Ban On Smokers Having None Urgent Vascular Operations Unless They Stop What Do You Think

[gordiescotland1]

Some surgeons in Edinburgh mainly vascular surgeons are refusing to operate on patients unless they give up smoking I am in full agreement of it. What do abs think?

[gordiescotland1]

Sorry I forgot the link
http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/lothian-doctors-defend-treatment-ban-for-smokers-1-3504218

[Graham-W]

We smokers pay so much tax on our ciggies that we should have priority treatment, never mind being refused treatment.
If I gave up smoking I could afford to go private and stuff the NHS.

[Buenchico]

A rough analogy:
If your push-bike keeps getting punctures in its tyres because you've spilt tacks all over your drive it would seem to be madness to contemplate repairing the punctures until after you've cleared up the tacks. Otherwise the problem will keep recurring.

Similarly, it would be daft to deal with problems caused by smoking without dealing with the cause first. Otherwise the problems will simply recur.

So the policy makes perfect sense to me.

[gordiescotland1]

I totally agree Buenchino in the case of narrowed arteries and angina it is only going to be a temporary measure to put a stent in and a short time it will fur up again with the smoking.

[Prudie]

You talk as though smoking is the only cause, do you think they shouldn't treat overweight or lazy people either.

[woofgang]

So they give up, have the op then start again....... I think if there is a genuine medical reason for not operating on a smoker then its one thing. If its for any other reason then I don't agree with it.

[queen 1954]

my thoughts exactly prudie.no different than people who are say diabetic and do nothing to reduce their weight,should we refuse to treat them too?

[Jeza]

Smokers, Drinkers, the obese and don't forget the druggies. Lets just send all our taxes to 3rd world countries. WE pay in. If you need help in sickness it should be a given. On the other hand should we just treat the employed and allow the retired and the unemployed to suffer and die.

I take it you have no vices gordie.

[tamborine]

Our taxes paid for medic training, hospitals & everything the Gov supply. How dare they select who is worthy of treatment.

[woofgang]

its one of those things that to some sounds fine in principle, in practice not so easy. how long do they have to have stopped for? what will you do if they start again post op? are they allowed to vape? chew tobacco? take snuff?
similarly with the obese, who is going to decide who has made enough effort and who hasnt?
we are heading back to the concept of the "deserving poor" here, only this this time it will be the "deserving sick"
i say again that clinical decisions should only be based on research evidence supported clinical evidence and that those decisions should be around the risk to the patient.

[woofgang]

ps i am not a smoker and have private health insurance so no vested interest

[ladyalex]

Agree with woofgang.

(Also a non-smoker)

[jno]

smokers contribute to the NHS like everyone else. If they don't get treatment when they need it like everyone else, they should demand their money back. See how well the NHS does when smokers are no longer paying in.

[ChillDoubt]

What Buenchico said.

Graham-W,
By all means, go private. It'll mean you won't be a bed blocker on the NHS and a surgeon will welcome you privately with open arms, it'll all help towards their retirement fund. Clogged arteries, enucleation of eye, fem-pop bypass, amputations, they'll be rolling in it.
Lots of diabetics are a normal, healthy size so can't really be blamed.
Food, regardless of calorific content is a necessity.
Tobacco is not.

[Sqad]

This is a non-story.

Please note the words....NON Urgent.

It has been policy in many vascular units in the UK, since 1980 when Dr Colin Bray (now retired) of Manchester Royal Infirmary caused an uproar in the the national press by refusing to refer patients for coronary bypass surgery.

This is the policy: if you have acute blockage in any major artery, heart or legs then smoker OR NON smoker you will be operated upon.

If you have symptoms of a reduced blood supply then if you are a smoker, then lifestyle changes "may" be suggested initial, because smokers have bad operative results. If you are a non smoker you "may" or may not be offered an operation.....case by case selection.

So smokers may need to wait for the "emergency" before operation and smokers may not. Smokers may well end up with amputation of limbs far more often than non smokers, even after operation.

This mainly only applies to "blood vessel surgery.".....not other types.

[Sqad]

\\\So smokers may need to wait for the "emergency" before operation and smokers may not\\\

Sorry...."NON smokers " may not.

[ladyalex]

Thanks for clearing that up sqad.
Glad the NHS is still working on the basis of evidence.

[EDDIE51]

Graham-W comes up with the old excuse that smokers pay more in tax than they get in health care cost when the exact opposite is true. Smokers cost far more in extra health care than they pay in tax, so we non smokers are subsidising the smokers.

[EDDIE51]

^^ Been Googling and find that though smokers cost more in health care costs age for age than non smokers we get something back in benefits/pensions as they live on average 7.8 years LESS than non smokers so claim pension and retirement benefits for fewer years.

[EDDIE51]

Here you go , total raised by tobacco tax £10 billion per year, total cost to the NHS of treating smoking related illness £13.75 billion or 6.5p per cigarette.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7463690/Every-cigarette-smoked-costs-taxpayer-6.5p-think-tank-warns.html