Porkers Refused NHS Treatment Unless...

Is the NHS right to discriminate against fatties?

  • Yes - the fat ******* should lose some weight

    Votes: 57 79.2%
  • No - It's discriminatory and I like the Blairs

    Votes: 5 6.9%
  • WTF are you doing reading the Daily Wail?

    Votes: 10 13.9%

  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .
#1
Patients refused treatment unless they change their lifestyles | Mail Online

Too fat for surgery: Patients refused treatment unless they change their lifestyles


  • NHS refuses 'undeserving' patients vital treatment in move branded 'discriminatory'
  • Hip and knee replacements and even IVF among treatments being 'rationed'
  • Health Service trusts insist restrictions are in people's 'best interests'

By Sophie Borland

The NHS has been accused of rationing vital treatments after refusing to help ‘undeserving’ patients unless they lose weight or quit smoking.

It is denying patients hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery or even IVF unless they agree to make radical changes to their lifestyle.

An investigation has revealed that one in four health trusts in England bars certain operations or procedures for smokers or those deemed too fat.


A fat fucker and a fat doctor

Demands: Patients deemed to be 'undeserving', such as some who are overweight or those who smoke, are being denied NHS treatments unless they change their lifestyles

They include NHS Hertfordshire, which has banned certain patients from any operation requiring a general anaesthetic other than lifesaving surgery on their hearts, brains or to remove cancer.

Instead they are being sent on weight management courses or to ‘stop smoking’ clinics and told to come back only when they lead healthier lives.

MPs and senior doctors last night accused the NHS of ‘withholding treatment’ from anyone whose lifestyle it disapproves of.

However, managers at Health Service trusts insisted that such restrictions are in people’s ‘best interests’.



Douglas Carswell, Tory MP for Clacton, said peoples' diets and whether they chose to smoke are all 'lifestyle choices'

Dr Clare Gerada, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said: ‘It’s becoming the deserving and the undeserving. I think it’s discriminatory and I find it astonishing. The Government should determine what should be applied universally.’

Douglas Carswell, Tory MP for Clacton, said: ‘What people eat, drink or whether they smoke is a lifestyle choice.

‘It’s wrong if it is being management-led. What we can’t have is the state withdrawing treatment because it disapproves of the ways people live. 'They are still tax-paying citizens and they deserve services.

‘My view is that if this is done for clinical reasons then it should be a decision taken by doctors.’

Freedom of Information requests obtained by Pulse, a magazine for GPs, from 91 trusts in England show that 25 have imposed some form of restriction since last April.

In NHS Bedfordshire, anyone with a body mass index above 35 – deemed to be severely obese – is barred from having hip or knee surgery.

This is equivalent to a 5ft 5in woman weighing 15 stone or a 6ft man weighing 18 and a half stone.
Before they are allowed surgery they must lose 10 per cent of their body weight or reduce their BMI to below 35.

NHS North Essex requires patients to lose 5 per cent of their body weight and ensure they keep it off for at least six months.

A total of 11 NHS trusts barred smokers and the obese from hip and knee replacements, while nine denied them IVF.

This includes the Peninsula Health Technology Commissioning Group, covering Cornwall, Devon, Torbay and Plymouth, which bars both men and women from undergoing IVF treatment unless they have been non-smokers for at least six months.

Ben Troke, partner at Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors, warned that the measures could be regarded as discriminating against certain groups in society.


Dr Clare Gerada argued that the NHS move was 'discriminatory'


But those doctors and managers who have drawn up the restrictions insist they are medically justified.
Smokers and the obese are more likely to develop breathing difficulties or suffer heart or kidney problems while under general anaesthetic.

Hip and knee replacements also tend to be less successful in the obese while there is evidence they benefit less from IVF.

However, there are concerns that many trusts are imposing the restrictions only to save money.
Although the NHS’s budget has not been cut, it has been ordered to spend its money more efficiently to save £20billion over the next three years. This will then be ploughed back into care.

Faced with such strict targets, many health trusts have resorted to restricting certain treatments and services.

Dr Nicolas Small, spokesman for NHS Hertfordshire, said: ‘The measures we have introduced in Hertfordshire are for people who need routine surgery only. ‘They do not apply when people need urgent or emergency surgery such as to treat cancer.

'There will also be times when it will be appropriate to offer surgery to a patient without following these measures.’
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#2
From a slightly different perspective. Would you believe that the maximum weight limit for a dental chair is 22 stone, (135KG, IIRC). This is the limit that was set years ago as a Euorpean standard, so manufacturers will not guarantee their chairs over that limit. Although they say over the phone, that the chair is safe enough for anyone who can actually fit in them, just not put it in writing!
Local solution is not to move chairs, meaning having to treat patient in upright position which is shite on dentist's back.
Increasingly, I am getting referrals in for patients who are over the 22 stone as high street dentists don't want to wreck their chairs or backs. As a secondary care professional, I can not turn these patients away yet do not have the facilities to treat them properly without risk. I have the same limit on chair, same type of back!
But what are options for health care professionals, turn these patients away? When in fact they are being classed as vunerable members of society due to their inability to properly care for themselves?
Somebody somewhere is making their dinners and paying for their food!
 
