Dave Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7909865.stm NHS obesity surgery 'on the rise' The number of people in England having obesity surgery has risen by 40% in the last year, figures show. The NHS Information Centre statistics revealed there were 2,724 operations, including stomach stapling and gastric bypasses to reduce stomach size. Overall, hospital admissions in 2007-8 caused directly by obesity topped 5,000 once strokes and heart problems were included - a 30% rise. One in four adults are obese, but only the most severe qualify for surgery. However, hospitals have reported they are struggling to cope with demands from even the most obese. Professor Philip James, of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, said: "The number of people being treated by hospitals for obesity-related problems are just a small fraction of those that are eligible. "The NHS just does not have the capacity and staff trained to deal with this." Obesity has risen dramatically since the early 1990s. Rising rates In 1993, 16% of women and 13% of men were classed as obese, but by 2007 the figure stood at 24% for both. Figures for children have also risen and now stand at just under a fifth. The rising rates have prompted the government to launch a TV advertising campaign this year warning people about the risk of obesity and the links to cancer, diabetes and heart disease. The three-year initiative follows a Foresight report, published last year, which warned the government must act to stop Britain "sleepwalking" into a crisis. The report, which was the largest UK study into obesity, backed by the government and compiled by 250 experts, said excess weight had become the norm in our "obesogenic" society. The NHS Information Centre also revealed that the number of drugs prescribed to treat obesity rose by 16% to 1.23m. Public health minister Dawn Primarolo said said obesity was the "biggest health challenge" facing the country. She said through the obesity campaign, the government was kick-starting a lifestyle revolution. But she added: "Guidance on obesity recommends that drugs and surgery should always be a last resort - a better diet and more exercise should be tried first." Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said more action was required from government. "Too few people are aware of the recommended diet and exercise levels and too few have access to the information or support needed." I understand that it fundamentally goes against the purpose of the NHS but it really boils my piss that my money is going towards bailing out people who know exactly what they're doing to their bodies, usually very slowly over a number of years. Discuss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Agreed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 What a fucking laughable comment by the Tories btw. Absolutely laughable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 No, they should pay for it themselves. I don't smoke and I'm not fat, so I don't think I should be paying for fat/smoking related surgery. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 What a fucking laughable comment by the Tories btw. Absolutely laughable. You're right, it's just a typical "opposition party" comment. Politicians are like a bunch of kids. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 No, they should pay for it themselves. I don't smoke and I'm not fat, so I don't think I should be paying for fat/smoking related surgery. I realise this thread will come across as rather high-horsetastic, as I don't smoke/I'm not obese either, but it'll be interesting to see if anyone who does/is agrees too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissy Bee Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 People who smoke pay taxes partly so the NHS can afford to treat them - they actually pay more than it costs to treat them. And what care are we trying to rule obese people out of? Only the things that will help them lose weight or everything else that's wrong with them too? If gastric banding could save the NHS money over time, would it be justifiable then? How about people who are injured doing sports, or in car accidents they caused themselves - I presume we can deny them care too? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 sex change surgery = nhs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Smokers pay monster tax. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 No, they should pay for it themselves. I don't smoke and I'm not fat, so I don't think I should be paying for fat/smoking related surgery. I realise this thread will come across as rather high-horsetastic, as I don't smoke/I'm not obese either, but it'll be interesting to see if anyone who does/is agrees too. In the case of 95% of the obese and 100% of the smokers, and probably 100% of those who apply to both, it will be their own fault, their own diet and exercise choices that made them like that. For those very few exceptions who have a rare eating disorder/thyroid problem, then fair enough, but the rest of them (so not the 5%) don't have a leg to stand on imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 No, they should pay for it themselves. I don't smoke and I'm not fat, so I don't think I should be paying for fat/smoking related surgery. I realise this thread will come across as rather high-horsetastic, as I don't smoke/I'm not obese either, but it'll be interesting to see if anyone who does/is agrees too. You know I smoke, but smokers pay a lot of tax and don't live on average ten years or something less, so they rarely use more than they've paid in fwiw. Fat people on the other hand...Throw the book at them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissy Bee Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Nobody is guiltless when it comes to harming one's own health. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 People seem to be forgetting that Smokers pay tax on their cigarettes as well as paying the same tax that non-smokers pay. Same goes for fat people when they buy their cakes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissy Bee Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 People seem to be forgetting that Smokers pay tax on their cigarettes as well as paying the same tax that non-smokers pay. Same goes for fat people when they buy their cakes. Cakes are exempt from VAT. