Getting cigarettes on a doctor's prescription

[Captain Seafort]

Having politicians make medical decisions is about as intelligent as having plumbers make military decisions.

We're talking about spending taxpayers' money, ergo the decision must ultimately lie with politicians.

[Mikey]

No, they don't. Quitting smoking involves moving to a healthier lifestyle, not a grossly unhealthy one. If, on the other hand, a doctor advised me to change my diet, with recommendations of specifics, fair enough.

Aha. So once we get out of the way your inevitable quibbling about the wording of my commentary, the simple meat of your response - "...fair enough" - speaks volumes.

[Deepcrush]

Having politicians make medical decisions is about as intelligent as having plumbers make military decisions.

We're talking about spending taxpayers' money, ergo the decision must ultimately lie with politicians.

As seafort pointed out, its a tax issue at its base so it has to at least in the beginning be a decision made by politicians. Also, doctors by trade can't or shouldn't be the ones to turn anyone away.

If the patient is going to continue a life style that during their treatment is a problem to the treatment or recovery. The government has to justify if it should bother to pay for that treatment at all. If smoking is causing a problem with someone's health and they go for treatment but refuse to quit smoking during the treatment. Its pretty clear they don't deserve the treatment at the cost of other tax payers.

[Tsukiyumi]

I thought the point was that they'd refuse treatment even if the illness wasn't smoking related, based on a vague "smoking is harmful in general" ideology.

[Deepcrush]

Swedish surgeons now refuse to operate on smokers until they give up, because of the deleterious effect smoking has on the healing process, Gudnason added.

This is the statement of refusal. The rest was from forum members throwing up a smoke screen to pun it a bit. The important part is colored to clear up the issue. Its a matter of "Stop smoking then we help you and pay for it on top of that or... just take care of yourself." Stop smoking from the time of diagnosis and remain so until you are no longer under treatment.

[Lighthawk]

On the contrary, it's completely irrelevant to the point because it's just an anecdote. The plural of anecdote is not data. They can be used to illustrate points, but they cannot be used to refute scientifically proven facts.

Well that's nice, but I wasn't refuting anything. I was pointing out that statistics are just that, stats. Yes, smokers are more likely to have horrible health issues, but its not a certainty.

I'm not proposing that any doctor do so, and neither do the Swedes. The decision would be made at the political level.

I'm less than reassured. And actually, the original line that sparked this was "Swedish surgeons now refuse to operate on smokers until they give up...". So the Swedes apparently are proposing that doctors should be able to deny medical treatment.

The problem with that logic is that it's not just his money - it's everybody else's as well. An individual's taxes of a few grand a year would be nowhere near sufficient to pay for their own health care.

Yeah well that's the bitch of a state sponsored health care system. Everyone pays, everyone's covered. Making excuses why some people don't deserve it is bullshit of the highest degree, not to mention dangerous. "Smokers don't deserve it because they have such high health risks! Extreme athletes don't deserve it because they have such high health risks! Gays don't deserve it because they have such high health risks!"

Also as to the point you keep shoving down Mike's throat, that smoking is A CERTAINTY! and not just a risk...bullshit, at least in regards to why you're harping on it. It would only be a certainty if every single smoker had health issues that reached a degree that they required medical treatment AND they actually went to get said treatment AND after the treatment kept smoking AND then it retarded their healing process enough that they needed more treatment. Some people don't have serious health issues from smoking that require medical treatment, and some of the people that do will flat out refuse to go to a doctor, etc etc. It's a good length of chain with breaking points between "refusing to quit smoking" and "going to be an unfair burden on the other tax payers through the medical system".

That's precisely what I am arguing.

I love how you can get so indignant over the fact that you were arguing something similar but actually not the same as what I was arguing seeing how I started this debate and was trying to make a certain point but then you just swooped in and tried to make it all about your point while ignoring mine and then pretending like I was the one who didn't know what we were talking about. I'm so sorry this isn't the Seafort Show, but some of us do like to talk about things other than what you're going on about occasionally.

And just to cut you off, yes you did!

