Should The Overweight And Smokers Be Denied Treatment For Ill Health

[Castiel233]

I work for the NHS, (thus see it from the inside) so will say yes, everyone should be treated regardless.

 

However the frequent flyer types who walk into A+E every weekend because they have been on the sauce, must drive the nurses spare.

[Castiel233]

 

I wouldn't compare high-stress careers to smoking. People who go into stressful jobs are doing something that is necessary for society to function (police officer, etc.) and something that is not very popular as a career. Therefore, there is no reason to punish them for making a living. Smokers, on the other hand, deliberately do something that they know is harmful out of lack of concern for their health rather than necessity. There are healthy ways to decrease stress, like meditation. Cigarettes have no significant beneficial value.

Even if we accept your assertion as true, it's not relevant. People don't choose stressful occupations because of some altruistic motive, they choose them because it fills a need for them. Addiction to adrenaline, Type A personality, etc. It is a choice they are driven to, not unlike those who are driven to smoke, drink or overeat.

 

The relevant thing is who is contributing most to the cost of healthcare. We tend to excuse everything that is actually a bigger problem but not due to a legal but currently unpopular activity. I just maintain we can't single out one or two groups we deem to be "health offenders" and saddle them with the bulk of the expense when we all  do things that contribute to the costs associated with medical care.

 

Addictive personalities, which encompasses most of us, manifests in many different behaviors. We should understand that an addiction is not exactly a choice.

 

To add:

 

I think food addiction must surely be the worse.

 

Gambling, booze, smokes and so forth, can in theory at least, be quit cold turkey....but if food is your addiction you surely have the hardest battle, as you simply must keep eating 

[Lilith666]

Okay. So people don't drive drunk out of a flippant attitude about their own and other people's lives, they do it because it makes them happy. Actually, desire to die slowly and painfully isn't a reason people smoke, but the habit does demonstrate that they care more for immediate gratification than long-term consequences.

 

As I've said here before, there's a chasm between an occasional behavior, especially one that is innocuous if done now and then, and a pattern. I love chocolate, but don't stuff myself with it at every opportunity, because that would be unhealthy. This is comparing apples and oranges.

 

There are people who go into a field out of desire to make some sort of selfless contribution. Doctors and psychologists and such people are dedicated to helping others instead of harming them, which means adhering to a strict ethical code and looking out for their clients' interests. These people make a social contribution that leads to their stress, whereas obese people who are obese because of their lifestyle and smokers just have bad habits. Again, comparing apples and oranges.

 

People can have predisposition to addiction, but that doesn't change the choices they make. They can choose not to drink as much or quit smoking or eat a better diet. It likely will be difficult, but life is full of difficult responsibilities. A task being hard does not excuse us from doing it anyway.

[florduh]

It all boils down to people adhering to the standards set by someone else. No bueno.

[Lilith666]

As we all do. Our system could not function if we didn't abide by rules that other people set. Overweight and smoking people are not special in this regard.

[florduh]

Our society is based on discrimination, so let's not tinker with a system that works. For you. 

[Lilith666]

That is using emotional rhetoric to ignore the point that bad decisions often lead to bad consequences.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Lilith,

 

As you seem to genuinely not understand the nature of decision-making in the mind of an addict, I've decided to do your homework for you.  Passing the test will still be up to you.  Here is a rough study guide:

 

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v8/n11/abs/nn1584.html

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393202000155

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393202000167

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166223605003243

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393200001366

 

https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article-abstract/10/3/318/449603/Addiction-a-Disease-of-Compulsion-and-Drive

 

You quite often demonstrate a level of wisdom and sophisticated thinking which belies your age.  Your opinion concerning addiction, especially as it involves decisions, is however, as woefully ill-formed as it is ill-informed.  Your small-mindedness on this particular subject is surprising.  Nonetheless, things are rarely as black-and-white as you seem to think addiction is; and certainly addiction is not.  You should know that addiction has been recognized as a disease since 1956 http://www.aafp.org/afp/2003/0401/p1529.html andit wouldn't hurt you to have a basic understanding of the definition of addiction (http://www.asam.org/quality-practice/definition-of-addiction).

