Should The Overweight And Smokers Be Denied Treatment For Ill Health

[Bhim]

Who died and made medical and other people Gawd?

 

Well, physicians have some limited power over life and death. I suppose that puts them in the running for consideration as deities. They're certainly higher on the list than Jesus, who has none of the powers he advertises.

[pratt]

i used to smoke 3 packs in 2 days or more. i used to drink like there is no tomorrow.

 

in singapore, cigarettes taxes and alcohol are very high.

 

i had my heart attack and bypass and complications cost me tens of thousands, who was bore by my medical insurance, which i pay monthly.

 

should i then be denied of my treatment and die of heart attack?

 

many of my friends suffer hypertension due to highly stress work condition, should they change jobs or deny any future treatment?

[Sybaris]

So say 20 years after a person quit smoking or quit drugs or lost the body weight equivalent of two humans or became a vegetarian they develop some disease that can be attributed to their former lifestyle. Does it go the way of car insurance companies where you get "accident forgiveness" if you eat a doughnut or your rates decrease proportionally to the time after your last vicodin binge? 

[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?

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.

 

 

Its the nicotine, which has a slightly inhibiting effect on the immune system (UC is actually called a "non-smokers disease"). People with psoriasis have reported good results with smoking too. There's research into more direct ways, but nothing solid yet. Studies with nicotine patches have shown mixed results, and not many people like to use nicotine gum due to side effects like headaches. 

 

I'm hoping they come up with something soon.

[TheLyniezian]

Just heard on the local news that the local NHS in the Vale of York are not treating people as quickly if they are smokers or obese, so as to cut costs. (Is this what gave rise to the OP?)

[Lilith666]

OK, I'm back. I had to take a hiatus to focus on end-of-semester obligations.

In response to RedneckProfessor: I never said that addiction in smokers and people who eat an unhealthy diet isn't real. But it was their choice to begin that lifestyle in the first place, and they have a choice of whether to get support to change. Here's an article abstract about the effectiveness of treatment for smoking: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27213492

 

I may have mentioned this previously, but internal locus of control, or believing that you rather than other forces such as biology or fate are responsible for your own choices, is associated with better outcomes, and external LoC with poorer outcomes.

 

I'll ask this question again: What do you see as discrimination against you due to your lifestyle that you think should change?

[Castiel233]

Working in a hospital, one does see some people who have clearly made some very poor choices, but I maintain that health workers are not there to judge, but to treat and therefore everyone should get  treatment.

 

No ones knows the full history why some one allows themselves to get to 30 stone plus, its very sad to get in that state, but not every one has the will power or the strength to get out of it.

 

I am about a stone overweight myself, but am working on it with cardio, but for some people they are addicted to food and fags and can't escape.

[Lilith666]

There are treatments for addiction. I'll mention again that people who believe taking care of their health is on them are more likely to be able to quit.

[Vigile]

There are treatments for addiction. I'll mention again that people who believe taking care of their health is on them are more likely to be able to quit.

 

Poor people smoke more and poor people struggle with obesity more. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-wealthy-stopped-smoking-but-the-poor-didnt/?utm_term=.26f3489ef9a0

 

http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/are-low-income-people-at-greater-risk-for-overweight-or-obesity/

 

 

Anyway, if you're worried about your health care costs, you might want to first look at the record profits being enjoyed by the insurance companies, HMOs and big pharma. It's not people's bad choices who are driving the costs. 

[Lilith666]

Yes, we do all have different circumstances. Life is not equal. I understand that some people actually can't afford healthy food, but there are people who can and choose not to eat well anyway. Smoking is different - we all know it's unhealthy, but some people choose to smoke regardless. What sense does it make to buy expensive cigarettes, then say you don't have money to eat better?

[Vigile]

Bad Decisions Don’t Make You Poor. Being Poor Makes for Bad Decisions.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/09/poverty_and_cognitive_impairment_study_shows_money_troubles_make_decision.html

[★ Citsonga ★]

How many of you drink too much sometimes?

 

I don't drink any alcohol at all. I've tried a few wines in the past, but the grand total of all I've consumed would be less than half a glass. I didn't like any of them. I don't particularly care for the smell anyway. In fact, at 43 years old, I still haven't even tasted beer. I can't stand the smell of it and have no desire to even try it.

 

Ride motorcycles without a helmet (or even with a helmet)?

 

I've never driven a motorcycle. When I ride my bicycle, I do wear a helmet.

 

Own trampolines?

 

Nope.

 

Go hiking in the woods by yourself?

 

Nope.

 

Drive over the speed limit?

 

This one is extremely misleading. I'm sorry, but driving at or under the speed limit when everyone else around you is driving over the speed limit is a good way to get rear-ended or to cause an accident for someone else shifting lanes to avoid rear-ending you. It's actually safer to go with the flow of traffic than to be the only one "obeying the law."

[LogicalFallacy]

Citsonga, your answers above are exactly what mine would be... except the age bit... mine is 32. I'll drink an occasional half glass of wine at a social function maybe twice a year.

 

Re Vigile about the companies making huge profits. IF those profits are being poured back into productive research I have no issue, well not so much. If they are lining owners pockets I have a big problem with it.

 

I think most of us would be aware of the furore over the comments a certain young drug company owner made recently? While he said that the profits are poured back into research he doesn't not seem sincere or to take the matter seriously (I've watched his congressional hearing) so I don't entirely believe his "profits poured back into research" explanation for charging excessive amounts.

 

(Side note, the other type of business that makes excessive profits are banks. People learn how mortgages work, and pay off as soon as possible, or else you are just lining shareholders pockets)

[Vigile]

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Black Lungs Matter

[Lilith666]

RedneckProfessor, will you kindly explain in what ways you've faced discrimination and what you think should change?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Lilith, will you kindly point out where I claimed that I had been discriminated against? I don't recall having done so.