#3
^ And in some extreme cases, feeding the porkers as well. Make chubby get off his or her lardy arse if they want that takeaway, don't fecking spoon feed it to them.


Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE so I should probably be working....
 
#4
Refusing medical treatment because of the patients lifestyle is a dangerous route to go down.

If it is fatties and smokers now then I suppose next will be anyone who drinks alcohol, then anyone who partakes in "risky" sex followed by people who by their own actions put themselves in dangerous situations, motorcyclists, mountain climbers, joggers etc.
 
#5
thing is if your massivly overweight.
anathestic becomes that much harder.
everything becomes that much harder to do for you.
either start making fatties lose weight.
or put nursing staff on a course of bulgarian issue steroids and intensive weight training.
 
#6
their was an orthapedic surgeon who refused to operate on charity parachutists at the weekend.
 
#7
If the chubsters can't be bothered to look after themselves, why do they expect taxpayers to foot the bill for any operations and tie up valuable resources.
 
#8
If the chubsters can't be bothered to look after themselves, why do they expect taxpayers to foot the bill for any operations and tie up valuable resources.
Because there are normally a lot of other factors involved... it isn't just that they can't resist bacon butty or ten for breakfast.

What are your thoughts on anorexics or bulemics?

Motorcyclists? Chartity skydivers? People who take part in sports? STDs?

Why not, 'you play front row rugby and you've got a bad back? Hm, your fault. Change your lifestyle'

Even you Taffnp. Why should I pay for you if you hurt your back lifting a box at work? Didn't you listen to the MH breif? Or you have a car crash, maybe you should have driven differently or bought a better car. Vilifying people to reduce medical help isn't really the answer.

Elective ceasarians?

That said.

Perhaps if more were done to alter these peoples lifestyles earlier on, before they needed various surgeries we wouldn't have to do the surgeries in the first place!!!

With our urban sprawl and booming population it is hardly surprising that kids are being innoculated against sport from an early age... now couple in H&S, or fear of the peado 'up the street' and what do you get? And they think the Olympics will turn this around.
 
#9
I would allow doctors to refuse treatment to anybody they don't like the look of, what Britain needs is a better class of sick people.
 
#10
I cannot see, in all good faith, how it is fair to compare somebody who becomes injured through pursuing a sport (which as a whole, is a healthy lifestyle choice) and somebody who cannot put down the box of chocolate, or skip the odd night down the pub.

It smacks of someone attempting to put a spin on what is essentially a sensible directive. If it unsafe to perform an operation due to the weight of a patient, or risks could be lowered, the medical services should be able to make that decision based upon their experiences as trained medical professionals.

Maybe I'm being blind to something, but asking to see a bit of willpower and commitment to personal well-being from tubsters doesn't seem a big ask.
 
#11
I cannot see, in all good faith, how it is fair to compare somebody who becomes injured through pursuing a sport (which as a whole, is a healthy lifestyle choice) and somebody who cannot put down the box of chocolate, or skip the odd night down the pub.

It smacks of someone attempting to put a spin on what is essentially a sensible directive. If it unsafe to perform an operation due to the weight of a patient, or risks could be lowered, the medical services should be able to make that decision based upon their experiences as trained medical professionals.

Maybe I'm being blind to something, but asking to see a bit of willpower and commitment to personal well-being from tubsters doesn't seem a big ask.
f there is a medical reason for not carrying out a procedure then fair enough.

However, what is the difference between a person who cannot skip the odd night down at the pub or craves the endorphins given off from eating and someone who likes a good game of rugger*?

It's a contact sport... why don't they play tennis? Much safer. Or the ycould have a 30 man yoga session.

willpower and commitment to personal well being? What about smokers, druggies, those who may not be fat but eat junk food, those who drive too much, can't get pregnant, don't want to go through labour (I suppose that could be both types!!), work place injuries, cyclists who are run over, etc.

Where do you actually draw the line? And once it is drawn does it stay there?

Next time we need to save money to we just move the line abit to cover other maladaies?

And is there not a better time to encourage weight loss than when the patient could be in pain and needs an operation? (excluding the aforementioned medical reasons why that persons health could prevent treatment).

*I play prop for my local civvie team and on the Regi team when I'm in one.
 
