No Surgery for UK Smokers

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:11 am

Claiming that it takes smokers much longer to recover from surgeries, they may be denied surgery unless they quit four weeks before.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:18 am

Lon;628311 wrote: Claiming that it takes smokers much longer to recover from surgeries, they may be denied surgery unless they quit four weeks before.

With anesthetic, smokers most definitely take longer to recover and can develop breathing problems post surgery. They have said that they will carry out emergency surgery but not routine unless they stop smoking 4 weeks prior surgery.

I think it's right, but I don't know how they are able to check that they have stopped smoking 4 weeks before

crazygal · Post by **crazygal** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:20 am

I think it's right too but it depends on what surgery and how urgent it is.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:41 am

SuzyB;628338 wrote: With anesthetic, smokers most definitely take longer to recover and can develop breathing problems post surgery. They have said that they will carry out emergency surgery but not routine unless they stop smoking 4 weeks prior surgery.

I think it's right, but I don't know how they are able to check that they have stopped smoking 4 weeks before

The article mentioned giving a blood test to check for nicotine.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:42 am

Lon;628381 wrote: The article mentioned giving a blood test to check for nicotine.

Thats ok then,

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:07 am

Pinky;628420 wrote: I find it quite ironic that smokers pay so much tax on cigarettes that funds quite a substantial chunk of NHS costs.

Thats quite right Pinks, but before you bite my head off (love you), it helps pay for a lot of smoking related illnesses.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:23 am

Pinky;628426 wrote: It's catch 22 though, isn't it? Say we all stop smoking - every single one of us. Where is the money going to come from to pay for the illnesses generated by living in fume-filled cities clogged up by 4 litre range rover drivers for instance?

More tax on wages, houses, drinks at the pub...everything. And it won't just be a little bit either!

Should they refuse to do surgery on people that have spent decades troughing McDonalds and fry ups every day? Techincally yes, because they've clogged their own arteries up and sat on their butts in front of the telly and that means they've been responsible for any illnesses relating to that sort of thing.

I wouldn't see anyone deprived of help. At the same time, if you have an illness directly related to smoking then you're an idiot if you don't quit...it just stands to reason.

How bout sky divers who break their legs. Did they not choose to jump out of a plane. You could take this too a whole new level. Anorexics,bulimics they chose to stick their finger down their throat. Obese. I didn't force feed them.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:48 am

Pinky;628426 wrote: It's catch 22 though, isn't it? Say we all stop smoking - every single one of us. Where is the money going to come from to pay for the illnesses generated by living in fume-filled cities clogged up by 4 litre range rover drivers for instance?

More tax on wages, houses, drinks at the pub...everything. And it won't just be a little bit either!

Should they refuse to do surgery on people that have spent decades troughing McDonalds and fry ups every day? Techincally yes, because they've clogged their own arteries up and sat on their butts in front of the telly and that means they've been responsible for any illnesses relating to that sort of thing.

I wouldn't see anyone deprived of help. At the same time, if you have an illness directly related to smoking then you're an idiot if you don't quit...it just stands to reason.

I don't think anyone should be refused help and I do agree with what your saying, regarding people being overweight, but changes had been made a few years ago about surgery on obese patients, when i was 16 pounds overweight I had to lose that before routine surgery, as they refused to put me under in case of complications.

Having been overweight and having emergency surgery, i know that my weight was what caused all my breathing difficulties post surgery, I was on oxygen for 8 weeks, as, putting it bluntly my fat was putting pressure on my lungs.

I don't think for a second that the government wants everyone to stop smoking, they are idiots but not total fools, they know how much revenue it creates, for them to squander on Management in hospitals where it should be spent on Dr's, Nurses and keeping hospitals up to standard.

I do believe that it is dangerous post surgery and while under anesthetic for smokers, but I do think the government (sneaky sods), are trying to discriminate against many people, obese, smokers etc, to try to cut down on routine surgery, I mean lets face it, how many people can give up an addiction at the snap of a finger.