 

I recommend you do as Castiel has done with this very thread: ask questions and consider the knowledge and experience others choose to share before formulating an opinion.  This will spare you the trouble of having to later defend an untenable and short-sighted position with little more than specious arguments.  If you'd like to know more about how the mind of an addict works, I suggest you try to cut sugar, in all forms including carbohydrates, fructose, glucose, ethanol, etc., out of your diet for one week.  Pay attention to the anamolies in both your thought patterns and in your physical responses.  If you can manage for an entire week without sugar, then you will understand maybe 1/10 of 1% of what an addict goes through on a daily basis.

 

Have a good day,

TheRedneckProfessor

[LogicalFallacy]

TRP: The aafp.org link leads to a "page not found"

 

The articles (And I skimmed the briefly) seemed to deal primarily with existing dependence on a substance. So with the issues discussed being an addiction problem, or at least a great part of it being addiction, we need to provide help and care for those addicted.

 

However, what about preventing addiction for the future? So, for example, are there known causes of what will cause a person to say start smoking, drinking to excess, drugs etc, and can these reasonably be prevented?

 

Example, if we take our favourite smoking subject, what causes/makes a person first start?

 

Here are a few links about prevention: http://www.centeronaddiction.org/addiction-prevention

https://www.recoveryconnection.com/prevent-drug-addiction/

 

It seems that a focus on preventing young people trying out substances is a focus area of these groups.

[florduh]

Addictive personalities (that's most of us) will find an outlet. Some will vilify certain outlets of addiction while granting a pass to others. Again, nobody is qualified to pass judgment and exact penalties on a segment of society that does something you don't like.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

LogicalFallacy,

 

I'm not sure why that particular link didn't work; try these:

 

https://archives.drugabuse.gov/about/welcome/aboutdrugabuse/chronicdisease/

 

http://www.centeronaddiction.org/addiction/disease-model-addiction

 

To answer your question, the causes of addiction can be many-fold and are often far too complex for quick fixes or even preventative measures.  Addictive tendencies usually develop during childhood as a result of both nature and nurture.  You can educate kids about the hazards of smoking until the cows come home; but until you stop daddy from diddling them when they're 5, they'll probably start smoking anyway.  See the complexity?  As they say, it's easier to raise a healthy child than it is to fix a broken adult. That's the tricky thing about addiction: people don't often exhibit symptoms until the disease has already taken hold.  By then it's too late for prevention.

[LogicalFallacy]

Thanks TRP, those worked. I've probably reached my limit of contribution with this subject as it's clearly not an easy deny or not answer, and I'm near out of knowledge. And straight opinion won't be useful at this stage.

 

florduh

Addictive personalities (that's most of us) will find an outlet. Some will vilify certain outlets of addiction while granting a pass to others. Again, nobody is qualified to pass judgment and exact penalties on a segment of society that does something you don't like.

Can you please clarify your position here florduh? At some point, we (society), must draw a line and pass judgement on others for them doing things we don't like? What about the addicted sex offender (So addicted to sex and abuses others) Murderer's, racing maniacs (The type that speed through town at 120 kph) Some of these could be addictions (I have definitely heard of addiction to sex) But we treat these as crimes. If we had no penalties for anything would this result in anarchy therefore at some point we need a line? I might be misreading your post hence request for clarification.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Logical,

 

You may understand addiction better than you think, without realizing it.  Study the attached image and see if any of it relates to your experience with religion.

[florduh]

Thanks TRP, those worked. I've probably reached my limit of contribution with this subject as it's clearly not an easy deny or not answer, and I'm near out of knowledge. And straight opinion won't be useful at this stage.

 

florduh

Addictive personalities (that's most of us) will find an outlet. Some will vilify certain outlets of addiction while granting a pass to others. Again, nobody is qualified to pass judgment and exact penalties on a segment of society that does something you don't like.

Can you please clarify your position here florduh? At some point, we (society), must draw a line and pass judgement on others for them doing things we don't like? What about the addicted sex offender (So addicted to sex and abuses others) Murderer's, racing maniacs (The type that speed through town at 120 kph) Some of these could be addictions (I have definitely heard of addiction to sex) But we treat these as crimes. If we had no penalties for anything would this result in anarchy therefore at some point we need a line? I might be misreading your post hence request for clarification.

