Should We Pay For..

[ck1]

Following on from the threads about whether taxpayers should fund treatments for overweight people / smokers etc, not sure whether self harm and suicide (unsuccessful) treatments should or had been included in the list of exclusions, or whether they would be OK to treat without question?

[boxtops]

People who do that are usually disturbed and unhappy - I think that should be funded.

[DJHawkes]

if you're going down that road you should include abortion, miscarriage and pregnancy, all could be the end result of free will and the ability to make choices.

[murraymints]

very emotive subject, but i think yes

[Baldric]

Depends if they're overweight smokers or not!

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

Threads like this always make me think of a version of a famous quotation more adapted to a modern life:

First they came for the smokers,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a smoker.
Then they came for the obese,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t fat.
Then they came for the women in childbearing age,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a woman.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

[ummmm]

Of course they should treat them. Self harm/suicide attempts are due to some form of mental illness.

What do you think we should do with them?

[pixie373]

Everyone should be treated. That is the whole point of it.

[yinyang]

Do you then exclude people who need medical treatment from sporting injuries or from from taking part in daft ' stunts ' with their friends that have gone wrong.

I needed stitches aftter self harming once. By that point I had being doing it for five years and was very good at hiding it. I was messed up at the time but I don't think I was any less deserving of treatment than , to use a random example, a teenage boy who tried to skateboard down a flight of stairs and broke his ankle

[ummmm]

And don't forget that anyone above a certain age were bombarded with adverts for cigarettes. TV adverts, every magazine, newspaper, sporting events and billboards....all advertising their brands.

Advertising works...

What about alcoholics? We're still being encouraged to drink through advertising...

[jno]

yep, the NHS is there to treat sick people. No good telling them "It's youw on fault you cut your toe off, you shouldn't have used the lawnmower."

I'm still unsure whether infertility is a sickness in this sense, or plastic surgery beyond repairing burns.

[ummmm]

Infertility or IVF?

[jno]

not sure, ummmm. Infertility of any sort might be a bodily malfunction but is it a sickness that ought to be treated at public expense? Does it kill or cause pain? Or is it just one of those things like breast size or receding hair which might be seen as matters of personal preference?

Tough call, though a potentially expensive one. I don't have an answer.

[ummmm]

I'm on the fence with that one as well.

[pixie373]

I think cosmetic surgery, except with skin grafts for accidents or medical reasons should only be done privately. I don't think "mental distress" is measurable or fair- we could probably all find something about ourselves we don't like.
Infertility is difficult. It isn't life-threatening, but is life-changing. Maybe two attempts per couple- but it shouldn't matter where you live- which it seems to at the moment.

[ummmm]

I think that's the case now with the two attempts.

[joggerjayne]

It's impossible to draw a line to exclude "self inflicted" conditions.

The last time I was treated in hospital, I'd come off my mountain bike and put the edge of the pedal through my shin. It would be easy to suggest that if you ride a bike down a wet and bumpy slope, you know that you might get hurt, so you shouldn't do it and, if you do, don't expect everyone else to pay for sticking your stupid leg back together.

To take that example a bit further, I have an easy choice, to go cycling or not. Obese people and smokers don't have such an easy choice, because they are addicted to food, or cigarettes. They can't help it.

So, if we are going to exclude anyone from treatment, it should be selfish, sports related injuries.

[jno]

I think sports are part of the national life (even if the worst that happens to me is falling asleep duirng the cricket and falling on the floor) and can reasonably be covered by a national health service. I suppose there's a case for excluding dangrous sports, but I wouldn't include mountain biking among them.

[joggerjayne]

Smoking has also been part of our national life, since Elizabethan times ... so rather longer than mountain biking.

Maybe the criteria should be ...

If you do something just for pleasure, and it has no health benefit, and makes no contribution to the national good, then it should not be covered.

Aah, but then ... people who sunbathe, to get a tan ... for their pure, selfish vanity ... if they get skin cancer ... are they excluded?

[pixie373]

We'd all have to be experts then. Some sunbathing, sport, naughty food is all good for you in moderation. Are we safer cycling, than having a sedentary lifestyle and risking a heart attack. I don't think anyone has the perfect lifestyle. We're all human.

[joggerjayne]

Maybe that's what it comes down to, pixie.

We are all human.

We all have our little foibles. Some people smoke. Some people eat unhealthy food. I maybe drink a bit more often than I should. And so on.

But we just need to be a bit tolerant of each other, and not try to exclude anyone from health treatment just because we disapprove of their way of life.

Live and let live??

:0)