People need to realise that if someone became fat as a result of a bad diet given to them by their parents, its not that persons fault is it? Or de we expect kids to be experts on food and nutrition?
Even if they lose the weight as adults, the damage is done. Fat cells would have expanded and once they are expanded, anyone who's fat or ,lost it won't be able to have any naughty but nice food without putting the weight back on straight away, where people who where given good diets and who' stomach muslces developed, they can often push the boundaries for years without any weight gain.
OP please bear that in mind, esp if your in a posiiton of influence on this.
A lot of the arguments here are about people's ignorance of their own health - they don't seem to know about obesity, smoking, alcohol, sexually transmitted diseases. Where are the public health campaigns which we saw through the 80s? Speaking with teenagers today they are really ignorant about safe sexual practices.
It's also a medical fact that many conditions are inherited, at least a predisposition to "get" a certain condition.
Mental health problems are often self-treated with various drugs such as alcohol.
There is no doubt that obesity "runs in families", as well as heart disease and various cancers and so on....
Denying healthcare for the sick is sick. When you look underneath this idea you really see a form of eugenics being preached.
Another programme showed the diabetics who failed to check their sugar levels and to keep hospital appointments.
Once upon a time in my diabetes life, I was labeled "non compliant". Despite my belief that I was following the instructions of my endocrinologist, the fact that I was failing to achieve a certain HbA1C, meant I was not looking after myself, at least in the eyes of my healthcare provider. This did not sit well with me, and fast forward one year, with a new endo and a new course of treatment, I was meeting my goals. More recently I've heard from another type one diabetic that his GP actually recommended he only test when he felt ill and from another who was inexplicably sent for a fasting glucose test and instructed to skip his injections, which is, of course, complete madness.
I guess this is my long-winded way ( ) of saying that as long I am potentially at the mercy of endos who don't listen and GPs who may not fully appreciate the differences between type one and type two diabetes, I'd rather keep the system as it is, thank you.
(Plus, along with what others have already said, this just seems to go against the spirit of the NHS and also appears to lack compassion)
Once upon a time in my diabetes life, I was labeled "non compliant".
"Noncompliance" with healthcare regimes, particularly medication, is very common and extensively documented.
The reasons can be those you have posted, and often they are due to just how bloomin' complicated the regimes can be especially for those with multiple conditions.
It would obviously be unfair to penalise people for failing to understand and/or remember.
"Noncompliance" with healthcare regimes, particularly medication, is very common and extensively documented.
The reasons can be those you have posted, and often they are due to just how bloomin' complicated the regimes can be especially for those with multiple conditions.
It would obviously be unfair to penalise people for failing to understand and/or remember.
To play devil's advocate - do these people not follow regimes / get obese / drink excessively etc. because the NHS is there to "catch them"?
Yes of course, people want to be ill so they can be treated.
It's called Munchausen's syndrome I believe. Quite rare though, and, yes, it needs treatment.
On a more serious note, I'm certain my OH is not alone in not being able to fit her treatment regime around her working life. it's yet another reaqson why NHS resources get wasted. We need different/longer hours at our GP surgery principally. OH is utterly against any form of reduction in sevices avaialble to any person for any reason, you'll be glad to know, cos she's one of the ones that might be forced to make the decision about it.
To play devil's advocate - do these people not follow regimes / get obese / drink excessively etc. because the NHS is there to "catch them"?
No, in many cases people don't even realise they're being noncompliant for reasons such as disagreement among health professionals as illustrated by epicurian, or because their regime of several meds, plus phrophylaxis (often to counteract the side effects of the meds regime), plus all the other advice from diet (and not necessarily overeating and drinking) to specific exercises to staying out of direct sunlight is just so difficult to remember.
Just where do you draw the line and say "Right, no more health care for you"?
Yes of course, people want to be ill so they can be treated.
