Uk bans Operations For Fat Smokers

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Nah....
I am talking about money.
The cost of treating people and how it saves the system money if they can find reasons not to treat them.

Maybe the NHS should pay to treat curable STDs, but what about HIV? Those people have to be treated with very expensive drugs for life. Should the NHS pay to treat them especially as they are walking victors for all of that time?

Ultimately not treating them might save money ...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: rickymouse

Yeah, but hot peppers are also a natural anti-inflammatory too (the capsaicin). So I taught myself to enjoy some of the moderately spicy foods with peppers like chipotle, jalapeno, serrano, etc., in them.

Yeah, capsaicin does dampen inflammation. It does it by overloading the pathways and shutting down some systems. It also dampens pain. There are ointments that athletes use that do that made from hot stuff.

Some methyl compounds also do that, dampen expression of certain things in the body. I have not gone into detail on that stuff with methyl yet. Coffee is actually a pain reliever as are cigarettes and some of the nightshade veggies. Methyl works differently than nitrous oxide created by the hot food though.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Nah....
I am talking about money.
The cost of treating people and how it saves the system money if they can find reasons not to treat them.

Maybe the NHS should pay to treat curable STDs, but what about HIV? Those people have to be treated with very expensive drugs for life. Should the NHS pay to treat them especially as they are walking victors for all of that time?

Ultimately not treating them might save money ...

Yes. They should treat them.

originally posted by: SilverOwls

originally posted by: LondonMan

originally posted by: SilverOwls

originally posted by: LondonMan

originally posted by: SilverOwls

originally posted by: LondonMan

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
Liberals wonder why they are looked on how they are,this is what happens when you let the government control you,we are trying to avoid being like UK,Germany etc,but we are getting close,and true fact what do we care about UK,we don't live there they have their own voice

Socialists, Liberals and their ilk put £ or $ on a human being, NORMAL PEOPLE just want to give everyone a chance regardless of the cost, just like how the whole world wanted to save Charlie Gard

Socialists, liberals and their ilk gave you the NHS lol and lol. You should take your fat aunt to a private hospital instead of complaining.

Obesity and heart disease equals higher rates of death in serious operations. Yeah no let's blame the NHS and liberals because your aunt eats too much and doesn't exercise. Blame the surgeons because visceral fat and constricted arteries are impediments to surviving operations. Give her the surgical team when she's got a shorter life expectancy than a non smoking heart patient in good shape.

She has private insurance you div, did you not read what it says above. No operation if your bmi is above 35-40, so i will explain again NO DOCTOR WILL OPERATE. PRIVATE or NHS, BECAUSE ITS THE SAME DOCTORS and the same B.M.A. that governs them.

So she isn't responsible for anything? She's entitled to have doctors save the life she doesn't look after?

How does a 70 year old lose weight.. Go jogging ?? Doctors save people, they don't judge. Unlike you !

Write your medical practitioner.

Dear Doctor, Please save my aunt from heart disease so she can add a further burden to the NHS when obesity and smoking take a toll. Yours respectfully, LondonMan.

must be nice to be so effing perfect. Hows the view from up there on that high horse?

a reply to: LondonMan


This is how the slippery slope towards a loguns run style society takes shape.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Nah....
I am talking about money.
The cost of treating people and how it saves the system money if they can find reasons not to treat them.

Maybe the NHS should pay to treat curable STDs, but what about HIV? Those people have to be treated with very expensive drugs for life. Should the NHS pay to treat them especially as they are walking victors for all of that time?

Ultimately not treating them might save money ...

you are taking this totally out of context now and I know you are better than that.

Taking something out of context to attack an ideal is getting you nowhere and defending your own flawed system against it is laughable.

a reply to: LondonMan

triggered or what lol God forbid you ever get any heart trouble, nurses like you are what give the NHS a bad name, it would be interesting to know what hospital you work at ????

Really don’t think there was any need for such a hatful response.

This is sadly the level of intellect I expect from your posts anyway these days.

Care to actually comment on any of the points I made or you just going to carry on with the petulant child act?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: LondonMan

triggered or what lol God forbid you ever get any heart trouble, nurses like you are what give the NHS a bad name, it would be interesting to know what hospital you work at ????

Really don’t think there was any need for such a hatful response.

This is sadly the level of intellect I expect from your posts anyway these days.

Care to actually comment on any of the points I made or you just going to carry on with the petulant child act?

I've already made MY points... either troll off or stay triggered.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Nah....
I am talking about money.
The cost of treating people and how it saves the system money if they can find reasons not to treat them.

Maybe the NHS should pay to treat curable STDs, but what about HIV? Those people have to be treated with very expensive drugs for life. Should the NHS pay to treat them especially as they are walking victors for all of that time?

Ultimately not treating them might save money ...

Of course, because money is far more important than people, as you are always quick to point out.

originally posted by: LondonMan

originally posted by: SilverOwls

originally posted by: LondonMan

originally posted by: SilverOwls

originally posted by: LondonMan

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
Liberals wonder why they are looked on how they are,this is what happens when you let the government control you,we are trying to avoid being like UK,Germany etc,but we are getting close,and true fact what do we care about UK,we don't live there they have their own voice

Socialists, Liberals and their ilk put £ or $ on a human being, NORMAL PEOPLE just want to give everyone a chance regardless of the cost, just like how the whole world wanted to save Charlie Gard

Socialists, liberals and their ilk gave you the NHS lol and lol. You should take your fat aunt to a private hospital instead of complaining.

Obesity and heart disease equals higher rates of death in serious operations. Yeah no let's blame the NHS and liberals because your aunt eats too much and doesn't exercise. Blame the surgeons because visceral fat and constricted arteries are impediments to surviving operations. Give her the surgical team when she's got a shorter life expectancy than a non smoking heart patient in good shape.

She has private insurance you div, did you not read what it says above. No operation if your bmi is above 35-40, so i will explain again NO DOCTOR WILL OPERATE. PRIVATE or NHS, BECAUSE ITS THE SAME DOCTORS and the same B.M.A. that governs them.

So she isn't responsible for anything? She's entitled to have doctors save the life she doesn't look after?

How does a 70 year old lose weight.. Go jogging ?? Doctors save people, they don't judge. Unlike you !

Exercise is 100% not necessary for fat loss. It requires only a caloric deficit.

It takes self-control and nothing more. Educate yourself.

Oh and suggesting 70 yr olds can't exercise is ignorant and insulting to them.

a reply to: LondonMan

"Uk bans Operations For Fat Smokers".

Are fat smoking surgeons banned from performing operations?

a reply to: LondonMan

The callousness shown by some in this thread is sadly not surprising. This is what happens when the state gets too big and the people too disconnected.

So much for the Hippocratic oath.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: LondonMan

The callousness shown by some in this thread is sadly not surprising.

This is what happens when the state gets too big and the people too disconnected.

So much for the Hippocratic oath.

Thhe simple truth of this is that an elderly lady who is overweight and a smoker has been supposedly refused an operation and as a family member the OP is unhappy about this.

What do we know about the truth of this other than the words of the OP?

Is this the NHS refusing a paitient treatment for nefearious reasons as is bieng implied or as with any medical procedure has it been deemed that it is unwise for such an op unless the patient looses some weight and stops smoking?

Sounds kinda like she has been told that in order for the op to go ahead she needs to stop smoking and eat a bit less until she is in a position to safely have the op to me.

a reply to: nonspecific

Sounds kinda like she has been told that in order for the op to go ahead she needs to stop smoking and eat a bit less until she is in a position to safely have the op to me.

Yup!

Funny how that gets twisted into "Big bad NHS bans operations for fat smokers"