Surgeons Refuse to Operate on Smokers

[kopilo]

A decision by a group of Australian surgeons to deny smokers the right to go under the knife has sparked a growing debate over medical ethics.

source.

Fed up with patients who won't quit tobacco, a Northern Ontario surgeon is refusing to operate on smokers — even if it could save their lives.

*EDIT* Bad linkage, here is the real link: http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com/buttout.htm

 

[KarateCowboy]

source.

source.

All i have to say is that it amazes me how everything these days is turning into a 'right'. The other day on tv I heard some guy ranting about his 'right to be entertained'.

 

[kopilo]

All i have to say is that it amazes me how everything these days is turning into a 'right'. The other day on tv I heard some guy ranting about his 'right to be entertained'.

I just thought the ethical delimia was with deciding who recieves medical attention first. However I do see your point.

 

[fillerbunny]

I'm not familiar with the rights and legalities regarding this issue in the countries specified. While I think it's wonderful that they're attempting to cut down on smoking, I don't think the denial of medical care is an appropriate means of doing so.

"Why should taxpayers pay for it?" Irving told the newspaper. "It is consuming
resources for someone who is contributing to their own demise."

If they don't wish to 'consume resources' for those who may be 'contributing to their own demise', why should taxpayers be funding the care of overeaters, persons with unhealthy diets, poor drivers, extreme sports enthusiasts, the promiscuous, people who drink excessively, persons in dangerous professions, drug users, workaholics, those with eating disorders, gang members, people with sedentary lifestyles, tanning enthusiasts, etc.?

If you eliminated everyone engaging in an activity that could potentially 'contribute to their own demise'.. methinks they wouldn't have many patients left.

Smokers pay taxes, too- and they're helping foot the bill for the care of the aforementioned. Why should they alone be singled out and refused care?

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

I hope they are also refusing alcoholics, crack addicts, marijuana smokers, heroine users, etc.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I just thought the ethical delimia was with deciding who recieves medical attention first. However I do see your point.

You're right if you mean that medicine requires shrewd morality. People's lives are at stake.

 

[LienShen]

Smokers pay taxes, too- and they're helping foot the bill for the care of the aforementioned. Why should they alone be singled out and refused care?

Helping, but in equal amounts as everyone else. And causing taxes to go up and more money being spent on healthcare because they neglect their health.

I think there should be a survey given at the hospital and be available to life insurance and health insurance providers that document specific high-risk behaviours, so that those people are taxed at a higher rate. That includes over-eating, smoking, drugs, drinking, promiscuious sex, dangerous jobs, etc. Anything high risk, should be noted and people should have a rate increase. It costs the healthcare system, private or public a lot more money to treat these people than it does the average person. Since all that behaviour is avoidable and preventable, they should have to pay for not being smart enough to take care of themselves.

Frankly, I am appauled that there are still people who smoke. I smoked for ten years when I was younger but quit when I realized the impact it had on my health. With the wealth of information that is out there clearly stating the dangers of smoking, and the fact that cigarette prices are through the roof... you would think that people with an IQ of something more than a pea would quit. And before anyone calls me on my lack of compassion for the smoker, you couldn't be more wrong. I am compassionate about the smoker, they need to quit, and I've helped a lot of friends do just that. But there are people who are willfully ignorant about it, despite all the available information...

I understand where the doctors are coming from. The governments are doing too little to try and stamp out the problem because of the revenue it provides. So they ignore the problem. I would be frustrated too.

 

[fillerbunny]

How would you ascertain that people aren't going to lie, though? I mean, it's not like the government's really going to be able to verify whether or not you're sleeping around, drinking excessively, spending too much time lounging around on the couch in front of the TV, eating an unbalanced diet, or engaging in the majority of risky behaviors out there..

Furthermore, even if it were possible.. would you honestly want to grant the government the power and authority to involve itself in such intimate details of its citizens' lives? Is it really worth any money that could potentially be saved?

 

[LienShen]

How would you ascertain that people aren't going to lie, though? I mean, it's not like the government's really going to be able to verify whether or not you're sleeping around, drinking excessively, spending too much time lounging around on the couch in front of the TV, eating an unbalanced diet, or engaging in the majority of risky behaviors out there..

Furthermore, even if it were possible.. would you honestly want to grant the government the power and authority to involve itself in such intimate details of its citizens' lives? Is it really worth any money that could potentially be saved?

Easy. Blood tests and medical exams. You really can't hide poor eating habits, or drinking excessively, or smoking, and if you get an STD more than once... you probably aren't being careful enough. Broken bones etc.

And they wouldn't have to publish the reasons, doctors could just rate a risk factor. Like a 1 out of 10, or 8 out of 10.

It is worth the money that could be saved for the family who can barely feed their children in the morning because they are footing the bill for the overweight, cigar smoking, guy in Vegas who sleeps with many women, does drugs and eats to excess... all because he can afford to.

 

[fillerbunny]

Easy. Blood tests and medical exams. You really can't hide poor eating habits, or drinking excessively, or smoking, and if you get an STD more than once... you probably aren't being careful enough. Broken bones etc.

