Monday, November 9, 2009
Denied access to health care.
In some instances, Doctors should deny patients access to healthcare if their lifestyle is the cause of the health issue. For example, if a patient has lung cancer caused from years of inhaling toxic carcinogens in cigarette smoke, he/she should not receive treatment unless they quit smoking first.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
I agree with "denied access to healthcare". Due to the fact that in Canada healthcare is free I feel that people may tend to take it for granted; therefore do not take all the precautions in preventing medical risks such as smoking. I feel especially in this case that if the patient is not willing to quite smoking they should be denied healthcare, it would be a waste of money and the doctors time in the end. I feel that if you are not willing to make the effort and live in a healthy manner then you should not be allowed free healthcare.
I disagree with "denied access to healthcare". Certain people shouldn't be denied health care it is free for everyone, even if their lifestyle has cause their health issue they still deserve help just as much as everyone else. So if you develop heart disease due your unhealthy eating choices, you shouldn't receive treatment. I find this very unfair. Everyone deceive help!
I partly agree with "denied access to healthcare", in Italy healthcare is free and sometimes people don't care about their health just because they think they can go to the hospital for any desease. I think that everyone risking strokes or heart diseases should stop smoking and start eating well for example but i also think that everyone deserves help and healthcare.
I disagree with this post. If someone is suffering from lung cancer and is denied access to healthcare because they need to quit smoking first, it may be too late for them to receive the help they need before they can quit. After all, it may have started as a lifestyle choice but smoking is an addiction and not everyone can quit so easily. Furthermore, in Canada everyone is entitled to free health care and shouldn't be denied this extremely lucky benefit.
I also disagree with this statement. Healthcare is so important, and we are lucky to have it for free. No one should be excluded from that. Smoking is a choice at first, but becomes an addiction. People who are trying to get on the right track again need help. I feel if they get healthcare they will be more motivated to quit, then not helping them at all. If doctors started denying certain people healthcare due to their lifestyle, where do they draw the line? Lily mentioned eating junk food as an unhealthy lifestyle, should they also be punished because of what they eat? Because healthcare is free, some people may take that for granted, but thats just the few, doctors can't start picking and choosing after every patient they get. Everyone should be treated equally.
In an article from the uk, doctors "do not want to operate on smokers because they stay in hospital longer, blocking beds and costing more to treat."
As well, "Rod Moore, the trust's assistant director of public health, said: "If people give up smoking prior to planned operations it will improve their recovery. It would reduce heart and lung complications and wounds would heal faster.
"Our purpose is not to deny patients access to operations but to see if the outcomes can be improved."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459574/Smokers-told-quit-surgery-refused.html#ixzz0zQHFuBtY
So, if smokers, as well as inactive people or those with very unhealthy eating habits are taking up beds and not really getting all the benefits, what does that mean for those with critical illnesses that are due to no fault of their own, ie genetic disorders, car crashes, etc.?
I agree and dissagree with "denied access to healthcare." I think that if a person has lung cancer from smoking they should have to put in a hige effort to quit before, during, and after they get help from their doctor/s. Although karma and guilt works in two ways. I can't imagine what it would feel like to be a doctor and deny someone pain medication for a broken arm, leg, etc. just because they work in a feild that can be dangerous. Either way, both groups of people pay their taxes and contribute to healthcare, to take that away is rude.
I disagree with "denied access to healthcare". Everyone to me should be treated equally. If you start saying some people can have treatment and some people can't its only going to cause huge problems. Everyone makes poor decisions in their life weather its smoking, eating junk food or whatever else no one is perfect. I agree strongly withh Elly when she says "eating junk food as an unhealthy lifestyle, should they also be punished because of what they eat?" to me this is very true u can't punish some people by not giving them health care but not others when they both made poor decisions.
Melissa - I think the general idea is to deny health care to those that have "unhealthy: lifestyles which would include smoking as well as poor eating habits, lack of physical activity etc. But I also believe the idea is to deny healthcare until those bad habits change - So that the medical treatment is more effective and so that the treatment (hopefully) will not have to be repeated because the person continues smoking, eating KFC, etc.
i totally agree with simone with the "denied access to health care" when people smoke they know its unhealthy for them. so if they want to smoke they shouldnt get health care because it shows that they dont care about there health. its only wasting peoples money on other peoples health care. i think they should more then once about the health care.