That's not what I mean (Munchausen's Syndrome) - it's not such a problem getting ill becaus ethe NHS will be there to "save" you - on a conscious or subconscious level
No, in many cases people don't even realise they're being noncompliant for reasons such as disagreement among health professionals as illustrated by epicurian, or because their regime of several meds, plus phrophylaxis (often to counteract the side effects of the meds regime), plus all the other advice from diet (and not necessarily overeating and drinking) to specific exercises to staying out of direct sunlight is just so difficult to remember.
Just where do you draw the line and say "Right, no more health care for you"?
That's the problem!
If you follow all of the advice you die of boredom
Well, if you are referring to, for example, smokers? Yes, absolutely, given that they pay more into the NHS, through tobacco duties, than it costs to treat smoking related-ilnesses or diseases. Not to mention the other taxes they pay
Just think if all smokers stopped smoking tomorrow, what would that mean for the rest of us? Higher taxes. Guaranteed! Not to mention any such move being authoritarian
I recall my CLP debating the very same evening, the proposed 90-days detention of terror suspects and the smoking ban. The more middle-class liberal 'tender' types tended to take the view that the former went too far, and the latter, not fair enough. The more working class populist 'tough' types (me included) tended to take the opposite view, with me thundering: "Smoking is Healthier Than Fascism"
I can't be doing with any of that airy fairy, namby pamby nonsense when it comes to such issues as terrorism
I recall my CLP debating the very same evening, the proposed 90-days detention of terror suspects and the smoking ban. The more middle-class liberal 'tender' types tended to take the view that the former went too far, and the latter, not fair enough. The more working class populist 'tough' types (me included) tended to take the opposite view, with me thundering: "Smoking is Healthier Than Fascism"
How strange, from everyone I talked to, it seemed to be smokers who didn't want a ban, while non-smokers did.
It's called Munchausen's syndrome I believe. Quite rare though, and, yes, it needs treatment.
On a more serious note, I'm certain my OH is not alone in not being able to fit her treatment regime around her working life. it's yet another reaqson why NHS resources get wasted. We need different/longer hours at our GP surgery principally. OH is utterly against any form of reduction in sevices avaialble to any person for any reason, you'll be glad to know, cos she's one of the ones that might be forced to make the decision about it.
Agreed. We need more GPs too. I don't know how many surgery visits I've been so obviously rushed through and it's making me wonder if more people would be "compliant" if they felt they felt better supported.
"Noncompliance" with healthcare regimes, particularly medication, is very common and extensively documented.
The reasons can be those you have posted, and often they are due to just how bloomin' complicated the regimes can be especially for those with multiple conditions.
It would obviously be unfair to penalise people for failing to understand and/or remember.
I had no idea "noncompliance" was so commonplace. I guess that'll be a lot of people left out in the cold through no fault of their own. Scary to think how under this plan, so much could rest upon one number spat out of a laboratory if that number ends up in the hands of the wrong doctor. :cool:
I had no idea "noncompliance" was so commonplace. I guess that'll be a lot of people left out in the cold through no fault of their own. Scary to think how under this plan, so much could rest upon one number spat out of a laboratory if that number ends up in the hands of the wrong doctor. :cool:
Oh, it's very common when you consider it includes such things as not finishing the whole course of antibiotics and not believing that the antidepressants will do any good for your bad back so not bothering to get the prescription filled. They all get labelled "noncompliance".
What should happen with the NHS is if someone committs a crime which causes an injury to themselves or others. they should as part of their conviction reinburse the NHS for the cost of such treatment.
What should happen with the NHS is if someone committs a crime which causes an injury to themselves or others. they should as part of their conviction reinburse the NHS for the cost of such treatment.
While I agree in principle it won't work because of the costs - one dose of Factor VII which is really good to stop bleeding (stab wounds etsc) is about £7,000 a dose - big bleeds can use 10-12 of these. And that's just the one drug v- then you've got everything else to put on top of that
While I agree in principle it won't work because of the costs - one dose of Factor VII which is really good to stop bleeding (stab wounds etsc) is about £7,000 a dose - big bleeds can use 10-12 of these. And that's just the one drug v- then you've got everything else to put on top of that
if the person cant afford it make it a debt and have a proportion of their income docked until that debt is paid.