Forcing the entire populace to undergo a battery of bloodwork and exams is going to cost taxpayers, too.. and I don't know that the risk factors would necessarily be that apparent, particularly in the early stages before significant damage has occurred. How could it be ascertained that abnormal findings were related specifically to a risk factor and not some unrelated condition or disease process? What about those who have acquired STD through rape, assault, or non-sexual means? How many broken bones is "too many"? How often should people be re-tested to confirm that they haven't moved into a new risk category? Taxpayers are footing that bill, too.. as well as the salaries of those keeping tabs on said information and determining how patients ought to be classified.

Personally, I'd rather see that money going to patient care.. instead of attempts to determine which patients are 'most deserving' of said care.

And they wouldn't have to publish the reasons, doctors could just rate a risk factor. Like a 1 out of 10, or 8 out of 10.

But that's pretty subjective. How would we ascertain that one doctor's 3 wouldn't be another's 6? What ramifications would that have for the patients?

It is worth the money that could be saved for the family who can barely feed their children in the morning because they are footing the bill for the overweight, cigar smoking, guy in Vegas who sleeps with many women, does drugs and eats to excess... all because he can afford to.

Now that family's just footing the bill for loads of unnecessary and time-consuming tests instead. And if they've got risk factors themselves (certainly such things are far from being limited to those in high income brackets), they may wind up being taxed higher for their own family's medical care as well.

It's just not an idea I'm comfortable with.. I think there are far better- and less intrusive- ways of encouraging the public to live healthier lifestyles.

 

[Asimov]

So make the smokers pay for the surgery themselves....duh.

 

[LienShen]

It's just not an idea I'm comfortable with.. I think there are far better- and less intrusive- ways of encouraging the public to live healthier lifestyles.

Oh sure, I think that education is way more important. And I think that too little of it is done.

But... people are generally ignorant. And they have a "right" to abuse their body any way they see fit as long as it isn't harming anyone else...

But it is harming others. It's taking food off the table of people who are responsible adults, and who do take care of their bodies. We penalize everyone for the ignorant and selfish behaviours of the few. Help is out there for ALL of these issues, and yet some people just refuse because they don't see their behaviour as a problem.

I also think that people who needlessly drive huge gas-guzzling SUV's, and people who don't recycle and don't care about anything outside their four walls is equally selfish. I don't expect people to live by my rules (they are hard to live by.. but I drive a hybrid, eat vegan, don't smoke, rarely drink and don't touch drugs) but I can still make an example of myself and hope that people will become aware and mindful of the world and people around them.

We are all in this together, and that means doing as little harm to each other as possible. Being socially, enviromentally and globally conscious of the many problems in the world goes a really long way.

But you can't force compassion, and you can't force tolerance and understanding. It has never really worked.

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

Are they going to stop surgeons who smoke from operating too?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Regardless of the legal implications this behavior strikes me as going against the Hippocratic oath. Sure there might be an issue with where taxes are going, but as a medical professional if you can save a life then you should save the life.

 

[Moros]

They are violating the oath.

 

[UberLutheran]

I think there should be a survey given at the hospital and be available to life insurance and health insurance providers that document specific high-risk behaviours, so that those people are taxed at a higher rate. That includes over-eating, smoking, drugs, drinking, promiscuious sex, dangerous jobs, etc. Anything high risk, should be noted and people should have a rate increase. It costs the healthcare system, private or public a lot more money to treat these people than it does the average person. Since all that behaviour is avoidable and preventable, they should have to pay for not being smart enough to take care of themselves.

UberLutheran
• loves jumping out of airplanes from 13,500 feet
• chases severe thunderstorms and tornadoes
• enjoys making flambé desserts
• thinks bungee jumping is really cool
• has driven at 120 mph and driven from Austin to El Paso in just over six hours and thinks the Interstate speed limit should be increased to 130 mph
• LOVED driving on the German Autobahn
• would probably pay stratospheric health insurance premiums if the insurance companies found out about his hobbies

 

[fillerbunny]

Skydiving.. storm-chasing.. flambe desserts..

UberLutheran, would you happen to have any single female siblings by any chance?

 

[michabo]

They aren't violating the oath, and the snippet in the OP is very deceptive.

It's a simple matter of triage.

If you read the links, they say straight out what is going on. There are a limited number of organs and smokers face a much greater risk of operative problems and complications:

AMA federal president Kerryn Phelps said smokers faced much greater risks
under anesthetic, and more chance of developing postoperative pneumonia. "Resources are being rationed whether we like it or not because there are not
enough health dollars to go around," Phelps said.

They do not offer organ transplants for drug addicts for a similar reason, though some doctors quoted say that it is also a moral issue.

For every organ that comes available, there will be many people who want it. You have to make a decision, and the oath that people are talking about here, says you should give the organ to the people that are most likely able to accept it and survive. That means ruling out people who have voluntarily placed themselves into a high-risk category, including drug addicts and smokers.







The link to the Toronto Sun article is bad, so I can't comment on it. When I searched the Toronto Sun's site, I can't find this quote. I can't help wonder if it is something similar.

 

[Jasminrose]

source.

source.

This particular Dr. is probably just tired of operating on people while knowing that as soon as the patient gets out the hospital they are going to conitinue to do something that hinders healing, and can sometimes prevent healing altogether. I had a surgery once where I was suppossed not even by smokers for a month before surgery, and a month after. They probably wonder what the point is if the patient isn't willing to give up something that could help keep them healed after surgery.

 

[marblehead]

I don't know how it works in Australia, but I pay taxes every time I buy a pack of cigs...that should even things out.