Patient denied care because he smokes

Very interesting and controversial article that showed up in Google news this morning. Do you think it's fair for doctors to refuse to care for patients because they smoke?

I think it's a neat idea...but morally doesn't that defy the oath that all doctors swear to provide care to everybody that needs it?

Doctor refuses to treat smoking patient

 

Rediculous, what is next? Refusing to treat overwieght patients?

 

Its sad, but what those patients need treatment for? was it related to smoking?

 

Are you kidding? Cancer to name one, anyway.

"A smoker suffering from narrowed arteries in his legs has been told by surgeons to quit his habit before they will treat him."

He may now lose a whole leg cause a doctor refuses to treat him unless he quits smoking.

That article's whacked and makes me mad.

 

WTF - I just assumed this was over in the states, but no - It's in the uk...

Unreal...

Henny - I completly agree...

At what point does it become socially acceptable to harrass someone about their weight and it's health implications?

It's acceptable to do the same to smokers, so why not fat people?

 

If they start doing this to overweight patients I'm screwed lol

On one hand I think it's a good idea (in theory only). In practice though it's a really sticky think.

On the other hand I'm enraged that doctors would do this.

People steal cars, get high on cocaine, then smash their car into another vehicle killing the other driver, and yet they get help. But no, we can't help smokers.

...

 

So what's the problem?

 

The problem is where do you draw the line?

Lets say you just found out that you have lung cancer. But it's treatable by surgery. So you go to the surgeon, and he refuses to do the surgey because you have short hair. Where exactly do you draw the line between doctor-patient discrimination?

 

I bet most of these people smoke too, and still get help.

 

Rob, the doc told me to tell you he wouldn't treat you for the head injury until you stop banging your head on the wall!

 

Indeed, this case is not the best example but considering how much money smokers pay in taxes (UK) above and beyond the amount non-smokers give towards the UK health service I think if your a smoker you should get an upgrade

 

IMO, I'm a smoker if I had a disease directly caused by smoking and a doctor refused my treatment I'd simply go to a different doctor...

There are many reasons patients don't get treatment for being a smoker/drinker now anyways, see certain organ transplants...............

Personally being a smoker I don't see it being that huge of a deal, if the doctor reviewed the info and thought w/o seeing the patient it was caused by smoking and there wasn't anything he could do w/o the patient quiting smoking maybe refusing treatment was the best course of action....

 

So what if 5 different doctors refused to treat you because of this?


I'm personally not a smoker and I don't have anything against smoking as long as you don't puff it into my face. But I mean, you could easily stretch something like this to racism or sexism. What if a doctor refused to treat a african american woman? Everybody would be all over that doctor, but that's pretty much the same situation here. Doctors aren't supposed to do this IMHO.

 

It seems like the doctor said, "Hey, stop smoking and you'll probably get better!"

Why is that so offensive?

Just because some A-hole doesn't have the will power to stop?

 

That's not what he said. It was more along the lines of "Stop smoking or else..."

 

That's got f' all to do with it Rob...

Fags over here cost ~ £5 a pack... I'm pretty sure the tax on that should pay for my medical costs...

I've got private anyway.

Still, it makes me sick that they are refusing to even look at the guy,

 

Last I heard you get treated if you have good insurance.

Honestly, I don't see the big deal. The doctor went to school for most likely 12 years and dedicated his life to saving people. Why should he waste precious time on (sorry for being insensitive) idiots that hurt themselves when there's plenty of other people to treat.

Lets say a 500 lb guy comes in and is going to die unless he gets 8 hours of surgery. He's 500 lb's only because he has no self control and is eatting himself to death. At the same time another person comes in with critical injuries from being robbed and shot and will also die unless he's treated right now. The doctor can only save one person, who should it be?

If you have good health and you ruin it yourself because you can't control your actions, or didn't care about your own body enough then you have no pitty from me. You put yourself in the position your in and now you have to deal with it. There's millions of people who have bad health and couldn't prevent it and to see other people walk around carelessly destroying their bodies disgusts me.

 

Maybe they'd stop being lazy and get some exercise, eh?

 

That's a pretty far stretch form an act I as a smoker inflict on myself, to reaching to treatment being refused for the color of your skin.

If 5 different doctors looked at my info and came to the conclusion it was smoking and told me to quit smoking as the first course of treatment I would take their word for it, as they are doctors and know what they are talking about far above what I do....

 

Can you not read?