 

Violent crimes against others must, of course, be stopped. What we seem to be discussing here is one's personal lifestyle and habits. I see no comparison.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Thanks TRP, those worked. I've probably reached my limit of contribution with this subject as it's clearly not an easy deny or not answer, and I'm near out of knowledge. And straight opinion won't be useful at this stage.

 

 

florduh

Addictive personalities (that's most of us) will find an outlet. Some will vilify certain outlets of addiction while granting a pass to others. Again, nobody is qualified to pass judgment and exact penalties on a segment of society that does something you don't like.

Can you please clarify your position here florduh? At some point, we (society), must draw a line and pass judgement on others for them doing things we don't like? What about the addicted sex offender (So addicted to sex and abuses others) Murderer's, racing maniacs (The type that speed through town at 120 kph) Some of these could be addictions (I have definitely heard of addiction to sex) But we treat these as crimes. If we had no penalties for anything would this result in anarchy therefore at some point we need a line? I might be misreading your post hence request for clarification.

 

Violent crimes against others must, of course, be stopped. What we seem to be discussing here is one's personal lifestyle and habits. I see no comparison.

 

Thanks for clarifying florduh, I understand in light of that.

 

TRP - yes I certainly can see, thinking back, the similarity between addiction and religion. Possibly a link in the way the brain function? I would go though periods of "sinning" (We are talking about things like listening to rock music I liked kind of sin)Feel very guilty, go though a prayer stage, resolve to be better with god, get disillusioned or slip back to sinning and restart.

 

I wonder (With zero medical expertise) if there is a link between those who can break of religion (Us here) and those who can give up addictions - smoking for instance? Is there something in the way people think that helps? I know I always have been a very sceptical person, but never went into areas that challenged my religious belief's, until one day coming across information that made me sit up and think.

 

It would be an interesting research subject.

[midniterider]

Thoughts?

 

We can't really allow cigarettes and fast food to be legal then say we're not going to pay for the health care of these users. Besides, people are multifaceted and contribute positively to society even if they have bad habits. We have to help them anyway. That's the hallmark of society. Helping people, even if they are doing self-destructive behavior. 

 

Fat smokers need love too. (Plays the emotion card..haha)

 

That said, I quit chewing tobacco when I was 28. You're welcome. lol.

[Vigile]

When we're spending trillions on useless and obsolete military weapons, when the Pentagon is missing $6.5T, with a T, when we spend trillions on quantitative easing to keep the banks afloat, they still have us going at one another over chump change. It's kind of humorous in a twisted and sick kind of way. 

 

And, if our politicians hadn't been taking bribes from big corn and allowing our food industry to turn into mini monopolies that only sell us overprocessed food crammed with antibiotics and preservatives, we wouldn't have a society battling with obesity in the first place.

 

Maybe point fingers at those who are actually to blame instead of the victims? An original and strange idea, I know. 

[Castiel233]

When we're spending trillions on useless and obsolete military weapons, when the Pentagon is missing $6.5T, with a T, when we spend trillions on quantitative easing to keep the banks afloat, they still have us going at one another over chump change. It's kind of humorous in a twisted and sick kind of way. 

 

And, if our politicians hadn't been taking bribes from big corn and allowing our food industry to turn into mini monopolies that only sell us overprocessed food crammed with antibiotics and preservatives, we wouldn't have a society battling with obesity in the first place.

 

Maybe point fingers at those who are actually to blame instead of the victims? An original and strange idea, I know. 

Funny you should mention this, as it was discussed at work today in relation to money being wasted. 

 

The UK spends millions and millions bombing other countries, an amount of around £15 million per day. Think of taking that money and spending it on space research instead, or spend it on dementia research.

 

There is always money for war, always 

[SilentLoner]

Both my parents smoked for 40+ years and never had any ill health effects (so far) as a result. They started back in their teens when it wasn't well known how dangerous it was. Obviously that's not the norm, to come out relatively unharmed, but why would that be a fair basis to deny medical care?