The fuck? Seriously? What kind of fail logic is that? If someone needs an operation, not wants but needs, by what right should a doctor be able to deny that operation based on the patient's life style? I'm all for them strongly advising them to quit, but handing out an ultimatum? That's just twisted.

The fuck? Seriously? What kind of fail logic is that?

It's the logic that if someone's killing themselves very rapidly as it is, why should the state spend a lot of money slowing that rate marginally?

See, here's where you took something I said, trimmed it down to remove the actual point I was making, and then responded to it like I had said something different. So don't get all huffy with me because I wanted to stick to the point I was trying to make.

[Deepcrush]

"Smokers don't deserve it because they have such high health risks! Extreme athletes don't deserve it because they have such high health risks! Gays don't deserve it because they have such high health risks!"

A, no one said smokers don't deserve it. They said they woke treat smokers who continue to smoke during treatment.
B, If the athletes don't do anything extreme while under treatment then they still get treated.
C, Gays don't suffer any more extend risks then anyone else.

So much like Mikey's dying brother/I'm a jew or Giuseppe's not smart enough bits... this doesn't apply. No one is being told they don't deserve treatment. They're being told that they can't just get free care if all they are going to do is continue to do something during treatment that will hinder treatment.

[Lighthawk]

A, no one said smokers don't deserve it. They said they woke treat smokers who continue to smoke during treatment.

If you must nit, very well, not the absolute most perfect word choice on my part. I suppose something more along the lines of "smokers are just going to waste it" fits better.

B, If the athletes don't do anything extreme while under treatment then they still get treated.
C, Gays don't suffer any more extend risks then anyone else.

You do realize I'm well aware that no one in Sweden (that I'm aware of) is denying these two groups medical treatment and this was just a slightly hyperboled statement to demonstrate the inherent dangers of letting doctors rationalize a reason not to treat someone, right?

So much like Mikey's dying brother/I'm a jew or Giuseppe's not smart enough bits... this doesn't apply. No one is being told they don't deserve treatment. They're being told that they can't just get free care if all they are going to do is continue to do something during treatment that will hinder treatment.

Reread the point that started all this, which you actually recently quoted and highlighted part of, and you'll see jack-shit-all about money. I'm not talking about the damn money, ffs, who's head do I have bash in to make it clear when I'm not talking about the money, like for example the bit you just quoted where I wasn't doing so. Money is an issue yes, since Sweden apparently has some sort of state medical care, but it's not the one and only issue, and yet it seems impossible to talk about the moral side of this without someone throwing money at it. Did I miss some bit where someone dug up more on this subject and pointed out that the doctors' decision not to treat non-quitting smokers was based on smoking being detrimental to the healing process AND being waste of tax money?

I've made a few concessions to the money issue since that seems to bother everyone more than the idea of people being denied treatment, but frankly it doesn't bother me nearly as much, and I am somewhat undecided on the money thing. The smokers have been paying their taxes (or so I assume), including their bit for medical, and thus should be entitled to get what they, like everyone else, has been promised they'll get for what they've put in. However it does seem like a jackass move to not even try to make good on what that money just got used to do in fixing them up by continuing to do that which made them require it in the first place. But hasn't it been said about a billion times here, laws need to be absolute, not case by case? And wouldn't that be the case here?

[Deepcrush]

If you must nit, very well, not the absolute most perfect word choice on my part. I suppose something more along the lines of "smokers are just going to waste it" fits better.

Its me and I'm just a bit picky on things like that. However to me it makes sense that someone undergoing treatment not do something which hampers said treatment. This just makes it a law.

You do realize I'm well aware that no one in Sweden (that I'm aware of) is denying these two groups medical treatment and this was just a slightly hyperboled statement to demonstrate the inherent dangers of letting doctors rationalize a reason not to treat someone, right?

The problem is that you used that those rationalize your problem, but it in fact has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You're looking to build a sympathy counter to support your stance. It would be the same as me saying that anyone against strip searching and cattle prodding for information gathering must be anti-police because why would anyone stand in the way of police searches.

snip

The money issue being brought up is because under private health care, you just go to a private doctor who doesn't care so long as you're paying.

