VaKo Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...d=1770&ct=5 A man with a broken ankle is facing a lifetime of pain because a Health Service hospital has refused to treat him unless he gives up smoking. John Nuttall, 57, needs surgery to set the ankle which he broke in three places two years ago because it did not mend naturally with a plaster cast. Doctors at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro have refused to operate because they say his heavy smoking would reduce the chance of healing, and there is a risk of complications which could lead to amputation. They have told him they will treat him only if he gives up smoking. But the former builder has been unable to break his habit and is now resigned to coping with the injury as he cannot afford private treatment. He is in constant pain from the grating of the broken bones against each other and has been prescribed daily doses of morphine. Mr Nuttall, of Newlyn, Cornwall, broke the ankle in a fall in 2005. Initially he refused surgery because he had caught MRSA at a different hospital four years earlier, and was terrified of history repeating itself. He hoped the fractured bones would knit together with a standard plaster cast to immobilise his ankle. But six months and three plaster casts later, it became clear that an operation to pin the bones was the only solution. However, the hospital told Mr Nuttall, who no longer works because of smoking-related chest problems, that he would have to give up smoking before an operation could be carried out. Mr Nuttall said: '"I am in agony. I have begged them to operate but they won't. I have tried my hardestto give up smoking but I can't. I got down to ten a week at one point but they said that was not good enough. "I spent 12 months trying to give up and used patches and everything, but nothing works. "I have smoked for over 40 years and it's not going to happen. "We were brought up at a time when cigarette advertisements were everywhere and there were no warnings. "I want to warn other smokers that they could be denied medical treatment and there is nothing we can do about it. "I have paid my dues as a taxpayer-and now the NHS won't treat me." Mr Nuttall, who is single, uses a walking stick to get around and fears his bones will now be so 'calcified' that an operation would not work even if he were allowed to have it. "It is very painful," he said. "If I walk more than a few steps I can feel it grinding." A spokesman for the hospital trust said: "Smoking has a very big influence on the outcome of this type of surgery, and the healing process would be hindered significantly." I'm a smoker myself (roll-ups, not pre-mades, there is a huge difference in terms of addictiveness and health effects), yet I don't think this is an unreasonable request to make. If I was in the situation where I was told to choose between a functional limb or a vice I would be on the patches before the medic had finished the sentence, so why does this guy think he has the right to both? And can he not be locked in a room until its out of his system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomeoneE1se Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 I'm a smoker myself (roll-ups, not pre-mades, there is a huge difference in terms of addictiveness and health effects), yet I don't think this is an unreasonable request to make. If I was in the situation where I was told to choose between a functional limb or a vice I would be on the patches before the medic had finished the sentence, so why does this guy think he has the right to both? And can he not be locked in a room until its out of his system? From what I've read it takes months until the addictiveness wares down to a point where you won't pick one up and smoke it if it's in the same room as you are. However It should be his choice. As much as I hate smokes and think they are dumb for not giving it up on their own, it's still not his doctors choice it's his. So long as his doctor explains the risks and the guy is willing to accept them that's where it should end. Healthcare should ALWAYS be the patients decision. Another reason involving the state in any kind of medical decision is (one of the) WORST IDEA EVER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted September 16, 2007 Author Share Posted September 16, 2007 The problem is that in the UK, there is only so much money for things like this, and if they have the choice between fixing one person who doesn't smoke and someone who does smoke then they should do the formers operation. If he doesn't want to quit, he should pay for the operation himself. You cannot have everything you want. I will admit that an entirely state funded system does have flaws such as this, but if we had a system where the government offers a basic level of care and sets this as the standard, there is no problem that I can see with letting people pay for treatment if the basic level doesn't cover it, its faster or they want one done in pink with flame decals. A souly private system ends up like the American one, where its entirely run for profit. As for addictiveness, the chemical addiction is over pretty soon (look at heroin, you can go cold-turkey and quit in a week or so). The psycological problems will take longer to deal with, but this can be factored in and dealt with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomeoneE1se Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 The problem is that in the UK, there is only so much money for things like this, and if they have the choice between fixing one person who doesn't smoke and someone who does smoke then they should do the formers operation. If he doesn't want to quit, he should pay for the operation himself. You cannot have everything you want. I will admit that an entirely state funded system does have flaws such as this, but if we had a system where the government offers a basic level of care and sets this as the standard, there is no problem that I can see with letting people pay for treatment if the basic level doesn't cover