 

In my case, smoking cigarettes would arguably be a good thing. I have an immune disorder (ulcerative colitis) that can be put into remission by smoking. Not kidding, the nicotine has an effect on it. I don't smoke (tried for a bit, didn't like it and never got addicted). But if I did, to help my condition, suddenly I wouldn't qualify for medical treatment?

[LogicalFallacy]

Speaking of the overweight, here's what George Carlin has to say about it. (PS he has no understanding of addiction clearly lol)

 

WARNING if you get easily offended don't watch this.

 

For all others enjoy the comedic genius of George.

 

[Bhim]

When we're spending trillions on useless and obsolete military weapons, when the Pentagon is missing $6.5T, with a T, when we spend trillions on quantitative easing to keep the banks afloat, they still have us going at one another over chump change. It's kind of humorous in a twisted and sick kind of way. 

 

And, if our politicians hadn't been taking bribes from big corn and allowing our food industry to turn into mini monopolies that only sell us overprocessed food crammed with antibiotics and preservatives, we wouldn't have a society battling with obesity in the first place.

 

Maybe point fingers at those who are actually to blame instead of the victims? An original and strange idea, I know. 

 

Well, this isn't really an either/or proposition though, is it? We can gut the military, and stop paying for willfully unhealthy peoples' bad decisions.

[Daffodil]

Both my parents smoked for 40+ years and never had any ill health effects (so far) as a result. They started back in their teens when it wasn't well known how dangerous it was. Obviously that's not the norm, to come out relatively unharmed, but why would that be a fair basis to deny medical care?

 

In my case, smoking cigarettes would arguably be a good thing. I have an immune disorder (ulcerative colitis) that can be put into remission by smoking. Not kidding, the nicotine has an effect on it. I don't smoke (tried for a bit, didn't like it and never got addicted). But if I did, to help my condition, suddenly I wouldn't qualify for medical treatment?

My husband's grandparents started smoking in their teenage years. They both quit in their 80's for some reason. He died in his 90's and she will be 100 in March. There will always be anecdotal oddballs like that, but clearly the vast majority of lung cancer cases are with smokers, as well as bladder cancer, which my husband's father had (he has tried to quit smoking multiple times and has pretty much given up ever succeeding. Unfortunately, he did not inherit his parents' amazing resiliency).

 

Interesting that nicotine has that effect on UC. Is it actually smoking that has that effect or just the nicotine? There are other ways to get nicotine into your system besides smoking.

[Vigile]

 

When we're spending trillions on useless and obsolete military weapons, when the Pentagon is missing $6.5T, with a T, when we spend trillions on quantitative easing to keep the banks afloat, they still have us going at one another over chump change. It's kind of humorous in a twisted and sick kind of way. 

 

And, if our politicians hadn't been taking bribes from big corn and allowing our food industry to turn into mini monopolies that only sell us overprocessed food crammed with antibiotics and preservatives, we wouldn't have a society battling with obesity in the first place.

 

Maybe point fingers at those who are actually to blame instead of the victims? An original and strange idea, I know. 

 

Well, this isn't really an either/or proposition though, is it? We can gut the military, and stop paying for willfully unhealthy peoples' bad decisions.

 

 

It may not be either/or, but people are massively more likely to point fingers at their neighbors than they are the people who are really screwing them over. It's almost as their opinions are manufactured by PR firms. 

[Vigile]

Smoking and obesity are only two risk factors out of many. If you punish only these, you are cherry picking while ignoring sugar intake, fat intake, thousands of carcinogens people are exposed to in their food and environment, more often than not through no fault of their own. In fact, most risk factors occur through not fault of the victim and are there because of corporate profit-seeking and cost-cutting measures. But it's easier to scapegoat fringe members of society and more preferable for big business that we do. Again, it's almost as if these ideas we have are manufactured by PR firms. I wonder why that might be. 

[Daffodil]

Smokers and the obese are the most visible/obvious - they make easy targets. There is also such a thing as "skinny fat". They don't look like they have any problems, but their diet is just as bad and their arteries are just as clogged. For some reason, though, they just don't gain as much weight. You would really have to look at diet rather than BMI to know who is really abusing their bodies and who isn't.