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 People seem to be forgetting that Smokers pay tax on their cigarettes as well as paying the same tax that non-smokers pay. Same goes for fat people when they buy their cakes. Cakes are exempt from VAT. Luxury item isn't it? What about ice cream? Fatties love ice cream. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Why should you lot pay for me to get a gastric band or help quitting smoking, it was me that made the decisions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I think if the tax was going into the prevention rather than the cure then more people would be willing to pay it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissy Bee Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I think if the tax was going into the prevention rather than the cure then more people would be willing to pay it. Why? What's the difference? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I think we should make fat people stand outside of pubs and clubs, just like the smokers. "Excuse me sir, if you want another packet of pork scratchings you'll have to step outside..." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Why should you lot pay for me to get a gastric band or help quitting smoking, it was me that made the decisions. Why should I pay for some boy racer to have hospital treatment if he crashes his car through speeding and acting like an arse on the road? As someone who is losing weight (and paying for it themselves through weightwatchers) I think that its a hard line to draw. If you allow someone to continue to be morbidly obese you then have to pay for the treatment of illnesses that come from being morbidly obese, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attacks, joint replacements etc. I believe that gastric surgery has seen people who were type 2 diabetic requiring treatment to be free from treatment when they have lost the weight. How can that not be money well spent? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I think we should make fat people stand outside of pubs and clubs, just like the smokers. "Excuse me sir, if you want another packet of pork scratchings you'll have to step outside..." When was the last time you heard of someone dying of passive weight-gain? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Why should you lot pay for me to get a gastric band or help quitting smoking, it was me that made the decisions. Why should I pay for some boy racer to have hospital treatment if he crashes his car through speeding and acting like an arse on the road? As someone who is losing weight (and paying for it themselves through weightwatchers) I think that its a hard line to draw. If you allow someone to continue to be morbidly obese you then have to pay for the treatment of illnesses that come from being morbidly obese, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attacks, joint replacements etc. I believe that gastric surgery has seen people who were type 2 diabetic requiring treatment to be free from treatment when they have lost the weight. How can that not be money well spent? If it's my money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Nguyen Van Falk Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I think we should make fat people stand outside of pubs and clubs, just like the smokers. "Excuse me sir, if you want another packet of pork scratchings you'll have to step outside..." When was the last time you heard of someone dying of passive weight-gain? I agree with Pilko, but for the reason being I just don't want to have to look at a fat person. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I think if the tax was going into the prevention rather than the cure then more people would be willing to pay it. Why? What's the difference? Because then there'd be some sort of end in sight to it, and perhaps a shifting of the tax being spent on other more important things. If you're paying for the cure then you're still allowing it to happen in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Why should you lot pay for me to get a gastric band or help quitting smoking, it was me that made the decisions. Why should I pay for some boy racer to have hospital treatment if he crashes his car through speeding and acting like an arse on the road? As someone who is losing weight (and paying for it themselves through weightwatchers) I think that its a hard line to draw. If you allow someone to continue to be morbidly obese you then have to pay for the treatment of illnesses that come from being morbidly obese, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attacks, joint replacements etc. I believe that gastric surgery has seen people who were type 2 diabetic requiring treatment to be free from treatment when they have lost the weight. How can that not be money well spent? Aye but if I'm doing sweet fuck all to shift the weight, like eating properly and exercise because "I can't" (the biggest pile of bullshit ever) then why waste the resources. If you want to get all moralistic and say that anyone in the wrong at a car accident shouldn't get hospital care then you better build a bigger morgue. A friend of mine is a studying Nurse and she has seen a fair few of these cases its just lazyness on their part. We've all seen the TV shows about these 50 stone people who get help but just go back to their old ways when home. I remember This Morning doing something with a bloke who lost about 30 stone and they congratulated him, and to be honest part of me thought "What for?" Smoking is slightly different as its an addiction but still bears the same reasoning in my eyes, when obese, people know of the option of gastric band it only seems to serve as another reason to not bother trying anything else. In part I commend you for joining weightwatchers, but are you expecting the NHS to pay for you? There's a difference between an 18 year old going to fast and a fat bastard who won't put down the cake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now