It is amazing how many people carry on doing things which are bad for them, despite being told the consequences, where mum is having treatment you can see them nipping out for a fag after their chemo, look at me, I have been told to lose lots of weight to try to improve my health, yet I still stuff my face, humans are strange people and none stranger than myself, I should have a government health warning printed on my head:-5

YZGI;628431 wrote: How bout sky divers who break their legs. Did they not choose to jump out of a plane. You could take this too a whole new level. Anorexics,bulimics they chose to stick their finger down their throat. Obese. I didn't force feed them.

YZGI, what can I say to that :rolleyes: :wah:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:00 pm

I think this is bogus.

People come in all forms and should not be refused because they *may* suffer a complication. Would that life and health should be so neat and clean. It sounds more to me like doctors covering their collective @$$ against anything that may get them smacked with a malpractice suit.

Musiclover89 · Post by **Musiclover89** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:01 pm

Thank god i don't smoke or Drink otheriwse my health would be in jepordy although being 18 stone at 17 isnt good either

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:12 pm

RedGlitter;628582 wrote: I think this is bogus.

People come in all forms and should not be refused because they *may* suffer a complication. Would that life and health should be so neat and clean. It sounds more to me like doctors covering their collective @$$ against anything that may get them smacked with a malpractice suit.

It's not the doctors. It's just in the U.S. where big judgements for Medical Malpractice occurs. Smoking is an option that people have and it's a known fact that they will consume more of a hospitals resources and manpower, plus stay longer in the hospital recuperating, thus increasing the costs for all patients. I am not saying I agree with this, just that this is the way the Health System looks at it.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:27 pm

Pinky;628420 wrote: I find it quite ironic that smokers pay so much tax on cigarettes that funds quite a substantial chunk of NHS costs.

As far as I know, smokers fund the vast majority of the NHS. I should be interested to hear of any figures relating to revenue raised on tobacco products compared to the bill for having a NHS.

Edit:

OK. A very quick look shows:

o - The cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £1.5 billion a year.

o - The Treasury earned £8.103 biillion in revenue from tobacco duties in the financial year 2004-2005 (excluding VAT).

Observations welcome.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:43 pm

Bill Sikes;628788 wrote: As far as I know, smokers fund the vast majority of the NHS. I should be interested to hear of any figures relating to revenue raised on tobacco products compared to the bill for having a NHS.

Edit:

OK. A very quick look shows:

o - The cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £1.5 billion a year.

o - The Treasury earned £8.103 biillion in revenue from tobacco duties in the financial year 2004-2005 (excluding VAT).

Observations welcome.

The other £6.5Bn goes to reducing corporation tax to compensate industry for productivity lost through time off for smoking related illnesses?

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:49 pm

Bill Sikes;628788 wrote: As far as I know, smokers fund the vast majority of the NHS. I should be interested to hear of any figures relating to revenue raised on tobacco products compared to the bill for having a NHS.

Edit:

OK. A very quick look shows:

o - The cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £1.5 billion a year.

o - The Treasury earned £8.103 biillion in revenue from tobacco duties in the financial year 2004-2005 (excluding VAT).

Observations welcome.

I saw a similar figure recently...£1.6 billion a year, and the report said that smokers contribute six times that amount per annum in taxes.

This makes uncomfortable reading when smokers are criticised for costing the NHS health care it can't afford.

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:57 pm

[QUOTE=Pinky;628823]I think it's just hypocritical really. Like I said before, think what would happen if we all quit right now. There'd be absolute chaos, people would be taxed even more on everything to pay for the sudden cut in funds.

I'll go and have a puff now and do my bit to keep the NHS going.

[/QUOTE]

Me too, I think, Pinky...as you say, we have to do our bit :-6

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:49 pm

Let's face it folks it's not news the govt refusing smokers and smoke related diseases treatment,

if you dont live in the correct postcode you're buggered!

The drug companies are now offering an inducement to the govt, because the govt wont fund certain cancer treatments,

if the treatment does'nt work on some patients they'll give them their money back..........

WTF??????

How dare they play god with peoples lives?

RhondaLu · Post by **RhondaLu** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:07 pm

Smokers are more likely to experience breathing complications during and after anesthesia.

