Welsh Political News

Of course, we hear a lot about this very issue, and it has also come up quite a bit in American politics recently too……should smokers, the obese and alcoholics receive a lower class health service?

The argument is that those who choose to self inflict health problems upon themselves should not be entitled to the full health benefits of non-smokers/alcoholics within the UK. Hence, those who look after themselves will receive the rewards in the long run (a first class health service with full benefits), and as a result, by spending less on smokers and the obese, the health service will be able to keep hold of more revenue for its expenditure needs.

From what I have gathered, there is about a 50/50 split between this issue (in Connecticut anyway), but I myself have taken a longer time to come to a conclusion, because both sides of this argument seem to have their strong points.

Say Britain was to give smokers a lower standard health service…this would be beneficial in some cases, because when we think about it, health problems of smokers and alcoholics are self-inflicted. They know the dangers of what they are doing, and if they choose to ignore the risks, it is no ones fault but their own. Therefore, the health service should not spend as much on these people, and preserve its funds for those who choose to take care of themselves.

However, we also have to consider that like myself and majority of the British public, smokers and alcoholics contribute to the NHS through taxes, and as a result, should be entitled to receive full health benefits due to their contribution. If someone has contributed equally to a service, surely they deserve to reap the rewards from it when the time arises?

In my personal opinion however, by reviewing both sides of these arguments, I think I eventually favour the latter option; that smokers, the obese and alcoholics should receive full benefit from the NHS.

Why you may ask? Because to me, if everyone equally contributes to something, then everyone (regardless of their health issues) deserves equal reward from such an investment. The argument that they are fully aware of the risks they are taking does not really persuade my opinion that much. Of course, a smoker will know that they run the risk of cancer, but at the same time, a sports athlete (especially of a professional nature) will know that he runs the risk of broken bones, torn ligaments, and even paralysis. This does not mean however, that a sports athlete should be given a second rate health service, just because he might endure a bad tackle.

Of course, I know that there will always be differing opinions to this issue, but personally, everyone runs risks in their daily lives…and just because personal health may deteriote to such risks, it doesn’t mean certain members of the public deserve an NHS lower than the average standard.

Should self-inflicted illnesses deserve a second class health service?

Trackback URI |