Fat women and babies - something to chew on...

[marty]

A democracy is a partnership. The state has a responsibility to its citizens (we have a queen so we're technically subjects) to be caring and protective of them in return for taxes. The citizens have a duty to obey the laws and not abuse the generosity of others or the state for personal gain. Sadly I think the line is often crossed by people who 'want something for nothing'. I think the state should help those genuinely in need but I think all too often the state ends up paying out to those who aren't as worthy. The UK can afford to be generous as we are a 'rich' nation, but only to a point. I don't like freeloaders as they sap resources from hardworking people and those who are in genuine need.

[midget]

We also get the 'immigrants do the jobs our own people don't want to do' line. That's fine so long as those who don't want to work do not expect the rest of us to support them or their families.

[graham]

Spot on Rory. This health facism (that's what it is) is symptomatic of an increasingly authoritarian and interventionist approach by the State into every facet of the lives of ordinary people and should be resisted.

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. The Health 'fascism' is about trying to ensure the efficient and effective running of an overabused and poorly designed system, i.e., the NHS. The basic tenant of a national health service has to be to provide all citizens with medical care, free of charge. However, much as marty points out, this has to work as a partnership whereby those who run the service do so without discrimination while those who take from it do so honestly and properly. The upshots of this are twofold; one, that if someone makes a lifestyle choice that the know to compromise their health, then they are setting themselves up to take from the system in a disproportionate fashion, and 2, there has to be a heirarchical structure to the system in terms of what can reasonably covered under this 'free' service. To respond to rory's point, if you smoke the occasional cigarette, the increase in your risk of developing smoking related diseases is negligable. If you decide to start smoking regularly, however, you are making a choice that you know to increase your risk of developing certain diseases. Why should the rest of the population pay for your irresponsible choice in this case. We might be persuaded to pay for you to get help to quit but beyond that is pushing the limits of our genrosity. To put it another way, if taxpayers money is to be used to fund surgery for a victim of a road accident or a smoker's bypass surgery, which is the right choice?

The weightism is really part of this PLUS the idea that IVF isn't really essential medical attention and so rightfully belongs down the list of things for the NHS to fund. Current guidelines allow for 3(?) IVF attempts. Patients are however free to pursue extra treatments privately. It is quite reasonable for the NHS to deny a non-essential, expensive treatment to someone who will very likely gain no benefit from it. This debate reminds me of ther one we had a while back with the man who sent pictures of aborted foetuses to a hospital which subsequently refused him treatment (and that one got pretty hot too!) The point that I argued then was that the man was not denied surgery "full-stop" , but he did have to go elsewhere for it, and as a result of his actions that was appropriate. I would make the sam case here. Although obese people will not have the option of obtaining free IVF, they are not prevented from seeking the treatment at all.

Finally, There has to also be some cause for concern when someone is so intent in bringing another life into the world that they disregard their own and the effect that their own death could have on that new life.

[marty]

Give Graham a medal! Let's start a political party, Billy. We could call it the No Nonense Party...

[Mid A 15]

Spot on Rory. This health facism (that's what it is) is symptomatic of an increasingly authoritarian and interventionist approach by the State into every facet of the lives of ordinary people and should be resisted.

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. The Health 'fascism' is about trying to ensure the efficient and effective running of an overabused and poorly designed system, i.e., the NHS. The basic tenant of a national health service has to be to provide all citizens with medical care, free of charge. However, much as marty points out, this has to work as a partnership whereby those who run the service do so without discrimination while those who take from it do so honestly and properly. The upshots of this are twofold; one, that if someone makes a lifestyle choice that the know to compromise their health, then they are setting themselves up to take from the system in a disproportionate fashion, and 2, there has to be a heirarchical structure to the system in terms of what can reasonably covered under this 'free' service. To respond to rory's point, if you smoke the occasional cigarette, the increase in your risk of developing smoking related diseases is negligable. If you decide to start smoking regularly, however, you are making a choice that you know to increase your risk of developing certain diseases. Why should the rest of the population pay for your irresponsible choice in this case. We might be persuaded to pay for you to get help to quit but beyond that is pushing the limits of our genrosity. To put it another way, if taxpayers money is to be used to fund surgery for a victim of a road accident or a smoker's bypass surgery, which is the right choice?

