Denial of Medical Treatment due to Lifestyle Choices?

[Ugg]

[URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1663489,00.html"]

Patients who smoke, drink too much or are obese could be denied medical help if their lifestyle is likely to undermine their treatment, the government's health treatment watchdog said yesterday.
A report published by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) said: "If the self-inflicted cause of the condition will influence the likely outcome of a particular treatment, then it may be appropriate to take this into account in some circumstances."

This goes well with the "Fired for Smoking" thread.

Should people who continue to make bad lifestyle choices pay with their continued health and possibly lives? Of course, at least in England, only the poor would do so, the rich would be able to pay for it out of pocket.

I have some sympathy towards the idea but I think that companies should be forced to pay some of their net profits towards health care if their products or services are detrimental to the health and well being of their customers. The burden should be shared, right?

[Xtremehkr]

Isn't the denial of personal rights what people used to hold against the government?

At least here, it seemed to be the argument that was made.

Why is it more acceptable that private entities should be able to come together to limit what people do with their lives. Healthy or not.

Government can be changed via the popular vote, apparently the choice is lost when private entities are able to make the decision.

Is that a loss of power voters are willing to accept?

It probably won't stop at smoking. There are plenty of other high risk activities people like to participate in. Flying light aircraft may be an appropriate example for this group.

Maybe even risky sports like Racquetball, knee injuries and all.

Kinda makes me feel like my purpose in life is to provide for my employer, when they can start telling me how I should live it.

When last I considered, I chose my profession based upon how it would be able to support my lifestyle (primary) and not on how it would be able to support the companies needs (secondary).

Which is it to be? you live to work, or you work to live?

I consider my enjoyment of my very limited life to be much more important.

Is that wrong? what benefit is there to having a life when I have to give it to something other than what demands the majority of the little I am giving to enjoy during my time here.

And to what end? to sell more of what that is so necessary for me to be able to enjoy what?

I don't think that the balance point is very clearly defined anymore.

Is there a balance point anymore?

To what end are we doing what we are doing, and what really has to be done to achieve that end. The current model aside.