Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steve H
I'd be more greatful if you didn't smoke to be honest.. Your almost making it out as though your doing us a favour smoking. As for recieving treatment on NHS.. If two people were to be rushed into A&E, one suffering from a heart attack due to excessive smoking, and the other suffering a heart attack from natural causes, and only one case could take priority.. Should the fact that one case was of direct consequence of the smokers actions have any affect on who was to take priority?
IMO, yes it should. You fully know what your doing to yourself when you smoke. Your actions shouldn't make another person suffer.
|
Hi,
Just passing through and noticed this thread, so thought I would add an opinion.
The non-smoker should be permitted to pass away peacefully without further intervention. Afterall, using your perspective. The non-smoker has done nothing to further the on-set of their condition. The set of circumstances that brought them to your hospital is due to "natural causes". So he or she is part of a given societies 'natural wastage', a person whos time is up. Mother nature (or some other entity) has deemed them superflous to requirements. The heart attack they have just suffered is the means by which they have been dispensed with. Afterall, we all have to go somehow and lets face it, heart-attacks aren't
always a causal effect of smoking.
Where as the 'smokers' condition is obviously brought about by a lifestyle choice. Or an inate weakness. So using your idea, they would naturally be the one to receive treatment as their time isn't up. Their condition at that point would be down to a physiological defect as opposed to a natural one as in the case of the non-smoker. The smoker maybe heading for a life changing experience, they may go on to profess that in that moment in the hospital they saw their "god", thus promoting this belief in their local community. They may even be about to make a life changing discovery, something that could benefit mankind as a whole. It maybe something revolutionary, like... oh I don't know. Possibly, smoking can be one of many causes of a heart attack for instance. You get the idea, something totally "off the wall" like that.
Whilst the "non-smoker" who followed all the "right" rules and made all the "right" choices according to those around him or her. The best they can hope for is to fertilise a weed, or perhaps a nice flower. Or at the very least provide food for a bug or something.
Yes, I agree with you. A persons actions shouldn't make another person suffer.