The weightism is really part of this PLUS the idea that IVF isn't really essential medical attention and so rightfully belongs down the list of things for the NHS to fund. Current guidelines allow for 3(?) IVF attempts. Patients are however free to pursue extra treatments privately. It is quite reasonable for the NHS to deny a non-essential, expensive treatment to someone who will very likely gain no benefit from it. This debate reminds me of ther one we had a while back with the man who sent pictures of aborted foetuses to a hospital which subsequently refused him treatment (and that one got pretty hot too!) The point that I argued then was that the man was not denied surgery "full-stop" , but he did have to go elsewhere for it, and as a result of his actions that was appropriate. I would make the sam case here. Although obese people will not have the option of obtaining free IVF, they are not prevented from seeking the treatment at all.

Finally, There has to also be some cause for concern when someone is so intent in bringing another life into the world that they disregard their own and the effect that their own death could have on that new life.

Graham,

I need to expand on and clarify my earlier post I feel!

There are two separate issues here. The first is what treatments should and shouldn't be offered by the NHS? The second is, once the NHS has agreed to supply a particular teatment or service, should it refuse teatment on lifestyle grounds?

My comment was made in the context of the second issue I describe. Fat people, smokers, sportsmen etc, etc are also taxpayers and thereby entitled to all treatments in my opinion which is what I said above rather more succinctly. I find it sinister that a State Health Service (which is what the NHS is) seeks to proscribe approved lifestyles in a supposed free society. I have no problem with ADVISING but PROSCRIPTION is wrong.

I happen to believe that IVF is of questionable morality anyway in a society where abortion is rife and unwanted children are queueing up for adoption. I personally therefore would not offer such treatment on the NHS if resources are stretched. However I must echo Englishangel and admit that I have fathered 3 children naturally with no problems so perhaps it is easy for me to adopt such a position.

Speaking generally as a layman about pressures and restrictions on the NHS, it seems to me that if there were less "suits" and more "gowns" and less money thrown at John Bull printing sets masquerading as top of the range computer systems then the NHS might make a better fist of coping in a timely fashion with the demands made upon it.

That is yet another issue though!

[Rory]

Well well.....Graham - I beg to differ......here's a couple of points...

whereby those who run the service do so without discrimination while those who take from it do so honestly and properly. The upshots of this are twofold; one, that if someone makes a lifestyle choice that the know to compromise their health, then they are setting themselves up to take from the system in a disproportionate fashion

I thought the NHS was a state health service that provides free medical assistance to those who need it. I don't go along with your comment that those who make a lifestyle choice are setting themselves up to take more from it - you are making various assumptions that you are in no position to make re tax paid (not just on cigarettes and alchohol) but income tax - who pays what is not relevant - if you need medical care for whatever reason - and the NHS exists - then you should get it.
The problem in the post topic is that the NHS spends too much money on unnecessary treatments - it doesn't matter whether people are fat / not fat - IVF is not an essential medical condition. SO the NHS, in my opinion, is not the right place to go for a handout.

And another thing.....

Why should the rest of the population pay for your irresponsible choice in this case.

Oh I'm sorry - I didn't read your book called - How other people should live their lives...You view here is extremely subjective (careful choice of word).
I've paid taxes for 20 odd years - part of which goes towards funding state education - but I made a choice to pay school fees for my kids - and no - I didn't moan that the world is unfair - I just accept that it is - you just have to get on with it.

You say..........We might be persuaded to pay for you to get help to quit but beyond that is pushing the limits of our genrosity.

Hey thanks - but actually I dont want to quit at the moment - NHS is not about generosity - it's a National Health Service. You're not doing me a favour - it's what we all pay loads of money for and then can expect to use from time to time. I really don't see that 'lifestyle' choices have anything to do with it. And your choices may be different from mine.....

Or on the other hand - you could get all the smokers - line them up against a wall and shoot them. And while youre at it - shoot all criminals - then you'd save a lot of money that's 'wasted' on the prison service..

[graham]

Wow, I've irked Rory here, although I didn't intend to (although the "paying for you to quit" statement was cheeky, and I apologise!). And I have to add that I'm not specifically trying to argue that smokers or you personally SHOULD be denied treatment because of your addiction (my father died of his, although that was more due to the NHS's lack of ability to diagnose than to provide appropriate treatment), but rather that there are limitations to the functionality of a publicly-funded health service that are exposed when cases such as this one are raised.

I wasn't trying to make any references to the amount that one puts into the system through taxation, in fact I made the assumption that all were equal in the eyes of the NHS. My point was that if there are reasons that you directly control that increase your chances of using the system or your dependancy on it, should you not make a proportionately larger donation to it?

