Should smokers be treated by our healthcare organisations?

[Patrick]

I was thinking of putting this in the Philosophy section, but this issue has relevance to real life (unlike most of philosophy... sorry) Smoking increases the risks of the following: Cancer, Heart disease (atherosclerosis, hypertension), diabetes, stroke, respiratory infection, asthma, kidney disease, influenza, impotence, and Alzheimer's. And those are just the ones that I know of from my Biology courses. Using as an example the NHS (National Health Service, in the UK provides healthcare to everyone), should the NHS just not treat smokers (or perhaps charge them extra fees or give them very low priority), hence saving lots of money, time and equipment to treat people who perhaps don't deserve the afflictions they need to be treated for? If you say yes to this, then I suppose you should also do the same for people who don't wear seatbelts, or eat unhealthily, or maybe don't exercise at all. Where do you stop? I'm just interested to hear people's thoughts on this as I don't think I'm clever enough to think it through properly myself

[Marvo]

You can't assume that smoking is at fault in all the cases. So no. Also, there are a lot of minority groups that are at a higher risk of getting certain sicknesses. You can't discriminate.

[Photolysis]

The taxes brought in from the sale of tobacco in the UK greatly outweigh the estimated cost to the NHS. Since they effectively pay for their own treatment, why should they not receive it?

[Xei]

If we truly are going for the pragmatic approach, I think the thread has been pretty much terminated in the above two posts.

[Patrick]

The taxes brought in from the sale of tobacco in the UK greatly outweigh the estimated cost to the NHS. Since they effectively pay for their own treatment, why should they not receive it? Wow I didn't know that... thanks! I guess that sort of ends that... sorry to waste everyones time /thread

[Xei]

...well this is a first. :V

[Patrick]

Trust me to ruin a potential flamewar...

[DeeryTheDeer]

Far more people are getting sick and diseased from the fast food they eat than from smoking. In fact, that's the new smoking these days. If anything, we should target McDonalds eaters like we target smokers.

[ninja9578]

The taxes brought in from the sale of tobacco in the UK greatly outweigh the estimated cost to the NHS. Since they effectively pay for their own treatment, why should they not receive it? Unfortunately, in the USA, that's not true, but we have to pay for our own health care, so it's fine by me. If they wanna pay an extra hundred grand during their life for higher health insurance costs, then they should get the treatment.

[sloth]

Let's talk about flowers now.

[Marvo]

Far more people are getting sick and diseased from the fast food they eat than from smoking. In fact, that's the new smoking these days. If anything, we should target McDonalds eaters like we target smokers. But who eats junk food?

[DuB]

Discuss.

[stormcrow]

But who eats junk food? Poor people?

[Marvo]

Poor people? So poor people need to pay more for healthcare? And rich people pay less? edit: ah, I misread Deery's post. I guess taxing junk food sort of makes sense.

[Spartiate]

I honestly don't understand how people in upper management of companies like McDonald's and other fast food joints can live with themselves. They're basically on par with tobacco executives when it comes to the ethics of marketing and selling addictive poisons (possibly even worse because they target kids). Who grows up thinking "Hmm, one day I want to help sell extremely low quality food to people around the world at great risk to their personal health!" What a glamourous job...

[dajo]

possibly even worse because they target kids Does Tobacco Advertising Target Young People to Start Smoking?, December 11, 1991, Pierce et al. 266 (22): 3154 Survey Shows Tobacco Retailers Targeting Children - post-journal.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - Jamestown | Post-Journal Tobacco Advertising and Teens: Marketing Strategies Cigarette Companies Use to Target Kids | Suite101.com BBC NEWS | Health | Background Briefings | Smoking | 'Stop tobacco firms targeting children' And if I remember correctly, these tobacco company funded anti-smoking campaigns for children also had an adverse effect - big surprise. Just a way to make big tobacco look more humanitarian. Which is quite paradox. Although I must admit that, at least when I am drunk, I do smoke quite a bit. It's quite common here and a pack only costs me 30 cent. But something to stop or at least reduce to a minimum in the future. But I don't want to talk up fast food, it's pretty much the same corporate shit.

[Spartiate]

I don't want to pardon the tobacco industry, but at least they don't target children so overtly as fast food chains. "Happy meals", kids menus, toys, freaking play-parks inside the restaurant...

[dajo]

yeah that's true.

[tommo]

I don't want to pardon the tobacco industry, but at least they don't target children so overtly as fast food chains. "Happy meals", kids menus, toys, freaking play-parks inside the restaurant... I don't even understand how it can be called a restaurant. The first time I heard some call maccas a restaurant I laughed my ass off. Also Australia is the same as UK, we pretty much single handedly pay for everyones public health care at $20 + a pack.