- + Ana Mkd joined Debatewise
- + Orko voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Bojan M voted on the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Choism1027 voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Bubkashewor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Choism1027 voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Choism1027 voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Bubkashewor voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + El voted on the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Choism1027 voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Hellohello joined Debatewise
- + Andrejnalin joined Debatewise
- + Bubkashewor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Vanila joined Debatewise
- + Bubkashewor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + El voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Bojan M joined Debatewise
- + Heyhey voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Heyhey joined Debatewise
- + Andrejnalin voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Bubkashewor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Choism1027 voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
HEALTHCARE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED FOR THOSE WHOSE ACTIONS OR LIFESTYLE HAVE PROVOKED THEIR CONDITION.
Cancer resources should be directed towards the most deserving, knee operations should be made more available to those who need them for non-obesity related conditions, liver transplants should be refused to alcoholics......
Healthcare should be restricted for those whose actions or lifestyle have provoked their condition.
Yes, because... The link between smoking and disease is well documented and regarded as fact
Whilst not all smokers will get lung cancer or heart disease, this is more due to their genetic luck. There is a direct correlation between smoking and disease, so should resources not be diverted away from a patient who has continued to smoke in the knowledge that eventually it will probably make them unwell, towards more deserving patients such as those with congenital or accident derived conditions?
How far can we take this argument? What about a person who has chosen a career that is based around danger? Should we refuse the burns treatment to a fireman because he chose that profession, he put himself in that danger? What about a police man's stab wound? For the same reasons, should we help him? We cannot make judgements about people's life choices. It is far too subjective a question.
The NHS is an institute that is envied world wide, something us Britons take for granted. The whole being behind the NHS is that it was deemed a 'right' and not something that should be issued dependant on income, age, race or anything for that matter. To discriminate against those who don't make what is considered the 'right' life-style choices would only take us back to the day's when healthcare was something you recieved only if you could afford. To add, who would have the painstaking job of assessing who gets healthcare and who doesn't....would you want to do it? Should a child who develops asthma, not get treatment because both parents smoke...?
Vote on this point: The link between smoking and disease is well documented and regarded as fact
See history of changes to this point
Healthcare should be restricted for those whose actions or lifestyle have provoked their condition.
Yes, because... The obese add unnecessary cost to our NHS bill.
It has been discovered that for antibiotics to work on the obese, a larger dosage is needed[1]. This is because the content of fat in their bodies requires more antibiotics in order to fight infections. This discovery is an expensive one. Doctors now need to be re-trained in prescribing doses dependant on the size of the patient. Pharmaceutical companies need to remake their labels to make it clearer for obese patients. On top of this, the obvious cost is the fact that more of these antibiotics need to be made to be fed to the obese. Given all this cost, we should not have to treat the obese for illnesses inflicted by their obesity, they already cost us too much for ordinary infections due to their over eating, let alone if we started curing their hip problems as well.
If we did not give a higher dosage to the obese, the current prescribed level of antibiotics could not clear all of the infection. This would lead to a resistant strain of the bacteria that caused the infection. What would occur is that the antibiotics given to a person of healthy size would only be able to fight off a percentage of the bacteria causing the infection. There are always natural immunities among bacteria to certain types of antibiotics, but 99.9% of the germs would be killed, the body can kill the left over 0.1%. If we allowed some bacteria to live in the obese by not prescribing them the correct dose of antibiotics for their size, then the resistant bacteria would breed with the non resistant left over bacteria and this would cause a strain of bacteria which is immune to the antibiotic. This is dangerous as it takes ages for scientists to create new antibiotics which bacteria are not immune to. Therefore, the cost is higher in not giving obese people the correct dosage of antibiotics.
Vote on this point: The obese add unnecessary cost to our NHS bill.
See history of changes to this point
Healthcare should be restricted for those whose actions or lifestyle have provoked their condition.
No, because... Scientific knowledge or supposition is not infallible
If we link some causes and effects, how do we know that we are not discriminating against those who don't fall into a neat definition or whose symptoms and causes of illness are unknown?
Healthcare should be restricted for those whose actions or lifestyle have provoked their condition.
No, because... basic logical fallacy
you are talking about cause and effect but have made a basic logical fallacy.
If A then B (if a person smokes... they are more likely to get lung cancer)
this is true but it DOES NOT equate to:
If B then A (if a person got lung cancer it was from smoking)
A lung cancer patient might have gotten it even if they had never picked up a cigarette. or if they had only smoked once a month like some people do. since they smoked once a month they should be denied healthcare?
A person might have needed knee surgery regardless of their weight. If they are "overweight" they get healthcare but if they are "obese" they don't? who makes these rules?
Vote on this debate: Healthcare should be restricted for those whose actions or lifestyle have provoked their condition.
Modified:
06 Apr 2010
Point 1. The link between smoking and disease is well documented and regarded as fact
Whilst not all smokers will get lung cancer or heart disease, this is more due to their genetic luck. There is a direct correlation between smoking and disease, so should resources not be diverted away from a patient who has continued to smoke in the knowledge that eventually it will probably make them unwell, towards more deserving patients such as those with congenital or accident derived conditions?
How far can we take this argument? What about a person who has chosen a career that is based around danger? Should we refuse the burns treatment to a fireman because he chose that profession, he put himself in that danger? What about a police man's stab wound? For the same reasons, should we help him? We cannot make judgements about people's life choices. It is far too subjective a question.
Point 2. The obese add unnecessary cost to our NHS bill.
It has been discovered that for antibiotics to work on the obese, a larger dosage is needed[1]. This is because the content of fat in their bodies requires more antibiotics in order to fight infections. This discovery is an expensive one. Doctors now need to be re-trained in prescribing doses dependant on the size of the patient. Pharmaceutical companies need to remake their labels to make it clearer for obese patients. On top of this, the obvious cost is the fact that more of these antibiotics need to be made to be fed to the obese. Given all this cost, we should not have to treat the obese for illnesses inflicted by their obesity, they already cost us too much for ordinary infections due to their over eating, let alone if we started curing their hip problems as well.
If we did not give a higher dosage to the obese, the current prescribed level of antibiotics could not clear all of the infection. This would lead to a resistant strain of the bacteria that caused the infection. What would occur is that the antibiotics given to a person of healthy size would only be able to fight off a percentage of the bacteria causing the infection. There are always natural immunities among bacteria to certain types of antibiotics, but 99.9% of the germs would be killed, the body can kill the left over 0.1%. If we allowed some bacteria to live in the obese by not prescribing them the correct dose of antibiotics for their size, then the resistant bacteria would breed with the non resistant left over bacteria and this would cause a strain of bacteria which is immune to the antibiotic. This is dangerous as it takes ages for scientists to create new antibiotics which bacteria are not immune to. Therefore, the cost is higher in not giving obese people the correct dosage of antibiotics.
Point 1. Scientific knowledge or supposition is not infallible
If we link some causes and effects, how do we know that we are not discriminating against those who don't fall into a neat definition or whose symptoms and causes of illness are unknown?
Point 2. basic logical fallacy
you are talking about cause and effect but have made a basic logical fallacy.
If A then B (if a person smokes... they are more likely to get lung cancer)
this is true but it DOES NOT equate to:
If B then A (if a person got lung cancer it was from smoking)
A lung cancer patient might have gotten it even if they had never picked up a cigarette. or if they had only smoked once a month like some people do. since they smoked once a month they should be denied healthcare?
A person might have needed knee surgery regardless of their weight. If they are "overweight" they get healthcare but if they are "obese" they don't? who makes these rules?