it, its faster or they want one done in pink with flame decals. A souly private system ends up like the American one, where its entirely run for profit. As for addictiveness, the chemical addiction is over pretty soon (look at heroin, you can go cold-turkey and quit in a week or so). The psycological problems will take longer to deal with, but this can be factored in and dealt with. I do agree on some level that if it is government subsidized they do get to choose what the requirements are, and the amarican health system could be the worst (most likely is) but it is where a good deal of all the medical advances come from. (amazing what a motivator money is) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisiam Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 http://www.smokefreeworld.com/canada.shtml I don't smoke but this is slowly taking over. Canada health care would take care of this guy. Wonder what would happen if he was American ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 He got down to 10 a week. In that condition the hospital could wheel him in, do the surgery, and keep him in a ward for observation or whatever, preventing him from smoking altogether. If he were to consent to that (on the agreement that he'll get patches and what have you) it sounds like a decent deal. But I wasn't aware that smoking was so detrimental to the healing process that they would do this. It's common with things like organ transplants because you need to be in good condition to start with, and they want you as healthy as possible to keep you from systematically killing that precious organ they found someplace. Here it's a simple case of slicing open the ankle, putting in some plates and screws, and leaving it at that. This guy's best chances now is to sit down someplace at work, and have a coworker drop a big brick on his foot. His prospects will be the same as now, but at least he'll get his surgery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digip Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 http://www.smokefreeworld.com/canada.shtml I don't smoke but this is slowly taking over. Canada health care would take care of this guy. Wonder what would happen if he was American ? He will probably die from the smoking somewhere down the road, but why should he have to suffer until that day comes? If he was an American, they would do the operation, but probably bring him back for 3 or 4 more operations in the process, making a quick buck off of him. US Healthcare is atrocious, aside from expensive. Plus, you have togo where your "in network" or pay out of pocket. One night "out of pocket" in the hospital can cost a few thousand dollars if you don't have insurance. And that does not include any of the bill syou will receive from the individual doctors or services you receive in addition to your "stay". Smoking does cause your body to take longer to heal, that is a fact, but I think that if he can get down to a minimum or no smoking during rehab after the operation, then he should be ok. People who smoke get operated on all the time and no one seems to stop them. He must be a REALLY big smoker and have other major health problems that are factored in to the equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 Smoking effects the blood supply, and given that his ankle failed to heal on its own there is probally a higher risk of complications due to smoking. I just don't see why the guy can't just stop smoking, do the operation and then start again if he wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLSS Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 all bs, his own friggin fault c'mon anyone can quit ! ffs he has chest probs cos of his dumb money wasting , sickening addiction. i'm waiting for the moment amrica is going to call smokers terrorists :P i'm 100% sure anyone can quit smoking ! even if it has to be by taping em to a pole for a month or 2 ..... they'll quit ! my mom smoked for 35+ years failed quitting multiple times and she finally succeeded last year ... me myself ? i never even taken a puff ... ever ... cos i hated teh fact my mom smoked, couldn't stand it. and i knew all the risks etc ... i drink a lot ( but no not an alcoholic,i currently just drink when partying, so mainly saturdays ... last sat i only drank about 3.5 Liters of beer and a 1 meter tube of red vodka (about 7 glasses) ) i'll probably try some weed (used in tea or space cake) but i'll never smoke ... i dont see the use in smoking anyway, it doesn't taste good, and it has absolutely no decent effect ... so you're better off useing alcohol or some decent drugs .... smoking is just retarded .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 Ahhh, Mr DLSS, you fail to see my point. I like smoking, not a huge amount, but when drinking or after a large meal or with some fine coffee a role up is nice. The pre-made cigs most people smoke are a fucking travesty, taste like arse and get you addicted to the things over night. Modern cigs are to tobacco as crack is to coca. As for drinking, I don't do that so much anymore, but I ask you this. Why is my choice of poison retarded while your choice of poison is cool? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonlit Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Ahhh, Mr DLSS, you fail to see my point. I like smoking, not a huge amount, but when drinking or after a large meal or with some fine coffee a role up is nice. The pre-made cigs most people smoke are a fucking travesty, taste like arse and get you addicted to the things over night. Modern cigs are to tobacco as crack is to coca. As for drinking, I don't do that so much anymore, but I ask you this. Why is my choice of poison retarded while your choice of poison is cool? I was about to ask the very same question... I also note that DLSS said that smoking has no decent effect and doesn't taste nice even though he hasn't tried it... I've smoked shisha before and it certainly can taste very nice indeed. Nicotine is a drug just like caffeine, ethanol or THC... all of these drugs have an effect that people must enjoy to some extent to use them enough to call themselves addicted (even if the addiction is only psychological). A drug by definition is something that alters the levels of certain chemicals (or adds them, in some cases) in the human body, and if we enjoy the experience we keep it on the "stuff to do at parties" list. If we don't, we call it a poison or just don't touch it again. The fact that any of these chemicals or combinations of chemicals can be harmful is a side effect due to the way they are made, what they're made from, how they're used or the effects they have on the body besides the desired effects. As side effects they are often accepted and tolerated as a downside to the consumption of them, but do not outweigh the positive effects (or positive as we perceive them). I quite agree with VaKo though, the evils of smoking and whatnot aside (and as a smoker) I think the bloke should quit to get treatment... it's a simple request, and in exchange for a repaired ankle I think I'd comply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLSS Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Ahhh, Mr DLSS, you fail to see my point. I like smoking, not a huge amount, but when drinking or after a large meal or with some fine coffee a role up is nice. The pre-made cigs most people smoke are a fucking travesty, taste like arse and get you addicted to the things over night. Modern cigs are to tobacco as crack is to coca. As for drinking, I don't do that so much anymore, but I ask you this. Why is my choice of poison retarded while your choice of poison is cool? yeah i can respect that as long as you don't hinder others ... you're right, i was mainly talking bout the ones you buy in shops, .. pure tobbacco or cigars etc are a diff story. i prefere my poison cos its more ejoyable, a social thing, and even healthy in small amounts (wich i obviously cross over hugely, but its the idea) but it isn't cool ... also the amounts of alcohol required to get some serious illness (liver damage etc) is a lot higher then the amount of cigs required to get some illnesses (varying from skin degradation to deadly cancers), and the more alcohol you drink the more you feel the effect, while even if you smoke 15 pack's a day you prolly wouldn't feel much better then smoking 5... moonlit, that about the taste is because of what i've been told by any smoker i ever talked to (if they've been doing it for a few months till ppl who've been doing it all their life. they didn't like the taste the first few times and only started enjoying it later .... usually ppl start to seem tough ... wich is kinda childish.... i've been having cigs offered to me since the 5th grade never took anythin :p yeah i kno i prolly seem ignorant seeing as i've never tryed, but it would be kinda retarded for me to try just to have stronger argument ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 No one is saying start smoking. What we're just saying is that as long as we're not blowing smoke in your face we'd like to be left alone to enjoy our cigs. We're adults, we know the risks and personally I'd stop if it started causing me problems like this. Its just one of many unhealthy vices that make life a little more fun for those that choose to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonlit Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 No one is saying start smoking. What we're just saying is that as long as we're not blowing smoke in your face we'd like to be left alone to enjoy our cigs. We're adults, we know the risks and personally I'd stop if it started causing me problems like this. Its just one of many unhealthy vices that make life a little more fun for those that choose to do it. Exactly my thoughts. I wouldn't tell a non-smoker to smoke, but I'd like the chance to be able to smoke myself if I'd like to, just as I like the choice I have to drink or consume caffeine. I say do what you like providing it doesn't kill or harm anyone else and I can only hope others would assume the same stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomeoneE1se Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 No one is saying start smoking. What we're just saying is that as long as we're not blowing smoke in your face we'd like to be left alone to enjoy our cigs. We're adults, we know the risks and personally I'd stop if it started causing me problems like this. Its just one of many unhealthy vices that make life a little more fun for those that choose to do it. Exactly my thoughts. I wouldn't tell a non-smoker to smoke, but I'd like the chance to be able to smoke myself if I'd like to, just as I like the choice I have to drink or consume caffeine. I say do what you like providing it doesn't kill or harm anyone else and I can only hope others would assume the same stance. while I do consider smokeing to be a stupid thing to do I think it is the persons decision. You can smoke as long as I can't smell it (especially while I'm eating) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted September 21, 2007 Author Share Posted September 21, 2007 That is one thing I agree on, restraunts should either ban smoking or set aside a separate room away from the dinning area for smoking. Kinda a moot point in the UK now, but had the populace been consulted on the smoking ban it would have been an amicable deal in my eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonlit Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 That is one thing I agree on, restraunts should either ban smoking or set aside a separate room away from the dinning area for smoking. Kinda a moot point in the UK now, but had the populace been consulted on the smoking ban it would have been an amicable deal in my eyes. Definitely, I wouldn't argue against that. Smoking ban doesn't bother me a huge amount, I can step outside for a cigarette while at a pub or whatever but I think there could've been some form of compromise... I agree with a ban wherever food is served though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.