Josh, what do you think if someone is willing to quit and seeks some help to do so, should they get healthcare while they are quitting? Or should they have to be completely quit before they can receive any treatment?
What about other unhealthy activities like excessive drinking or poor eating habits?
I find Ms. Waage makes a very valid point in saying that the recovery rate of a smoker takes longer then the recovery rate of a non-smoker. Suppose there is an illness that is not caused by an unhealthy habit but rather a genetic defect or an unavoidable accident. In these times of a limited healthcare dollar the money should be spent where it is most effective. Would it not be unjust in denying patients with health problems out of their control healthcare due to the lack of hospital beds because a smoker takes longer to recover after a surgery? Why should the population at large be responsible for the poor decisions of a few, especially when there is a choice involved as there always is with smoking. Why should the non-smoking tax payer pay for the costs of a smoking taxpayer? Smoking is not an illness its a choice, it is just an excuse to call it an addiction
I disagree with "deinied access to health care" because, in Canada especially, everyone has the right to free health care, regardless of the choices they have made in the past. And although I belive people should take responsibility for their own actions and am in no way condoling smokers or other like them, I also believe that, regardless of the reasons, denying someone access to healthcare should not even be an option, as it is a basic Canadian right to be able to recieve medical care anywhere in the country.
I'm sorry Simone but I have to disagree with you when you said "it is just an excuse to call it an addiction." It is not an excuse at all. I am not on the "for smoking" side in any way, I'm just saying that maybe this point would be valid in the early on stages of smoking like when the smoker first started. However, after years and years of what started as a poor lifestyle choice, it elevates onto nothing short of a drug addiction that affects not only the smoker but also the people in his or her life. To deny healthcare to anyone is outrageous no matter what their lifestyle choices. Smoker or not, I still believe everyone is entitled to healthcare.
I agree Jake, but.... I also think that the individual must participate as well. And in most cases quitting smoking will only benefit them. Not only will it increase the healing rate but may actually alleviate some of the symptoms in the first place. Is it outrageous for a doctor to actually say " I will treat you, when you quit smoking or at least begin the process."?
I agree with Lily, no matter what the reason behind the issue whether it be bad food habits, smoking, drugs, be it anything, they should get the help. These people for one might not even know what they are doing to themselves, they need to learn and stay healthy. I personally love free health care and even though some people may abuse this right, I think that deep down, everyone (including the smokers) knows that the right thing to do is go to the doctor and be treated.
Everyone has made very diverse comments about the subject "denied access to health care" but I tend to agree with the statement. I agree with the subject in reference to when a patient is taking advantage of the system and maintaining unhealthy lifestyle choices, yet still depending on the Canadian Health Care System to support them. The example of a patient who smokes who is in need of health care because of lung cancer. Yes, smoking cigarettes is an addiction and in this case, there are many programs that can help a smoker quit smoking. If said patient were to recieve help to quit smoking then they should not be "denied access to health care." I strongly agree with Simone's statement that "smoking is not an illness its a choice, it is just an excuse to call it an addiction." Anyone can get help to stop an addiction, it just takes the courage to do so.
I agree with the denied access to health care. I believe that is unfair for us as Canadians to have to pay for some people who do not take care of themselves to begin with. The people I am referring to it people that smoke and have smoked for their whole life as well as people addicted to drugs. I believe these people are somewhat taking advantage of free health care here in Canada which is not right at all! There should definitely be some cases where people are denied the access to free heath care.
As Canadians we are very fortunate to living in a country in which we are provided with free health care and denying that service to some people is wrong. i understand that people with addictions, and bad habits may not be the prime patient however everyone pays taxes. No doctor can decide what kind of treatment a patient receives based on there life style. Everyone has a right to good medical treatment.
Ms Waag to answer your comment before, I do believe that there should be an effort made on behalf of the patient. I believe that if someone was told they were going to die unless they quit smoking, then ultimately they would quit smoking. I don't believe it to be outrageous for a doctor to suggest quitting during treatment in order to help speed up the process, however I do believe it would be outrageous if a doctor just flat out denied treatment to someone desperately in need of it. It is not up to the doctor to pick and choose his or her patients. If the person has paid money for treatment (or in Canada, the patient automatically receives treatment as a right) then the doctor should carry out what needs to be done to get the patient better. Like the article posted below says, “Physicians are discouraged from refusing treatment simply because they disagree with their patients' decisions or lifestyles” and “[they] have a duty to offer all patients appropriate anticancer therapy and supportive care and to help their patients become tobacco free.”
http://jop.ascopubs.org/content/5/5/250.full
I have to disagree with your comment Jake, "after years and years of what started as a poor lifestyle choice, it [smoking] elevates onto nothing short of a drug addiction that affects not only the smoker but also the people in his or her life.
