point that just right that their weight spirals out of control to begin with.

But who is anyone to criticize the system? Those individuals need to do their part for socialism, the needs of the many outweigh the few, and many there are too many people so what better place to start doing the unhealthy scratches then with smokers?

Of course the bitch about this is, who gets to be the one to decide who what weight classifies as "obese" in these cases. Better hope when its you you dont end up being reviewed by some anti-smoking nazi.

Since its all one monolithic machine there, do they even get to shop around town for second opinions???



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nonspecific

A new knee is a bit different.

Mom was in the same boat, but they told her why she needed to drop some weight first. It was because with certain weight levels, the lifetime of the knee dropped off dramatically and at her age, they wanted to make sure they weren't looking at having to go in and try to replace the knee again before she passed away. At the weight she was at, she was looking at a replacement by the time she in her 80s almost certainly, so they told her to lose weight first because doing surgery on an 80-year-old is something no one wants to ever have to do unless it is absolutely necessary, and knee replacements aren't.


So this is less about the pro's and con's of socialist medicene and more about a sensible decision based on the risk involved with an operation and cost then?



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

It depends.

In the UK, there are places that are being directed by regulatory to outright refuse procedures to people. To me, it sounds like there is no doctor discretion involved in that.

With my mom, you never know for sure what the doctor might have said if she had been older when her knee went out. If the lifetime of the knee would have been outside what she might have been expected to reasonably live, he might have replaced it without asking her to lose the weight. In this case, he felt she could reasonably be expected to live long enough to out live the knee at her weight, so weight loss was a part of surgery prep.

Basically, my understanding of what is going on with this in the UK is that there are also two health districts that need to make up large budgetary shortfalls, and this is one of the ways they are doing it -- by imposing this regulation and essentially rationing care in this manner. So it's less of a health measure than it is a cost cutting one.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Yeah it's based on the cost mostly. Like everything else it comes down money.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nonspecific

It depends.

In the UK, there are places that are being directed by regulatory to outright refuse procedures to people. To me, it sounds like there is no doctor discretion involved in that.

With my mom, you never know for sure what the doctor might have said if she had been older when her knee went out. If the lifetime of the knee would have been outside what she might have been expected to reasonably live, he might have replaced it without asking her to lose the weight. In this case, he felt she could reasonably be expected to live long enough to out live the knee at her weight, so weight loss was a part of surgery prep.

Basically, my understanding of what is going on with this in the UK is that there are also two health districts that need to make up large budgetary shortfalls, and this is one of the ways they are doing it -- by imposing this regulation and essentially rationing care in this manner. So it's less of a health measure than it is a cost cutting one.


I agree that it is a cost cutting measure to keep a budget and I have to say I personally agree in this kind of situation.

I imagine though that your personal doctor is employed by a larger organisation or hospital?

it is the organisation that is supplying the facility and recources for the proposed operation so I imagine they have some kind of guidelines that the doctor must adhere to as an employee yes?

If so then it is no different to a regional decision to implement specific measures that an NHS doctor adheres to in the UK right?



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

The difference is when they do it for the sake of money and not for the sake of the patient.

It's like when the news came out that the NHS was encouraging natural childbirth, not because anything showed it was better for women or children, but because it saved them money on the anesthetic.
edit on 22-10-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nonspecific

The difference is when they do it for the sake of money and not for the sake of the patient.

It's like when the news came out that the NHS was encouraging natural childbirth, not because anything showed it was better for women or children, but because it saved them money on the anesthetic.


But in the US are the people that perform the operations employees of a company and those releasing the funds for the operation empoloyees of an insurance company and are both those companies primary aims not to make profit?

I am not saying that the NHS does not have it's flaws but the entire system of health in the US is based on profit is it not?

As to the NHS encouraging home births how is that a bad thing? Are they forcing them or simply giving a choice to free up abvailable recources that can be better utilised elsewhere and offering the patient an alternative to a hospital birth?



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join