#12
thing is if your massivly overweight.
anathestic becomes that much harder.
everything becomes that much harder to do for you.
either start making fatties lose weight.
or put nursing staff on a course of bulgarian issue steroids and intensive weight training.
Unless it is emergency surgery, no-one who is morbidly obese should be operated on. If they peg it on the op table whose fault is that? Porkers and smokers are a drop in the ocean in NHS costs compared to health tourism
 
#13
Thing is the porkier you are the greater the risk of you karking it on the operating table among the other factors, also if they lost weight a lot of their medical problems will also disappear. Being a fat fuck is laziness and I even class my missus in that.
 
#14
Close friend of mine was told to lose weight before she could have fertility treatment. She does have a medical condition that causes weight gain that exercise cant' shift. They prescribed her some magic tablets which worked and then she could get treatment. Conditions were get below a certain level and we'll take it further, don't and we won't. I think this is the way to go, why should we fund treatment for 'lifestyle' choices? Should we all get a discount for having good 'lifestyle' choices?
 
#15
Thing is the porkier you are the greater the risk of you karking it on the operating table among the other factors, also if they lost weight a lot of their medical problems will also disappear. Being a fat fuck is laziness and I even class my missus in that.
How many keep fit clubs and similar are available in your area though? I can think of only one in my local area tha tmy frau could get to easily, with a nipper... an dthat is toddler ballet.

If I run around the area I live in, I am playing roulette with roads that are lightless, pavementless and treated like race tracks...

How many running groups are there in areas? Again I know of one in my local area and regularly see them out now (they don't do much thorugh winter). Running in groups of about 8 -12, and they have a big 'hashing' or cross country run once a month that finishes in the pub down the road.

Lots of things that we need to get in, that seem to be the norm in our Scandanivan and European nations. How many schools still have playing fields, or good sized ones, and how many have access to swimming pools etc?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#16
Once they have in place the 'no porkers' rule and it is generally accepted, then the people who put this sort of idea forward will just move on to the next 'freak' group.

We could get to the stage where ex-servicemen are not treated on the NHS if their injury was sustained whilst serving - they are all volunteers after all. So someone injured with issues that will remain with them for the remainder of their life will have to find alternate sources of health care. Do you think the MoD would give lifelong care?

Extreme I know, but what is the difference between a group of anonymous people deciding porkies can't be treated and any other group that they have a grudge against?

IMO this is just another part of conditioning this country towards an NHS which is not free at point of need but to a MediCare type where the size of your wallet determines the care you get.
 
#17
If this story was about medical decisions based on weight or smoking then it would be probably be fair to make those decisions. It is not, it is about saving money and clinical decisions being made by the bean counters. The slippery road to, as has been pointed out, sports injuries being classed as self-inflicted, injuries in car accidents being paid for by the insurance companies (something which is already encroaching) and other medical matters being decided by the holder of the purse.
 
#18
The 18 years I've worked for the NHS has been all about saving money over clinical care. It's dangerous road to go down.
 
#19
How many keep fit clubs and similar are available in your area though? I can think of only one in my local area tha tmy frau could get to easily, with a nipper... an dthat is toddler ballet.

If I run around the area I live in, I am playing roulette with roads that are lightless, pavementless and treated like race tracks...

How many running groups are there in areas? Again I know of one in my local area and regularly see them out now (they don't do much thorugh winter). Running in groups of about 8 -12, and they have a big 'hashing' or cross country run once a month that finishes in the pub down the road.

Lots of things that we need to get in, that seem to be the norm in our Scandanivan and European nations. How many schools still have playing fields, or good sized ones, and how many have access to swimming pools etc?
Why do you need fitness clubs, I live in the middle of no where but still mange to get out on the pushbike, or run even in the middle of winter. It is fuck all to do with facilities and a lot to do with attitude. People need to be told, look after yourself or face the consequences.
 
#20
I cannot see, in all good faith, how it is fair to compare somebody who becomes injured through pursuing a sport (which as a whole, is a healthy lifestyle choice) and somebody who cannot put down the box of chocolate, or skip the odd night down the pub.
...
Yes they are worse, middle aged prats who wreck their knees playing park football or squash, let alone somebody who has put a hunter over a hedge into a hay rick. They are mostly just big kids having fun not some daft monkish health nut who thinks they'll live forever if they eat mung beans and cycle 50 miles a day, good luck to the hedonists but I've really no sympathy when it all goes splat.

Compare this with a working class mother who puts in long hours in a sedentary job and then has to take care of five practically fatherless kids, as hubby never does a hands turn and is always off in the gym staring at his saddo roid fueled pecs. There are folk who simply has no time for narcissistic body maintenance and get a bit porky.

And it is mostly women the nanny state white coats would deny care to. Great, they then go on yet another crash diet which is a pattern of behavior closely related to serious heart disease as is being underweight and female.

This is finally more about class warfare and the middle class prejudices of British medics than public health, but then it is the Daily Mail. Oddly everybody I know who reads it is Orca fat.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top