Not only does smoking affect family members and friends but it increases the time for recovery rates and that means less hospital space for patients who's health issues out of there own control. I think that is is highly unfair for someone who has made poor lifestyle choices for the past 55 years or so should not be denied healthcare services, but healthy, active, deserving patients cannot get all of the help provided due to lack of hospital beds. I think that if you are knowingly destroying your body then it is not up to Canada's Healthcare system to aid you when you become sick but rather your own. The average smoker beings to smoke in their teens, lets say at 15 and continue usually until they die roughly 70 years, thats 55 years of smoking. On average say they some one pack a day, and one carton of cigarettes costs roughly $9.00. In an average smokers lifetime they would roughly spend $180,675.00 on cigarettes. So my argument is if they can spend $180,675.00 on slowly killing themselves, why should they government of Canada pay their health bills, it does not make any sense at all to me. They should bare the consequences of their own actions, not the tax payers. If you are willing to spend that kind of money on cigarettes you should not be allowed to have free health care. I think if you are a worthy candidate then free healthcare is an amazing right as a Canadian to have, but you have to earn that right.
Maddie, I have to strongly disagree with you when you said "no matter what the reason behind the issue whether it be bad food habits, smoking, drugs, be it anything, they should get the help. These people for one might not even know what they are doing to themselves, they need to learn and stay healthy." That is ridiculous to say they do not know smoking, doing drugs and having a poor diet is bad for them. Of course it is it is common knowledge though medical research that all of these factors have devastating effects on ones health. For instance stores cannot display cigarettes or cigars anymore they have to be covered, every cigarette cartoon has major warnings and photos as well to discourage use, it is illegal for the cigarette companies NOT to include these warnings. There are millions of TV and magazine advertisements against smoking, as well you cannot be within a certain distance of storefronts while smoking. Why? Because everyone knows smoking is horrible and contributes to major health issues. It is an undeniable fact that poor eating habits, drug use and smoking are awful for human beings.
I agree completely with both Katie and Justin's posts especially "Anyone can get help to stop an addiction, it just takes the courage to do so." If you are willing to start making healthier life choices then by all means you should have access to health care.
Simone, as opinionated as you’re being I still disagree with you. Obviously if someone has cancer from a habit, they’re going to stop that habit because it’s killing them. One would have to be extremely stupid to continue smoking even after being told they will die if they don’t. I have to very strongly disagree with you when you say that someone who has started smoking from a young age and continued on into later years should be refused health care. This is an extremely disrespectful thing to say seeing how there are people, very much like myself, who have had relatives who have died from the effects of smoking. Yes, their habit was a horrible one and yes, it’s a disgusting life choice. However, if my Grandparents were refused health-care when they were sick I would’ve been appalled. Of course when they found out about their illnesses they stopped smoking but if they were refused to any kind of treatment at all and had nothing done to them to help them get better, I would be embarrassed to say I live in this country. The treatment may not work but it’s the effort and the fight to survive that counts. It’s absolutely disgraceful to think of denying someone the chance to live.
I understand your feelings toward this are directly affected by your personal life and I am sorry if I have offended you. To respond however, smoking was not an issue at all when your grandparents were younger, nobody knew the consequences it would hold. We as a society are no longer ignorant to the effects that smoking has on personal health. It is safe to say everybody in Canada is aware that smoking will inevitably aid in ones death on way or another. Now is the time to make a change in Canadian citizens lifestyles, it is time to make a point that smoking WILL kill you, denying healthcare to smokers is in the end a good thing because it will discourage the habit from a young age.
To Jake and Simone, read this article about the "fat-tax".