RhondaLu · Post by **RhondaLu** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:04 am

RhondaLu;628958 wrote: Smokers are more likely to experience breathing complications during and after anesthesia.

Why is my history of smoking so important?

Smoking causes numerous short and long term health problems which may influence anaesthesia. In the long term it increases the risks of heart disease, breathing problems, blood clots, stroke, blood vessel disease, kidney disease, all forms of cancer and numerous others. The number of cigarettes smoked needs to be assessed to determine whether you have increased risk of these problems and what further precautions need to be taken. In the short term smoking impairs the ability of blood to carry oxygen and literally starves your body of oxygen the more you smoke. Under anaesthesia this contributes to the risk of complications further. The longer you don't smoke prior to an operation the better. Ideally give it up as soon as possible for your overrall health but if you simply cannot quit then abstaining as long as possible prior to an operation is desirable. The absolute minimum you should not smoke is the period you are fasting for prior to the operation.

crazygal · Post by **crazygal** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:12 am

magenta flame;628835 wrote: Where I am it's two weeks before any operation. It's not the nicotine as such (you can wear a patch) they just need you to have a better respiratiory system for the OP. Although heart and lung surgeons are beginning to put their foot down. But really, I'm a smoker, and if something was wrong with my heart or lungs I'd be a bit of an idiot not to give up the fags.

Well said but some don't and they don't deserve so much help.

RhondaLu · Post by **RhondaLu** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:30 am

magenta flame;628835 wrote: Where I am it's two weeks before any operation. It's not the nicotine as such (you can wear a patch) they just need you to have a better respiratiory system for the OP. Although heart and lung surgeons are beginning to put their foot down. But really, I'm a smoker, and if something was wrong with my heart or lungs I'd be a bit of an idiot not to give up the fags.

Nicotine is an addiction ( very powerful at that), and the time to stop is now, 'cos you don't know what tomorrow brings.:-3

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:09 am

hi pinky poo

i know you are only being mega defensive coz of your guilt of being a smoker means that you know your in the wrong ,so you get more and more annoyed about yourself,which in turn makes you get agressive to us non smokers ,who you know full well are the good guys and are in the right ,

you also know that smoke related illnesses cost far more to treat than the pittance you smokers pay in tax

have a nice day :wah: :wah:

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:16 am

Pinky;629221 wrote: Shut your face and gimme a hug Jim!:D

:wah: :wah:

i thought you would bite like a barracuda there pinks ,i bet you feel really good that you never did :wah:

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:22 am

jimbo;629214 wrote: hi pinky poo

i know you are only being mega defensive coz of your guilt of being a smoker means that you know your in the wrong ,so you get more and more annoyed about yourself,which in turn makes you get agressive to us non smokers ,who you know full well are the good guys and are in the right ,

you also know that smoke related illnesses cost far more to treat than the pittance you smokers pay in tax

have a nice day :wah: :wah:
Your right Jimbo, you should also be allowed to shoot the Kings deer if your a non smoker.

RhondaLu · Post by **RhondaLu** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:38 am

Pinky;629151 wrote: As far as I'm concerned, I could get run over, get hit on the way home by a bloody great lorry, fall in a river and drown..anything. If I start feeling rough because of smoking, then of course I'd get some patches and give up (again).

I keep asking this, but where does everyone think the NHS money would come from if they were no longer getting it from cigarette tax? All of us would be much poorer than we are now, I can almost guarantee it.

As far as I'm concerned, I pay national insurance for my healthcare. What exactly have I been paying it for if they refused to treat me if I needed it? I've paid it every year since I was sixteen and the only thing I've ever been in hospital for is a twisted ankle and a blood test. My money should pay for ME, seeing as I've been paying it. Maybe we should scrap the NHS and go for private healthcare instead.

After all, if you were refused treatment because you smoke and someone who's never worked or paid anything towards it gets treated, you'd be cheesed off...I know I'd cause hell!