I think it is fundamentally wrong that the state often has to pick up the cost of crime if people where made fully responcible for the crimes they commit they would think twice about committing it. Say they had to pay the NHS
£21 000 for running someone over driving dangerously that would be punitive enough deterrrant and also insured that the NHS recieved some reinbursement for their costs.
Once upon a time in my diabetes life, I was labeled "non compliant". Despite my belief that I was following the instructions of my endocrinologist, the fact that I was failing to achieve a certain HbA1C, meant I was not looking after myself, at least in the eyes of my healthcare provider. This did not sit well with me, and fast forward one year, with a new endo and a new course of treatment, I was meeting my goals. More recently I've heard from another type one diabetic that his GP actually recommended he only test when he felt ill and from another who was inexplicably sent for a fasting glucose test and instructed to skip his injections, which is, of course, complete madness.
I guess this is my long-winded way ( ) of saying that as long I am potentially at the mercy of endos who don't listen and GPs who may not fully appreciate the differences between type one and type two diabetes, I'd rather keep the system as it is, thank you.
(Plus, along with what others have already said, this just seems to go against the spirit of the NHS and also appears to lack compassion)
It's sad that we have to wait until Post number 29 before someone uses the word compassion.
The only basis on which healthcare should be rationed is clinical need. Yes if someone is damaging their own health they should be educated to the risks - but we shouldn't be taking decisions about healthcare based on how compliant someone is - not everyone is able or willing to do the right thing and I certainly wouldn't want to be making the decision about who was sufficiently deserving of care.
It's sad that we have to wait until Post number 29 before someone uses the word compassion.
The only basis on which healthcare should be rationed is clinical need. Yes if someone is damaging their own health they should be educated to the risks - but we shouldn't be taking decisions about healthcare based on how compliant someone is - not everyone is able or willing to do the right thing and I certainly wouldn't want to be making the decision about who was sufficiently deserving of care.
Well, you're right. Compassion is where it begins and ends really. There's no room for this begrudging, greedy, elitist attitude when it comes to providing healthcare.
Comments
Even if they lose the weight as adults, the damage is done. Fat cells would have expanded and once they are expanded, anyone who's fat or ,lost it won't be able to have any naughty but nice food without putting the weight back on straight away, where people who where given good diets and who' stomach muslces developed, they can often push the boundaries for years without any weight gain.
OP please bear that in mind, esp if your in a posiiton of influence on this.
It's also a medical fact that many conditions are inherited, at least a predisposition to "get" a certain condition.
Mental health problems are often self-treated with various drugs such as alcohol.
There is no doubt that obesity "runs in families", as well as heart disease and various cancers and so on....
Denying healthcare for the sick is sick. When you look underneath this idea you really see a form of eugenics being preached.
Once upon a time in my diabetes life, I was labeled "non compliant". Despite my belief that I was following the instructions of my endocrinologist, the fact that I was failing to achieve a certain HbA1C, meant I was not looking after myself, at least in the eyes of my healthcare provider. This did not sit well with me, and fast forward one year, with a new endo and a new course of treatment, I was meeting my goals. More recently I've heard from another type one diabetic that his GP actually recommended he only test when he felt ill and from another who was inexplicably sent for a fasting glucose test and instructed to skip his injections, which is, of course, complete madness.
I guess this is my long-winded way (
(Plus, along with what others have already said, this just seems to go against the spirit of the NHS and also appears to lack compassion)
"Noncompliance" with healthcare regimes, particularly medication, is very common and extensively documented.
The reasons can be those you have posted, and often they are due to just how bloomin' complicated the regimes can be especially for those with multiple conditions.
It would obviously be unfair to penalise people for failing to understand and/or remember.
