Sunday, January 27, 2008

Doctors Urge NHS Not to Treat the Promiscuous

















In a stunning development, doctors responding to a questionnaire have urged that promiscuous people be denied certain treatments based on their unhealthy lifestyles. From the story:

Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who lead irresponsible and unhealthy sexual lives. Those who have sex with too many people should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

I agree, it is absolutely outrageous. But to get your attention, I lied about the proposed targets. It isn't the promiscuous who doctors in the survey want to punish--whose behaviour is at least as dangerous as that of smokers, at least in the short term--but others with unhealthy lifestyles or too many years under their belts. Here is how the story actually reads:

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide ding free care to everyone.

If we are to punish lifestyles in health care, we should not just pick on those without political power such as smokers and the obese, or people who are deemed "style crimes," a wonderfully evocative term that I stole from Secondhand Smokette. But my real message is: Doctors should not be mutated into some kind of lifestyle police force. Their jobs are to treat patients as they find them, not judge why they are sick nor withhold proper care if they don't approve.

Labels:

9 Comments:

At January 28, 2008 , Blogger Ricardo said...

This is one of the most pathetic things i've ever read... soon british call girls will be without basic health care... Is this not perfid Society Eugenics at work?
British NHS be damned.... If the governmnet cant provide free health care.. a fundamental basic need... what the hell are governments for??? Stealing our money and rights?

Prepare the boats... we invade England at dawn!!! 8)

P.S. Wesley This documentary provides some good reasoning behind the British HS debacle... perhaps by knowing the cause... one could arrive at the cure? http://ewn.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_(television_documentary_series)

 
At January 28, 2008 , Blogger Mort Corey said...

The bottom line of all this IS the bottom line. Though health care may be a fundamental need of sorts, it is not (or at least shouldn't be) a fundamental function of government...else you get results such as described (or worse).

Since government tends to do most things poorly, why would anyone want it in charge of their health care?

Mort

 
At January 28, 2008 , Blogger Gray Cat said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At January 28, 2008 , Blogger Ricardo said...

Lol Freedom from Government in medicine? I'd advise you folks to watch the documentary i've just posted the link to above.. should give you guys and gals a "wake up call".. here's a direct link to the film...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3291992041130722257

 
At January 29, 2008 , Blogger michelle6887 said...

I've always said that this type of thing will be the ultimate result in the U.S. if healthcare is nationalized.

I predict mandatory prenatal testing and mandatory abortion of "sub-standard" fetuses under threat of withdrawal of post-natal healthcare coverage of the child.

Oh, it will start with the mandatory abortion of fetuses with the "big" defects; Down Syndrome, heart defects. Then it will morph into abortions of fetuses testing positive for ADHD, depression, adult onset cancer, etc.

Then it will move on to the abortion of fetuses with a "low IQ" gene, and a host of other "defects".

It's gonna get ugly, people. Soon, the only people who won't have to bow to the pressure of aborting their unborn children are those who can afford to take care of them after birth without the free healthcare provided by the government.

Maybe they'll fix that too by mandating that no healthcare can be purchased with private money, only provided by the government. Then I guess we'll have "back alley" healthcare, a la "back alley abortions".

 
At January 29, 2008 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Michelle: There has already been some advocacy for some of the matters about which you worry. This is why we must keep equality of life as the fundamental ethic of society.

 
At January 29, 2008 , Blogger FullMentalJackpot said...

Um this is the price you pay when you nationalize health-care. I don't understand the reasoning behind people that think that the government should provide health-care assuming they will do it right when the don't do anything else right. People use the words "free" health-care, but it's not free. The price will skyrocket and we will begin to have health-care rationing and we will begin to have to wait months for MRIs or just basic diagnostics because of the intense surge of patients who have nothing wrong with them but are getting something for free so they flood the system. Obviously it's not free as the invisible costs soon become evident when your waiting years for a prosthetic joint to walk without pain but your family pet can get the analogous surgery in less then a month - how sick is that ?

Also i as a tax payer should not be punished for smokers , drinkers and high risk life-stylers. Why should i pay for their health-care ? That is why this decision was made. The so-called compassion of the public running the health-care system quickly evaporates. You'll find more evidence in the US public school system for lack of efficiency , and just general contempt for students.

If you want a more reasonable system it must be left in the hands of private market place where competition will drive down the price as long as government is completely excised from the picture. There also needs to be some manner of deductible in this private health care so that individuals realize nothing is free.

 
At January 29, 2008 , Blogger michelle6887 said...

Wesley: Thanks for all you do in defense of life. As sickening as the scenario is that I detailed above, I sadly believe that we're already in a de-facto state of mandated abortions in this country. When the birth of a baby with Down Syndrome is announced, the first thing people whisper to each other is "didn't they know this while she was pregnant?", implying that any reasonable person would not allow such a child to be born. Indeed, this social stigma seems to be working, with fully 9 out of 10 babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome aborted.

So, social pressures have already begun to desensitize us to the abortion of fetuses deemed less-than-perfect.

However, I AM interested to see what happens when the gene for homosexuality is identified and a prenatal test is developed. What WILL the GLBTG groups DO when women start aborting children for being anything other than heterosexual? I guess they'll have to choose between their two favorite causes; gay rights and abortion rights. Should be VERY interesting. So far, NOW and other women's rights organizations have been generally silent on gender selection abortions. My guess is that ultimately, they will shamelessly and unapologetically advocate that ONLY gay babies be protected against abortion. Abortion will just be added to the long list of "hate crimes", while you sickeningly will still be able to abort because you "want to stay in school".

 
At January 29, 2008 , Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

I suppose the elderly and others who are denied care have all taxes they payed into NHS over the years returned to them.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home