You are not being refused for that reason, it is a risk to you......your health, I smoked and had emergency surgery, they almost couldn't awaken me. That was `7 years ago, elective surgery is not life threatening

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:42 pm

Pinky;629239 wrote: I'm sure taking potshots at Camilla would be a good incentive to quit.

Oh wait, he's not King yet!:wah:

And she's not dear either!

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:20 pm

RhondaLu;629083 wrote: [B In the short term smoking impairs the ability of blood to carry oxygen and literally starves your body of oxygen the more you smoke.

In the short term, the above is true because of the amount of carbon monoxide in cigarette (or other) smoke. Circulatory issues caused by smoking kill more people than does lung cancer.

In the longer term it damages your lungs so that they can't relay a sufficient amount of oxygen to your blood anyway. When that happens, it's either no more exertion, or an oxygen mask, or both.

However, the good news for smokers is that their lungs are less likely to be damaged due to certain sorts of radioactive radiation than are the lungs of non-smokers, due to the increased thickness of the mucous coating of the ciliated epithelium therein - only a tiny fraction of the population suffers from such radioactive radiation caused damage, though, so the good news is little.

If you must continue to smoke, then leave at least 11 hours daily, in one continuous period, smoke-free - e.g. go to sleep at 11 p.m., do not smoke until 10 a.m. at the earliest. Leave it 'till lunchtime, and it will be better. Why? Well, the lungs clear themselves of contamination, given time. A minimum of 11 hours (healthy lungs) is required for this. If you don't leave a gap of at least this time, then there will never ever be a "clear" period.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:28 pm

Pinky;629151 wrote: As far as I'm concerned, I could get run over, get hit on the way home by a bloody great lorry, fall in a river and drown..anything.

Do you then discount risk from (as an example) periodically wrapping a headscarf around your eyes and then blindly running out into the road?

Pinky;629151 wrote: I keep asking this, but where does everyone think the NHS money would come from if they were no longer getting it from cigarette tax? All of us would be much poorer than we are now, I can almost guarantee it.

I can absolutely guarantee it. About 30% of people smoke. The rest would have to have their taxes increased in some way should revenue from smokers disappear. What would the amount be? Guesstimate: 10 cigs./day average for smokers, :. non-smokers tax burden would rise by about 3 cigs/day, say a fiver a week.

Pinky;629151 wrote: As far as I'm concerned, I pay national insurance for my healthcare.

The tax on tobacco is surely the important criterion.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:30 pm

jimbo;629214 wrote: you also know that smoke related illnesses cost far more to treat than the pittance you smokers pay in tax wah: wah:

"Ballcocks".

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:31 pm

Pinky;629221 wrote: Shut your face and gimme a hug Jim! D

Pooh. Smelly.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:32 pm

Pinky;629228 wrote:

I still stand by my opinion though. If I pay money for it, I want treating, damnit!!!

Can't quarrel with that. You are correct either way.

RhondaLu · Post by **RhondaLu** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:41 pm

magenta flame;629749 wrote: I do actually, heredity and genetically I will die of heart failure. It's our family thing. Unless of course I get hit by a bus.............hhhmmmm I'll still die of heart failure and lack of air to the lungs. I believe these symtoms constitute death :wah:

This is interesting because if smokers are paying through their ciggarettes for their own treatment then does that mean I should stand outside the hospital and monitor who comes in and who doesn't? I'd be like a tax triage nurse.

I can see it now (insert thought provoking wobbly dream sequence waves here)

"Oiy you ! Over there with the breast cancer! Nope, no cancers in my family you'll have to leave I'm not paying for something that has nothing to do with me!

And you ! YOu fell off a cliff? Sorry but I refuse to pay for idiocy in my taxes. Hang on ....Let me look......Nope no clause in my paper work for idiots! off you go ! go die somewhere else. I believe there's a naturapath down the road, maybe she can help you."

Heart failure ? Yep I can relate to that ! Go to door 'B'.

Terminally ill ? well the gawl of you! Poncing around in a hospital at my expense, The utter nerve! There's a solent green clinic over in Oxford St they'll take care of you""""""

Now back to reality!

Hmm. Reality is I can't smoke at least two years before I can be put on the list for a lung transplant.