It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
And this is why a system like the UK's is one I hope we never have.
I tend to agree with your that people who make bad health decisions should have to pay for them, but they should have to pay for them and not have it decided that because they made bad decisions, they will now have no access to care at all because it's more cost effective to the collective.
I know of someone whose son has some severe difficulties because of some things that were missed prenatally and the lack of preparation by the team at his birth exacerbated his condition. A year or so ago, they were told that he needed a pacemaker if he was going to have any chance of surviving into his teen years, but because of some other complications, they were also told that it was unlikely they would find someone who would take the chance of operating.
The NHS would likely have decided to simply deny that surgery because of the risk of death on the table and lack of long-term outcome even if successful.
Instead, the parents were free to find a surgeon who would take the chance. They knew the risks but they also know they will lose their son and decided that chance to have the extra years with him and the chance that medical science could come up with a solution was worth the risks.
They are fortunate they do not live in the UK I think.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nonspecific
I get the notion because the NHS did not make this decision based on caring for those people. They did it because they know very few people are going to be sympathetic to the plights of smokers or the obese, so it is easier to use this as a means of saving money which is really why they are making this choice and *NOT* because they are doing it in their best interests.
I compared it to the person I know and her family's situation because of poor prognosis of her son in both general life expectancy and the treatment she was told he needed. If the NHS was looking to save money (and it is, be honest), then what reason would they have to care about the situation, only the bottom line, and the bottom line is that the kid will most likely never see 20, never be a productive citizen paying taxes, and had very a high chance of not surviving the procedure to allow him to live past his 7th birthday.
Easy to say no to that. Yes?
Smoking increases the risk for cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with established cardiovascular disease, but clopidogrel treatment may be more effective in smokers. Therefore, the interaction of smoking with acute myocardial infarction deserves further study in more patients using designs that show fewer time limitations.
originally posted by: audubon
Can anyone point me to any hard data that show a significant elevation in mortality among smokers undergoing surgery? I'm not saying that there are no such data, but I'm having a hard job finding them.
originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: paraphi
Do you believe treatment for Diabetes Type II should be discontinued? (Seriously, how cold and heartless are you?)
Some cold greedy people on this thread. Some, the same old ones. Others, unexpected.
I actually almost wept reading some of these posts. Mankind. Humankind. Not very kind to one another.
originally posted by: butcherguy
I guess they shouldn't treat STDs in the UK. People engage in a behavior, by choice (except in the case of rape) that leads to contracting the disease.
Of course, if they wouldn't treat the disease, the number of cases would rise.
But hey, it costs money, right?
Ive had four nerve blockers thanks, think the green may have helped too... triggered or what lol God forbid you ever get any heart trouble, nurses like you are what give the NHS a bad name, it would be interesting to know what hospital you work at ????
originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
As a critical care nurse the level of ignorance on this thread is astounding.
If you are fat and smoke your risk factor for dying on the table and post-op complications is massive in comparison to a individual who does not smoke or eat like a horse. That is a just a fact. So if you are fat and smoke its in your best interests to stop smoking and cut back on the pies and go for a walk.
I actually think what the OP is complaining about is one of the inadvertent problems with having a health care system like ours. People neglect their own health, there is this attitude of "its ok the NHS will sort that". You are responsible for your own health, if you eat a tub of ice cream every night then drink a pack of beers and have a few smokes while you stew infront of the TV then its your fault you are unhealthy not the NHS or the government.
Speaking of the government, they had nothing to do with the death of Charlie Gard and have little to do with these kind of decisions, they are clinical decisions.
The NHS will never have enough funding, not matter how much money you put it, it will always need more. So resources have to be allocated appropriately. Lets say you are needing your hip replaced and you are ultra fit, is it fair then that some fat dude gets the opp before you? not really. Its a total waist of resources for the NHS to go and spend thousands on treatments for people who just won't help themselves.
Lastly OP, you didn't tell them you smoked at a pre-opp assessment?!?!?!
Can I just tell you how utterly stupid that is, if you smoke it could drastically change your management. The anesthetic staff might decide that because you smoke they want to do a nerve block rather than a GA because you could have some degree of obstruction that could make a GA more dangerous. So you don't tell them then some poor doc is going to tube you but because you have destroyed your lungs thanks to years of smoking it doesn't work or it turns into a difficult airway problem and you find yourself in a ITU. Or you go into T2RF and need critical care because you never mentioned that you smoked so nobody was fussed about how much o2 you were getting. The list of possible complications of this is actually endless and I know you know nothing about health care (as is evident from your OP) but this is dangerous. Not only that but 9 times out of 10 we know you are lying anyway about it so now you have just told a lie to the same people who are going to be giving you some very dangerous drugs. Not smart. Kind of goes back to what I was saying about being responsible for your own health.
Your aunt can stop smoking, she can eat less.
Its not actually that difficult if you have a bit of will power to see you through it.