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/whos-ready-for-a-fat-tax/?scp=4&sq=taxing%20junk%20food&st=Search
I have to agree with Jake on this. Though smoking starts as a poor choice, it develops into a full-blown addiction very quickly, and most people can't stop it. I disagree with Simone stating that, in order to show people "that smoking WILL kill you" denying people access to health care is the best way to "make a point". But Simone, would it not be fair to treat people whose life styles cause them to need healthcare (aka smokers), IF they agreed to change their lifestyle in order to receive treatment? (aka quit smoking) It seems to me that doing this would aid your goal in showing youth that it is bad to start smoking from an early age, because there is people who would have died if they didn't stop smoking, but would be alive and able to tell their story to future generations. I also believe that is my not be necessary to prove by example "that smoking WILL kill you", because, as you stated previously, there is multiple TV and magazine warnings against smoking, every carton has a warning label and picture on it, and people are not allowed to smoke within a certain distance from a business. I know several smokers, and almost all of them know it is terrible for them, and that eventually, they may die at an early age. Yet they still do it. Why? Because it is an addiction, and, for some people, they like it. Most smokers just don't have any real reason to stop, so they don't. If however, they were given sufficient reason to, (such as denied access to health care if they don't stop) I believe that most smokers would quit, and, therefore, they should be allowed access to healthcare.
I do agree with the “fat tax” article, for the most part. I believe that on top of a tax, like with tobacco products, there should be a warning on the package of the fatty food with information about obesity and shocking statistics like the ones in this article. Obesity and smoking are both horrible life choices that could easily be prevented. The methods of preventing these addictions are found in health-care. No matter how poor one’s life choices are, health care should always be something they can turn to. They shouldn’t be punished even though their life choices haven’t been great. And besides, two twist a Dr Seuss quote, “a person’s a person, no matter how [unhealthy].”
David - I think you are giving people too much credit here. I think that there are a lot of people who,in fact, would not quit smoking. It is a proven fact that "addicts" (and you are saying that they are addicts) will often lie to cover up the fact that they are doing something, in this case smoking, when they have said that they have quit. How can you ever be sure that they have quit? Would we then have to waste more tax dollars by giving them blood tests to check for residual nicotine before treatment?
You raise a valid point, Ms Waage. However, I still believe that, given the choice of dying or quitting smoking, most people would quit. The treatment is virtually useless if the person doesn't quit, and most people would know that, so, I believe that if someone actually wanted to get better, they would quit rather than lie about it. For those people who are not able to quit on their own, I think they should get help quitting before receiving treatment. In response to your question as to whether we should "waste more tax dollars by giving [smokers] blood tests to check for residual nicotine before receiving treatment" I do not believe it a waste of tax dollars, and furthermore, I believe that all former smokers should undergo blood tests before receiving treatment, because, as you said, people could lie about quitting smoking, but, if they know they will be tested anyway before undergoing treatment, I think that most people who would normally lie would actually quit, so they could receive the treatment. If however, people who receive treatment start smoking again after their treatment is finished, they should not receive treatment again. I also believe that if a person does not want to quit smoking, but they do want treatment, they should be denied, because they are not doing everything in their power to stop smoking, so they do not deserve the treatment. Also people that do not stop their habit but expect treatment should not get it, because, by continuing to smoke after receiving treatment, they are basically negating the effects of treatment.
In response to David's comment, I do believe he is being overly optimistic "that given the choice of dying or quitting smoking, most people would quit." Also the fact that "if someone actually wanted to get better, they would quit rather than lie about it." Thinking of the human society, I can honestly say that people are not that honest. If one wanted to get better, I wouldn't put it past them to lie to a doctor about quitting smoking just to get the treatment to feel better. It would be a large waste of tax dollars by testing a patients blood for nicotine because many would probably continue to smoke, in which case determining that their blood still contained residual nicotine would just cost money for a procedure that would never be carried out.
Katie, I don't think you quite grasped what I meant when I stated that blood tests to check for residual nicotine should be necessary for all non-smokers before they undergo treatment. I believe that should be done so that people could not lie and say they quit smoking when they did not, because, unfortunately, "people are not that honest". The whole point of mandatory blood tests would be to make sure that people did not lie, so the fact that many people would lie is irrelevant, because their blood would be tested and they would not receive treatment if nicotine was found. This would also stop many people from even taking the tests, if they were not planning on stopping smoking. Another thing I wondered at was when Katie stated that I was "being overly optimistic" when I stated "that given the choice of dying or quitting smoking, most people would quit." Katie, if you could clarify what you meant by this, it would be greatly appreciated, for I was under the impression, that, given the fact that most people in this day and age would prefer to live as long as possible, my previous statement would be undisputed.
Post a Comment