Originally Posted by Chris

I'm not sure how you would ever demonstrate such a black-and-white example of cause and effect like that.

As it happens, my mum has been riven with arthritis for years and has more artificial joints than a cyberman. She's in for another one next month. Despite the scare stories pushed by certain sections of the Press, I think our NHS works reasonably well and quite equitably.

I have a friend who had a heart attack a couple of years ago due in all likelihood to too much red meat and red wine. The bloke in the bed next to him most likely suffered his heart attack due to too many fish suppers. That's just Glasgow for you. But how do you decide who's worth treating and who isn't? One's a higher rate taxpayer, the other may well have drawn more dole than he's ever paid in tax. Is one worth saving based on contribution to society, and the other better off (for the rest of us) if allowed to die?

Similarly with drug addicts: everyone's story is different. You can't make decisions about people's lives based on blunt categories like 'drug user' or 'bad diet'. If you want to ration healthcare in that way you need to know a lot more about the individual, perhaps what they've done to try to help themselves. That in itself is a moral minefield, and a very good reason why we don't ration health in that way.