The NHS isn't a free service; we all pay for it, as you say. If we don't use it, then fine, as we could have if we'd wanted. The donation is still appropriate. However, My arguement was that public money should be utilized in a utalitarian way, and many would view smoking or obesity related diseases, for example, as things that should be excluded from this category. You stated that the NHS spends too much money on unnecessary treatments. However, by simply not smoking you could prevent the need for treatments for smoking related disease.

My use of the word irresponsible wasn't intended to be judgemental,btw. It simply was supposed to reflect the fact that you know that smoking has serious health effects and you still smoke.

At the end of the day there has to be some debate as to whether the NHS should foot the FULL bill for treatment that stems from such things as smoking-related illness, not least because there is limited funding available for the service and smoking related diseases are preventable by the individual, as opposed to genetic conditions or accidents. My opinion is that the NHS should be a limited service anyway and that individuals should make contributions for certain treatments through personal insurance.

Nothing personal Rory, (hell, I don't even know you) and I'm not out to get smokers. I just like to debate.

And thanks Marty, but politics wouldn't suit me.

[Rory]

No apologies necessary and absolutely no offense taken. I just get a bit fed up of governments and stuff telling people how to live their lives. I think that freedom and choice are great (so long as the exercise of such freedom does not negatively impact upon the rights of others). This whole thing is part of a much wider discussion about the role of government etc. It seems to me that especially in the UK the government is intent on restricting civil liberties and 'telling people how to live their lives'. I find it all so hypocritical - on the one hand they are banning smoking and I hear that now if you are drunk - the pub can legally refuse to serve you - and then they are thinking of downgrading cannabis to a lower category drug - I think that the role of government should be to run the country and not to tell people how to behave. There are enough social and other problems for them to deal with without annoying what are, for the most part, law abiding smokers and drinkers.....I know its easy to criticise the government and I certainly don't have all the answers - politics isn't for me either and yes - it's good to debate these issues. I hear that over there you can't smoke on the beach any more !!!! What is the world coming to? Sorry - I've gone off the topic again.......

[englishangel]

I think this forum is overloaded with Devil's Advocates.

Should people who get melanoma from frying on said beach be treated?

I did hear that one of the plastic surgeons at Derriford Hospital in Plymouth would send her new Senior Houe Officers out onto the beaches to spot moles and warn people about sunburn.

(If not apocryphal said consultant was Judy Evens who was Head Girl at Hertford around 1968/69).

[loringa]

One of our players picked up a nasty knock on the ankle a couple of weeks ago, and when it didn't improve after a couple of days, I persuaded him to go to A & E at East Surrey Hospital, Redhill.

He was told they don't treat sports injuries sustained whilst in the pursuit of a registered club sport !

Is this policy common and, if so, is it legal? This is the second time I have seen comments to this effect on the forum although, if I remember correctly, the previous post referred to a hospital in France. I assume the assumption is that a registetred sports club would have insurance but I'm not sure that is relevant. Surely someone with an injury is entitled to treatment however or wherever it was sustained? I'd be pretty miffed if I or a member of my family was denied treatment for any reason. Can one of the lawyers on this forum advise please?

[J.R.]

One of our players picked up a nasty knock on the ankle a couple of weeks ago, and when it didn't improve after a couple of days, I persuaded him to go to A & E at East Surrey Hospital, Redhill.

He was told they don't treat sports injuries sustained whilst in the pursuit of a registered club sport !

Is this policy common and, if so, is it legal? This is the second time I have seen comments to this effect on the forum although, if I remember correctly, the previous post referred to a hospital in France. I assume the assumption is that a registetred sports club would have insurance but I'm not sure that is relevant. Surely someone with an injury is entitled to treatment however or wherever it was sustained? I'd be pretty miffed if I or a member of my family was denied treatment for any reason. Can one of the lawyers on this forum advise please?

It appears to be the norm in Surrey, at least.

Its the second case of refusal of treatment for sports injuries I've come across in the last month.

[huntertitus]

I find this whole topic very unsettling.
Because someone else is making a judgement call about what is good and what isn't.
For example I smoke and drink a bit - and if I get ill, I might go to hospital and expect treatment. Then some clever clogs says - Ah - you chose to smoke and you knew it was bad for you so Sod Off - we're not going to treat you.
OK - I don't like sports - I think that they are dangerous - so if you break your leg playing football, or break your neck playing rugby, then UNLUCKY - you chose to play a dangerous game - its your fault so we wont treat you.
Mountain climbing - forget rescue teams coming out in bad weather - you should have checked. Die up there in the cold.
Dont cross the road - you might get hit by a car.
You run a marathon to raise money for a heart clinic - but then have a heart attack because you're not fit. The doctor finds out you used to smoke and lets you die.