[Deepcrush]

other snip that I may have forgotten

All the other things you're talking about such as counter or conceded, I'm not a part of so I was leaving that alone. It was just the smoker/athlete/gay bit that I needed to speak on.

[Tsukiyumi]

As Deep and I discussed yesterday, the obvious answer is to quit during the treatment, and then start again later if you want.


Then flick a lit butt at the surgeons.

[Mikey]

As Deep and I discussed yesterday, the obvious answer is to quit during the treatment, and then start again later if you want.


Then flick a lit butt at the surgeons.

While this would be a good sarcastic joke, it unfortunately isn't one. Since Deep likes to keep throwing up the language of that part - meanwhile, ignoring the fact that it says that the doctors have decided to refuse treatment and not the politicians - the fact is this: sticking to the semantics, and ignoring the actual intent, means that a person could smoke as soon as his surgery had begun and that would be OK. If a person smoked prior, and didn't quit, then they have a problem.

However, despite Deep's attempts to dismiss examples that he can't or won't answer, the fact is that people engage in high-risk activity. Well, then - what is sedentary enough to deserve treatment? Who gets to decide? Being a soldier during wartime is a pretty dangerous occupation, but unlike Seafort and Deep I sure as hell wouldn't want to deny them medical treatment.

[Deepcrush]

While this would be a good sarcastic joke, it unfortunately isn't one. Since Deep likes to keep throwing up the language of that part - meanwhile, ignoring the fact that it says that the doctors have decided to refuse treatment and not the politicians - the fact is this: sticking to the semantics, and ignoring the actual intent, means that a person could smoke as soon as his surgery had begun and that would be OK. If a person smoked prior, and didn't quit, then they have a problem.

I'm not ignoring anything, I quoted right from the text. "Doctors won't treat if someone is smoking during treatment". That's the fact at hand, you just need to get over it.

However, despite Deep's attempts to dismiss examples that he can't or won't answer, the fact is that people engage in high-risk activity.

And don't blame me that your examples have no value to them. I'm not here to get involved between you and Seafort on this. I just pointed out some facts to the matter that you yourself had ignored or twisted. You've been upset that I've pointed out in the past that you're not a trustworthy person and here you are reinforcing that fact. You complain about Seafort's examples while using false examples of your own which only drags this out even more. If you don't like the law because you're a smoker and your brother would rather die then miss a cig... well that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. But that doesn't change the reality of the issue which is "don't smoke while seeing the doctor".

Well, then - what is sedentary enough to deserve treatment? Who gets to decide? Being a soldier during wartime is a pretty dangerous occupation, but unlike Seafort and Deep I sure as hell wouldn't want to deny them medical treatment.

Well lucky them that there's nothing in the OP that states taking away a soldier's medical treatment. But if the law applied to them, they just wouldn't be allowed to go to war if they are wounded. Funny that since that's generally how we operate anyways.

********************************************

The problem that keeps returning is that people protesting this are saying that a law which states "A doctor doesn't have to treat you if you don't quit smoking" is at some point going to turn into "hand over the gays to gay doctors and easy bake the jews". Funny as those two outcomes may be for me in the end. It still doesn't apply to the issue at hand which boils down to "Don't smoke while you're seeing a doctor". Really, its not that hard see a value behind a law like that. If its really something that bothers someone so much that they can't quit smoking for a week or two before a surgery it would seem they don't value their life enough for me to bother caring about.

[Mikey]

No, Deep, you're missing the whole premise. I don't blame you, because it's so alien to a privatized, multiple-payer system such as the U.S. has. The fact of the matter is that what Seafort calls a "slippery-slope fallacy" isn't, in this case, fallacious at all. I'm discussing a point here with Seafort and now with you - it's not about what I think or would do, it's about what people with the Swedish mindset could easily expand that mindset to encompass.

I'm not ignoring anything, I quoted right from the text. "Doctors won't treat if someone is smoking during treatment". That's the fact at hand, you just need to get over it.

You're ignoring the fact which you quoted. Almost in one breath you said it was necessarily the politicians making the decision, then you cited text which stated that it was the doctors' decision.

