Having surgery on the NHS then deliberatley going against medical advice and undoing the work thats been done
- Forums
- Debates
- Having surgery on the NHS then deliberatley going against medical advice and undoing the work thats been done
18/8/08 00:21
17/8/08 20:54
No. For me, it wouldn't be a <i> National </i> Health Service if this were the case.
17/8/08 19:44
The NHS is there to provide free health care to all. Even idiots sadly.
17/8/08 19:37
depends on the situation i think, there doesnt appear to me a right or wrong because people who have posted to this have given examples of things where tbh its perfectly rational and reasonable.
17/8/08 19:32
pregnancy alone can cause prolapes so a operative delivery would not make any difference
17/8/08 19:30
it depends how bad the prolapes is. if it is hanging out then it will need treating regardless of future children. when it come to prolapes there is a range of treatments surgry is only one. having children may undue the surgry or it may not. if that lady wants more children but needs this then that is up to her it is her body
17/8/08 18:38
Depends what other help they have been given.... if an alcoholic needs a liver transplant, they need a liver transplant, if they are not given the correct help to beat the addiction they will undo any work thats been fixed. You can't reallyblame someone for going down this route if they haven't also received all the other support needed to fix the problem rather than the cause.
Ideally, its wrong and ungrateful. Realistically, well, I shudder at the thought of the NHS refusing to repair damage.
Although I do know a couple of alcoholics (via working in a pub, not personally!) who would see a liver transplant as a fresh start, and so carry on as before. Which is tragic.
17/8/08 18:14
i agree that people going totally against medical advice after an op on the nhs should have to pay for surgery to correct nything that as gone wrong-if it's their own fault-such as b***'s example.it's a tough one with smokers-when my nan was in hospital a lady was in there and she had cancer-a result of her smoking.she was going out for ciggarettes whilst in hosptial desite having a leg amputated.she ended up going back for her other leg amputated aswell as other treatments and continued to smoke throughout which imo was very selfish and causing uneccessary costs for the nhs.
17/8/08 18:03
BlueArmy, I'd say that's a slightly different scenario, as it is something out of your control. My mum's neighbour had surgery on his knee, and completely disregarded the Docs advice not to drive, which resulted in him going back and ranting at the Consultant that the op hadn't been done properly, and him being operated on again, and effectively jumping the queue.
17/8/08 16:01
hmmm i dont know tbh.
my consultant told me theres a good chance of developing another ovarian cyst if i have another child. apparently they are quite common in women who have had children and ive had 2 cysts so far. one before children and one that developed not long after cade was born.
we decided to take a risk though as we wanted another child. if i do develop another cyst would that be my fault?
17/8/08 15:50
BW - you say you don't think people set out to sabotage their own health. But what about smokers? OK, not every smoker will get ill, but the fact remains that 50% of smokers die prematurely of a smoking related illness - so someone who starts smoking KNOWING that it is bad for health is either sabotaging their own health or deliberately risking doing so.
I agree that healthcare should either be free, or not. BUT its just not that simple - to provide every possible element of healthcare absolutely free to everyone in the UK, would cost more in taxes than we would be able to bear. Decisions have to be made about the cost/benefits of certain treatments, and if someone deliberately ignores medical advice and gets sick as a result then I can understand the frustration that the NHS is expected to foot the bill again.
17/8/08 14:14
mutha, you can be fined for calling an ambulance for a non-emergency.
17/8/08 13:59
yes, if they totally go against the Doctor's advice, they should fund any further surgery themselves.
17/8/08 13:43
i think that there should be some restrictions. really p***es me off when some people get liver transplants and then start drinking again or people who have had lung cancer got through it and then start smoking again!
if people have free treatment for something and then reverse that by doing things which they know will effect it (normally the same reason they had to have treatment in the first place!!) is damn right selfish the nhs only has so much money its not a bottomless pit and by re-doing surgery on selfish people its stopping others getting what they need iykwim. i dont mean people who live in rough area's etc so are likely to be stabbed a couple of times etc though
17/8/08 13:21
Personally i think the NHS should be free regardless of going against advice. Its not fair to set restrictions based on someones lifestyle as where would it stop? no free care for smokers? drinkers? the overweight? those living in poor areas where violent crime is higher, its either free or its not.
17/8/08 09:08
I dont feel comfortable with the idea of free health care with provisios. Its either free or its not. There are too many grey areas when it comes to deeming worthiness or taking responsibility. I think people should not disrespect their free healthcare and do everything to go against it in a flippant way but where do you draw the line?
The fact that research shows a vast majority of cancers are preventable by lifestyle choices, does that count too? What about knee problems that arise from skiing, which is non-compulsory? In a similar way all involve making a choice that increases your risk of needing NHS help in the future. Should the NHS focus on black and white cases like the prolapse example, or pull out all examples where the patient influenced it?
And then when you look at alcoholism or obesity, which are more complex problems for some sufferers, and a disease in their own right, but could be viewed also as simple lifestyle choices - its too complicated.
Free healthcare is just that. I dont think people really set out to sabotage their own health in the majority of cases. Generally, I think the NHS should provide a level of care on an individula basis for each patient and only under extreme circumstances should a patient be refused treatment for a setback. More extreme than this.
17/8/08 08:34
or when people ring an ambulance for non emergencies - (i've heard someone phoned for ambulance for her mother's antibiotics for a uti).
16/8/08 23:06
alcoholics having a liver transplant then drinking again ....
would like to see the nhs beign able to charge people for certain treatments liek stomach pumping when a patient has had too much to drink, or when someone has been shot and they themselves are involved in gangs they know the risks so why treat them. but that is not what the nhs is about so unless we completely change the health care system (which i think we need to do) i do nto think people should only have one shot
i had drink too so rambling a little
16/8/08 23:05
*sorry, I mis-read the OP. I thought you were saying she shouldn't get pregnant - didn't realise you were talking about someone refusing a c-section after prolapse repair*
16/8/08 23:03
Um... I'm not sure. If I had a prolapsed uterus now I wouldn't want it ignored just because I want more children in the future. THat's like saying that because someone has had a c-section in the past they shouldn't get pregnant again because they have a higher chance of having to have a c-section in the future, which would cost the NHS more than a VBAC.
the nhs is not free, it is paid for with NIC,
and untill there is a choice eithr NHS or private people should be able to use the nhs anytime