[florduh]

America's national pastime is blaming victims. That's why we're in the mess we're in. But as bad as it will get, people will still refuse to put the blame where it belongs. 'Murica!!!

[Lilith666]

TRP, you asked on page 1 if you should be discriminated against because you enjoy tobacco. I get the feeling we disagree on the way smokers should be treated. So what would you consider discrimination? A difference in healthcare treatment? Access to donated organs? Negative social opinion of smokers?

[florduh]

I get the feeling we disagree on the way smokers people who engage in activities different than my own should be treated.

 

Fixed! 

[Lilith666]

No, florduh, actually I don't bother with other people's lives when their choices don't affect me or other people. Do polyamorous people or transgender people or people who have 18 kids affect me? Nope. That's not my thing, but I leave them alone. Does it affect me when I breathe in smoke, and walk out of a doorway to get a face full of it? Sure does. Do I care if people smoke in their own homes and away from everyone else? Nope. See the difference?

[florduh]

No, florduh, actually I don't bother with other people's lives when their choices don't affect me or other people. Do polyamorous people or transgender people or people who have 18 kids affect me? Nope. That's not my thing, but I leave them alone. Does it affect me when I breathe in smoke, and walk out of a doorway to get a face full of it? Sure does. Do I care if people smoke in their own homes and away from everyone else? Nope. See the difference?

No, because the premise is that certain activities and lifestyles even when conducted in private somehow impact others through such mechanisms as insurance rates.

 

I get that you are a militant anti smoking person, but considering that less than 20% of the population smokes and public areas for smoking are highly regulated these days, what's the big problem? People can wear strong, obnoxious perfume with impunity regardless of causing others to have everything from an unpleasant experience to an allergic reaction. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

TRP, you asked on page 1 if you should be discriminated against because you enjoy tobacco.

Not only did I NOT say that I had been discriminated against because of smoking, I NEVER even said I smoked in the first place.  You simply made such assumptions about my position as suited the argument you wished to make.  This is known as a strawman.  Use of strawmen may seem impressive; but, in reality, it is nothing more than a logical fallacy.  You are using this in an effort to draw me into saying that treating people differently for any reason is discrimination, so that you can triumphantly assert that black people can't help being black, but smokers can always quit (as if that is a legitimate reason for treating smokers differently).  Such tactics may work amongst the folks at your college; here, not so much.  You are, of course, entitled to feel as strongly about a subject as you choose; but misrepresenting the counter-argument does nothing to strengthen your own position.  

 

As it stands, I have already provided you ample reasons why "choice" is not a valid argument in favor of discrimination against addicts.  If you disagree, you are more than welcome to post the results of your week-without-sugar experiment.

[Lilith666]

As long as we're talking about making assumptions, I wasn't trying to draw you into anything. I was trying to figure out why it seemed you were saying that you had experienced discrimination because of smoking. If that wasn't what you meant, I misunderstood.

 

About misrepresenting arguments: smokers can't help biology, which I have never denied. At no point did I say that nicotine isn't addicting. Neither have I said they should go cold turkey. But they can choose to research treatments to help them quit. Claiming that something is out of one's hands because it's difficult is irresponsible.

 

As for treating smokers differently, I didn't say they should be denied healthcare. But I see no problem with prioritizing non-smokers over smokers when it comes to who gets a lung transplant, as receiving a donated organ is a privilege that shouldn't be abused by people who know better.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm calling bullshit on your entire post, Lilith.

 

 

As long as we're talking about making assumptions, I wasn't trying to draw you into anything. I was trying to figure out why it seemed you were saying that you had experienced discrimination because of smoking. If that wasn't what you meant, I misunderstood.

There is only one way you could have misunderstood my post.  Unfortunately, that one way involves you convincing me that you somehow made it all the way to college without knowing what a rhetorical question is.  That isn't going to happen; because I know you to be more intelligent than that.  You didn't misunderstand.  You knew perfectly well the meaning and intention of my post.  You simply chose to ignore what I was saying in order to use my post as a platform to push your own anti-smoking views.  Fair enough; but don't act like you were trying to figure anything out.  You weren't.

 

 

About misrepresenting arguments: smokers can't help biology, which I have never denied. At no point did I say that nicotine isn't addicting. Neither have I said they should go cold turkey. But they can choose to research treatments to help them quit. Claiming that something is out of one's hands because it's difficult is irresponsible.

You claim you weren't attempting to draw me into opening the door for you to make the argument that smokers could quit, but choose not to, and thus it is more acceptable to discriminate against them than other groups.  Yet, here you are making that very argument.  Moreover, you make arguments against accusations which I have never made against you.  This is yet another set of strawmen.

 

 

As for treating smokers differently, I didn't say they should be denied healthcare. But I see no problem with prioritizing non-smokers over smokers when it comes to who gets a lung transplant, as receiving a donated organ is a privilege that shouldn't be abused by people who know better.

I've heard fundies use this same logic against gay marriage.  It's not that they would deny gays a marriage license; they just see no problem with prioritizing heterosexuals over homosexuals when it comes to who gets a marriage license.  Marriage is, after all, a privilege; and homosexuals don't actually need to get married (it's not like they are going to have children).  It seems like there was a scandal up Kentucky way a little while back about this very issue.  Which side were you on?

 

Again, I believe you to be too intelligent for these kinds of shenanigans.  People might "know better", much like you know better than to eat at McDonald's, but still do so when necessity prevails.  Unfortunately, when it comes to addiction, as I have already pointed out, knowing better does not equate to having the ability to do better.  Addiction is a medically recognized disease.  As such, its victims should receive the same quality of care (at the same price) as those afflicted with cancer, diabetes, or bunions.