Where does it end.

Then we may as well do away with most of the emergency services - because house fires are more often than not caused by carelessness - chip pans etc.
Going back to your point - I don't think that hospitals should interfere in fertility issues. If you can have kids - great - if you can't then you can't. It may seem sad - but look on the bright side - you save a sh1t load of money.
As for the fat / not fat issue - I simply can't understand who thinks that a thin parent is better than a fat one - what a bl**dy nerve. I know some nice fat people and some horrid thin ones.
Why are people so obsessed with weight anyway.
Oh allright - enough is enough. I'm rambling.

These are the words of a lost politician

I agree with most of it

I would say that people must be treated for illness caused by their own
foolishness because they need it

but to treat people who WANT something is a different matter

It's the difference between need and want

If a heavy smoker or drinker or eater need help I have no problem with giving them that

I suppose if people think that is bad they could agree to allowing a bit of testing to be done

They could act as guinea pigs for new treatments in return for self inflicted ailments

I do think that we should try to look after the weak and those in need however they came across their problem

Is that not what makes us human?

[gnuvag]

Firstly, I'd like to applaud the title of this topic, "Fat women and babies - something to chew on..." - not sure if it's intentional or not, but very funny. Many a time I've wanted a nibble on a nice fat woman.

As someone said above, it has opened a big can of worms and brought out some interesting, extreme and opposite opinions. It's difficult to come to any definitives about any of the subjects discussed, isn't it?

For my tuppence worth:

I'm worried by the prospect of being refused hospital treatment for a sports injury. I might just have to lie about how it happened (quickly change into a suit on the way to the hospital, or something).

IVF should definitely be available on the NHS. It may not be a basic human right, but it's not far off. It is such a deep-seated, genetically-programmed desire that if modern society can assist, it should. Dismissing this issue with notions such as "lifestyle choice" or "those that can't naturally, shouldn't" doesn't cut the mustard.

From a governmental point of view (not mine), more babies equals population growth equals economic growth equals enough workers to pay our pensions in the future.

IVF and overweight (or otherwise unhealthy) women is a different issue - agreed, they should be encouraged to lose weight or sort out other health issues first - for a variety of reasons this makes sense.

As for treating other things on the NHS (smoking-related disease, alcohol-related disease, etc.), I would say that, at the moment, we would have to continue treating smokers and drinkers, in the same non-discriminatory way that we treat victims of chip-pan fires, people who speed and crash into trees and people who get melanomas from sunbathing too much. A fair amount of money is spent on education (i.e. don't smoke, drink in moderation, etc.), but essentially no-one is going to give up either until they're made illegal, which I can't see happening any time soon. If smoking and / or drinking were outlawed, people would find other ways to kill and injure themselves.

From a governmental point of view (again, not mine), absolutely huge income from tax on alcohol and tobacco (not sure where it all goes, i.e. how much to the NHS) and allowing people to keep using both keeps the population quiet, happy and relatively poor in their little nine-to-five worlds - perfect.

Great quote from Huntertitus above: "I do think that we should try to look after the weak and those in need however they came across their problem. Is that not what makes us human?". I think that some people should use statements such as that to get a better understanding of what is meant by "society".

And as for comments such as "I confess that I also used to wonder whether we truly wanted them to dilute the gene pool." and "...and all the money they [asylum seekers] seem to expect to be shoved into their greedy little hands..." - I can't believe that these are well-reasoned comments from the minds of well-educated individuals.

p.s. Well said Rory, for a lot of the above.

[englishangel]

We have indeed discussed this before, I think it was about a hospitaL in Essex and hip replacements.

I don't know about sports injuries per se, but 'as it didn't get better after a couple of days". most Emergency departments won't treat any injury which is over 24 hours old as it is, by definition, not an emergency, unless of course it has suddenly got worse.

[J.R.]

.............and "...and all the money they [asylum seekers] seem to expect to be shoved into their greedy little hands..." - I can't believe that these are well-reasoned comments from the minds of well-educated individuals.

I'm a bit annoyed that you left one word from my quote !!!

"I can see this theme extending to asylum (allegedly) seekers, and all the money they seem to expect to be shoved into their greedy little hands" .

I think if you read exactly WHAT I was saying, you'll find that I strongly dispute that a fair amount of these imports are in fact, bona fide asylum seekers !

But many thanks for pointing out that you feel I'm a 'well-educated individual'. CH must have got SOMETHING right, then !