And don't blame me that your examples have no value to them. I'm not here to get involved between you and Seafort on this. I just pointed out some facts to the matter that you yourself had ignored or twisted. You've been upset that I've pointed out in the past that you're not a trustworthy person and here you are reinforcing that fact. You complain about Seafort's examples while using false examples of your own which only drags this out even more. If you don't like the law because you're a smoker and your brother would rather die then miss a cig... well that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. But that doesn't change the reality of the issue which is "don't smoke while seeing the doctor".

Including invective doesn't change the fact that you decided to dismiss my thought experiments because they don't fit with your point, nothing more. What is disingenuous is your attempt to say otherwise, not anything I've said. Thus, WRT to being "trustworthy," like Clapton said - "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself."

Well lucky them that there's nothing in the OP that states taking away a soldier's medical treatment. But if the law applied to them, they just wouldn't be allowed to go to war if they are wounded. Funny that since that's generally how we operate anyways.

No there isn't, this is again an example of "discussion." Further, I know you didn't say anything about soldiers, it was merely an extrapolative and illustrative mode of conversation. However, it's got nothing to do with going to war when already wounded - it's about denying treatment to someone involved in a behavior which is likely (or certain) to get someone ill or hurt.

The problem that keeps returning is that people protesting this are saying that a law which states "A doctor doesn't have to treat you if you don't quit smoking" is at some point going to turn into "hand over the gays to gay doctors and easy bake the jews". Funny as those two outcomes may be for me in the end. It still doesn't apply to the issue at hand which boils down to "Don't smoke while you're seeing a doctor". Really, its not that hard see a value behind a law like that. If its really something that bothers someone so much that they can't quit smoking for a week or two before a surgery it would seem they don't value their life enough for me to bother caring about.

First, an aside: it's "Jews," not "jews." Much the same way as words like "Catholic," "Christian," "Zoroastrian," et. al. get capitalized, so does "Jew." Using some abusive language in an argument is fine; willfully disrespecting someone's religion or other form of creed isn't. I understand your confusion, as words like "cracker" and "hillbilly" aren't commonly capitalized, but that's just the way things work.

Now, more toward this last point: yeah, I get what this Swedish policy states. When I was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, I was in the hospital for three days and didn't smoke once during that time. When I got home, I had a cigarette. Now, technically I quit smoking for my treatment and hospitalization. Would that count? According to the policy it would, as Tsu had said, but it really is merely a technical loophole.

Further, I know smoking is bad for me. If I lived under a single-payer or nationalized system, I could easily understand intellectually a refusal to treat me for, say, COPD resulting from my smoking - even if I had quit, but too late to help. But that's not this policy. This policy states that the Swedish doctors would refuse to treat someone who, for example, got gut-shot by a stray bullet while walking down the street if that person happened to be a smoker.

Now, why just limit it to smoking? Chronic alcohol use has hugely deleterious effects on the liver and kidneys, which can and does impair medical treatment and recovery. Why isn't alcohol use included in this policy? That's rhetorical, because I'll tell you the answer: people have a visceral dislike for smoking more than for drinking. That's what makes this policy a big pile of fresh paddock pucks - the fact that it is a gut reaction designed to frighten, vilify, and punish, rather than a medical decision. If the Swedes had made this policy to include smoking, drinking, skydiving, extreme sports, etc., etc., then I wouldn't have this same problem with it. I'd call them a cold-blooded bunch of unfeeling bastards, but I wouldn't have the same problem.

[Deepcrush]

No, Deep, you're missing the whole premise. I don't blame you, because it's so alien to a privatized, multiple-payer system such as the U.S. has. The fact of the matter is that what Seafort calls a "slippery-slope fallacy" isn't, in this case, fallacious at all. I'm discussing a point here with Seafort and now with you - it's not about what I think or would do, it's about what people with the Swedish mindset could easily expand that mindset to encompass.

So your belief is that Sweden is going to go from a "don't treat people who are smoking during the time in which they are being treated" to stop treating anyone with any kind of social status... I'd like to see something reflecting Sweden's intent to ignore the needs of its people. Other wise it is in fact a slippery slope fallacy.

You're ignoring the fact which you quoted. Almost in one breath you said it was necessarily the politicians making the decision, then you cited text which stated that it was the doctors' decision.

