Renzatic on 20/10/2017 at 20:20
*HACK* *COUGH* *HUK* *HUK* *HUK* *HOOOOOCCCCKKKKKK* nothing beats a good cigarette first thing in the morning, or just after finishing a big meal, Van. Nothing.
Starker on 21/10/2017 at 10:17
It's little more than satisfying a craving caused by your own dependence. And I say that as an ex-smoker. If I were to smoke a cigarette now, I'd find it absolutely disgusting.
It's a bit like going thirsty for two days and then finding a glass of water the best drink you ever had.
SubJeff on 22/10/2017 at 21:12
Quote Posted by caffeinatedzombeh
not necessarily fat people, BMI takes no account of what your body is made of just how much it weighs
True, but for the vast majority of people it's fat.
Even so, a blanket ban on BMI over 30 is an odd choice, especially as sometimes the ailment is stopping the patient from losing weight - e.g. knee replacement.
The Royal College of Surgeons is against this so it'll be quashed.
scumble on 23/10/2017 at 09:44
Yes I had the feeling it may be a journalistic attempt to work up something quite small into a "headline". They might have had good intentions.
kaspanaze on 23/10/2017 at 15:19
I'm not from the UK but I read The Telegraph occasionally and for me it feels sensationalist at times. As speculated, the reason is probably not to punish smokers and obese people, but to reduce risk. A controversial headline just sells better.
catbarf on 24/10/2017 at 06:20
The headline is 'indefinite surgery ban for smokers and obese' but the actual content is 'non-urgent surgery will be postponed for patients with persistent risk factors'. They're saying that for people where invasive surgery has much higher risks (eg, smokers and the obese) but isn't strictly necessary, they'll focus on non-surgical methods of treatment instead. It's incredible how much context is stripped from the headline even when the article itself corrects its own headline four sentences in.
Starker on 24/10/2017 at 07:02
Oh, the headline is even more clever than that -- "NHS provokes fury...", so you know to be outraged already before you have to decide whether it's something to be outraged about.
heywood on 24/10/2017 at 11:29
Regardless of the headline, I can't see this as anything other than punitive. All else being equal, a smoker with a bad hip who can't get around is just as worthy of a hip replacement as a non-smoker with a bad hip who can't get around. Or one who has chronic back or neck pain due to damaged discs, or whatever. If the patient's health makes surgery risky, whether that's due to smoking, obesity, or something else entirely, that should be factored into each decision individually. Otherwise, it seems reasonable to prioritize non-urgent surgery based on who is suffering the greatest pain and/or disability, along with who can benefit the most. The proposed rules mean that people are going to be denied treatment for reasons that may be completely unrelated to their ailment, which is just plain unfair and discriminatory. In a country that believes that health care is a human right, it's surprising to me that public opinion would be in favor of treating a ground of people as second-class citizens with lesser rights.
caffeinatedzombeh on 24/10/2017 at 12:14
CCGs don't care about any of that, they care about how much it costs and who's budget it comes out of.
Fat people are expensive.
nickie on 24/10/2017 at 12:42
Quote Posted by heywood
In a country that believes that health care is a human right, it's surprising to me that public opinion would be in favor of treating a ground of people as second-class citizens with lesser rights.
More like a number of smug ex-smokers and skinny people see the smokers and obese as less than human.
It really grieves me to see the increase in downright meanness in this country. If it isn't the smokers and obese costing money it's the immigrants and health tourists. Never mind we're losing doctors and other health workers in greater numbers than before, going back home before they're kicked out. And all those moaning about immigrants will soon be moaning even louder about not getting their operations because of lack of staff or not able to get a GP appointment etc.
And will these people who are denied non-urgent surgery get a tax rebate, I wonder. We do pay taxes for our health care. It isn't free.
