First They Banned Smoking....Now....

bwohlgemuth · Post by **bwohlgemuth** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:36 am

Now, the UK has taken this the next logical step (in their eyes!)

Smokers told to quit or surgery will be refused
Smokers are to be denied operations on the Health Service unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand.

Doctors will police the rule by ordering patients to take a blood test to prove they have not been smoking.

The ruling, authorised by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, comes after medical research conclusively showed smokers take longer to recover from surgery.

It is thought that 500,000 smokers a year will be affected.

Fat will be next.....nice to know that socialized medicine is taking care of everyone!!!!

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:50 am

"But that won't happen here..." (rolls eyes)

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:58 am

Well, I have to say that because of what I know about biology from my father (who has been a paramedic, LPN and is currently an RN with degrees in chemistry and biology) this actually makes a lot of sense because there can be major complications involved with routine surgical procedures because of the effects that smoking has on the circulatory and respiratory systems.

This is not a human rights issue, it is a human life issue. Doctors are sworn to the Hippocratic oath to do what is in the best interest of saving or preserving the patients' lives.

I really think that calling this a civil rights issue is a bit off base. . .especially if it's public healthcare. If you get it for free, they have the right to put whatever stipulations on it that they want. You wouldn't be sh*tty to a corporation who made the same concessions in order to increase profits, or improve results, or reduce litigating liabilities.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:18 am

It makes sense from that angle. It feels more like punishing smokers.

bwohlgemuth · Post by **bwohlgemuth** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:43 am

I really think that calling this a civil rights issue is a bit off base. . .especially if it's public healthcare. If you get it for free, they have the right to put whatever stipulations on it that they want. You wouldn't be sh*tty to a corporation who made the same concessions in order to increase profits, or improve results, or reduce litigating liabilities.

Actually, I think this will open up further liability issues, as opposed to "solving" them...

Everyone is genetically different. Some people can smoke for a few months and will eventually develop cardiovascular problems. Some people can smoke for decades and never have a problem (my grandmother would be a perfect example of this....) Similarly, I am in damn good shape for my size (no cardio problems). In fact, I am at a slightly higher risk for cancer because of my genetics.

All it will take for a good lawsuit will be a hospital refusing treatment because of smoking, only to find out that person is genetically able to handle smoking.

MrSpall · Post by **MrSpall** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:02 pm

Is this really all that different from the rules hospitals already have in place restricting transplants in people that drink or use drugs?

Krieves · Post by **Krieves** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:04 pm

Yeah I know of people that smoked into their 90's and beyond. However, these are exceptions are not the rule. I also know smokers that died in their 40s from lung cancer (this happened to a friends mom).

Regardless of your genetic makeup and the long term damages of smoking, it does have short term (weeks rather and years) effects on your body. Smoking causes blood vessel to contract which reduces the amount of oxygen that is available to cells. This can cause problems with healing.

My father died of stomach cancer that was caused by smoking. When he was younger he smoked non-filtered cigarettes and when he was in mid-life he started smoking a pipe instead. Even though he was not inhaling, he was unaware that the tobacco juices and salvia that contained carcinogens, were being swallowed. When smoking the unfiltered cigarettes he was basically doing the same thing.

Sorry to be on a soapbox. But this smoking thing hits close to home.

Jambrea · Post by **Jambrea** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:55 pm

It isn't saying that the person has to give up smoking entirely. It is just saying to give it up for a week. I think it would be a little different to tell people to give it up all together or you get no help. If they are going to make this stipulation, I think they need to do something to help the smoke not smoke the week before surgery.

traumaqueen · Post by **traumaqueen** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:59 am

MrSpall wrote:Is this really all that different from the rules hospitals already have in place restricting transplants in people that drink or use drugs?

...not a bad point...