To play devil's advocate - do these people not follow regimes / get obese / drink excessively etc. because the NHS is there to "catch them"?
Yes of course, people want to be ill so they can be treated.
On a more serious note, I'm certain my OH is not alone in not being able to fit her treatment regime around her working life. it's yet another reaqson why NHS resources get wasted. We need different/longer hours at our GP surgery principally. OH is utterly against any form of reduction in sevices avaialble to any person for any reason, you'll be glad to know, cos she's one of the ones that might be forced to make the decision about it.
No, in many cases people don't even realise they're being noncompliant for reasons such as disagreement among health professionals as illustrated by epicurian, or because their regime of several meds, plus phrophylaxis (often to counteract the side effects of the meds regime), plus all the other advice from diet (and not necessarily overeating and drinking) to specific exercises to staying out of direct sunlight is just so difficult to remember.
Just where do you draw the line and say "Right, no more health care for you"?
That's not what I mean (Munchausen's Syndrome) - it's not such a problem getting ill becaus ethe NHS will be there to "save" you - on a conscious or subconscious level
That's the problem!
If you follow all of the advice you die of boredom
In the case of the latter two options I doubt much thought enters the equation.
and when they do - do you get a reduction in your income tax as you will no longer be receiving a service you paid for?
Just think if all smokers stopped smoking tomorrow, what would that mean for the rest of us? Higher taxes. Guaranteed! Not to mention any such move being authoritarian
I recall my CLP debating the very same evening, the proposed 90-days detention of terror suspects and the smoking ban. The more middle-class liberal 'tender' types tended to take the view that the former went too far, and the latter, not fair enough. The more working class populist 'tough' types (me included) tended to take the opposite view, with me thundering: "Smoking is Healthier Than Fascism"
I can't be doing with any of that airy fairy, namby pamby nonsense when it comes to such issues as terrorism
How strange, from everyone I talked to, it seemed to be smokers who didn't want a ban, while non-smokers did.
it didn't seem to be split any which way.
Agreed. We need more GPs too. I don't know how many surgery visits I've been so obviously rushed through and it's making me wonder if more people would be "compliant" if they felt they felt better supported.
I had no idea "noncompliance" was so commonplace. I guess that'll be a lot of people left out in the cold through no fault of their own. Scary to think how under this plan, so much could rest upon one number spat out of a laboratory if that number ends up in the hands of the wrong doctor. :cool:
Oh, it's very common when you consider it includes such things as not finishing the whole course of antibiotics and not believing that the antidepressants will do any good for your bad back so not bothering to get the prescription filled. They all get labelled "noncompliance".
While I agree in principle it won't work because of the costs - one dose of Factor VII which is really good to stop bleeding (stab wounds etsc) is about £7,000 a dose - big bleeds can use 10-12 of these. And that's just the one drug v- then you've got everything else to put on top of that
if the person cant afford it make it a debt and have a proportion of their income docked until that debt is paid.
But then yes, you'd have to demarcate a whole list around 'extreme sports' and all the rest of it.
Blimey, it seems so morally easy, but practically so hard to execute not least what it would require in admin/bureacracy etc swallowing up costs.
I'd be happy with that!
At least pay something back
I think it is fundamentally wrong that the state often has to pick up the cost of crime if people where made fully responcible for the crimes they commit they would think twice about committing it. Say they had to pay the NHS
£21 000 for running someone over driving dangerously that would be punitive enough deterrrant and also insured that the NHS recieved some reinbursement for their costs.
It's sad that we have to wait until Post number 29 before someone uses the word compassion.
The only basis on which healthcare should be rationed is clinical need. Yes if someone is damaging their own health they should be educated to the risks - but we shouldn't be taking decisions about healthcare based on how compliant someone is - not everyone is able or willing to do the right thing and I certainly wouldn't want to be making the decision about who was sufficiently deserving of care.
Well, you're right. Compassion is where it begins and ends really. There's no room for this begrudging, greedy, elitist attitude when it comes to providing healthcare.