If it becomes a law, then its a political decision. That's normally how it works. If its an optional decision on the part of doctors then its a personal choice.

Including invective doesn't change the fact that you decided to dismiss my thought experiments because they don't fit with your point, nothing more. What is disingenuous is your attempt to say otherwise, not anything I've said. Thus, WRT to being "trustworthy," like Clapton said - "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself."

I haven't dismissed your thought. I read it, considered it according to the information at hand and the topic of discussion. At which point your thoughts proved to lack sense and at the same time being filled with a fear inspired fallacy.

As to the crackhead's advice, while gentle temper and respect for others isn't high on my personal list of qualities. Honesty has never been a problem for me.

No there isn't, this is again an example of "discussion." Further, I know you didn't say anything about soldiers, it was merely an extrapolative and illustrative mode of conversation. However, it's got nothing to do with going to war when already wounded - it's about denying treatment to someone involved in a behavior which is likely (or certain) to get someone ill or hurt.

Minus that OP didn't say "people who have ever smoked", it stated "people who continue to smoke". So your example is meaningless to the discussion at hand. Now a better example would been "would this law extend to people of curtain diets?" Curtain religions are strict on matters of meal and medication and treatments. Could this become and issue for them? I don't honestly know, its just a question I would propose as a counter.

First, an aside: it's "Jews," not "jews." Much the same way as words like "Catholic," "Christian," "Zoroastrian," et. al. get capitalized, so does "Jew." Using some abusive language in an argument is fine; willfully disrespecting someone's religion or other form of creed isn't. I understand your confusion, as words like "cracker" and "hillbilly" aren't commonly capitalized, but that's just the way things work.

If it makes you feel any better, you can feel free to pretend I care.

Now, more toward this last point: yeah, I get what this Swedish policy states. When I was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, I was in the hospital for three days and didn't smoke once during that time. When I got home, I had a cigarette. Now, technically I quit smoking for my treatment and hospitalization. Would that count? According to the policy it would, as Tsu had said, but it really is merely a technical loophole.

As long as you aren't smoking during the treatment, then you have the right to treatment under the proposed law. Its not a loophole, its the intended goal.

Further, I know smoking is bad for me. If I lived under a single-payer or nationalized system, I could easily understand intellectually a refusal to treat me for, say, COPD resulting from my smoking - even if I had quit, but too late to help. But that's not this policy. This policy states that the Swedish doctors would refuse to treat someone who, for example, got gut-shot by a stray bullet while walking down the street if that person happened to be a smoker.

Again, fallacy... If you've just been shot in the gut and are living in the hospital for several weeks to heal, you're not going to be smoking. So treatment is still acceptable. Short of your smoking while they are trying to perform the surgery then your example doesn't apply.

And before you ask, no... the smoking bullet doesn't count as a reason they won't treat you.

Now, why just limit it to smoking? Chronic alcohol use has hugely deleterious effects on the liver and kidneys, which can and does impair medical treatment and recovery. Why isn't alcohol use included in this policy? That's rhetorical, because I'll tell you the answer: people have a visceral dislike for smoking more than for drinking. That's what makes this policy a big pile of fresh paddock pucks - the fact that it is a gut reaction designed to frighten, vilify, and punish, rather than a medical decision. If the Swedes had made this policy to include smoking, drinking, skydiving, extreme sports, etc., etc., then I wouldn't have this same problem with it. I'd call them a cold-blooded bunch of unfeeling bastards, but I wouldn't have the same problem.

Again with smoking, don't smoke during treatment. Alcohol, don't drink during treatment. Skydiving, don't skydive if you were just shot the day before and are still seeing a doctor for internal bleeding.

As the goal is to further restrict smoking in the population and this would in fact support that goal. It makes sense to limit it to just smoking, otherwise it would risk expanding in the very thing you and several others have been bullshitting about this whole time. If the law is directed to "SMOKING" then people can't use other excuses in its place so easily.

What's impressive is that little side switch you just pulled. Going from the "it could turn into anything and thus evil" over to the "if it included everything then its good". Very cute.