Should non-smokers be given priority over smokers when waiting for heart bypass surgury?
Yes
58%
[ 14 ]
Undecided
8%
[ 2 ]
No
33%
[ 8 ]
Total Votes : 24
Author
Message
Kia
Supporter
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 6594 Location: Planet Tampaxia,
Should Non-smokers... Posted: 01-10-07 09:26am
Should non-smokers be given priority over
smokers when waiting for heart bypass
surgury?
What's your opinion and why.
{for those who don't know me i'm kia, 28
years old, and usually found in the
pregnancy and womens health forums on this
site. I recently returned to college and
this is to be my biology assignment.}
i have to use 3(three) different types of
input to write my assignment on.
My choices of input are
1. Media (newspapers/magazines)
2. Informational leaflets (such as those
found in doctors offices etc)
3. You guys!
So I am hoping you have some interesting
opinions on the subject.
Remember, not everyone will have the same
opinion, so debate nicely and don't get
into personal insults.
Kia xxx
|
Magical Logic
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 2248
Posted: 01-10-07 09:35am
Its just my opinion.........Why waste a
surgury on someone who dont value their
life. They are killing themselfs by
smoking anyway.
|
tigresacanela24
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 5261 Location: Treat your children well, eventually they'll choose your nursing home.
Posted: 01-10-07 09:45am
I am a smoker and I think that non-smokers
should be given priority in a situation
like that. The reason that I believe
this is because if you smoke you have
double the chance of developing certain
heart diseases. I'm not quite sure but I
believe smoking narrows blood vessels, etc
as well. Essentially you've ruined your
own heart. Why should you (who didn't
value your heart enough to quit smoking
(or not start in the first place)) be
given priority over someone who has to
have a heart surgery through no fault of
their own. Chances are good that you
will ruin your heart again by smoking,
voiding the surgery anyway. Help someone
who isn't killing him or herself to begin
with.
|
Kia
Supporter
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 6594 Location: Planet Tampaxia,
Posted: 01-10-07 09:48am
Point to consider - there are many cuases
of heart disease, smoking is only one of
them.
How would it possible to decide if that
person would have gotten heart diease
anyway?? (devils advocate)
(for the record I am a reformed smoker -
just over 3 1/2 years since my last
smoke!)
|
Sunflower_pie81
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 5041 Location: to hell with this crap
Posted: 01-10-07 09:49am
Hey kia,
i had to vote yes. Smokers know the
risks of smoking and the results that come
from smoking. Smoking reduces the quality
of life and the lenght of life. It also
reduces the immune system ie it isn't as
effective as it could be in a non-smoker.
I believe if one is going to put his/her
body at a higher risk of debilitating
illnesses then yes I think that non
smokers should be put as priority over
smokers. When you smoke you read the
package warnings and you take the risks.
However while writing my responce, this
came to mind...
Obese people also place themselves at a
higher risk for illnesses and the need for
heart bypass surgeries.....Should we make
them wait too? Because their quality of
life is affected as well...
|
mayhi
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 Posts: 453 Location: Halifax, NS Canada
Posted: 01-10-07 09:50am
Here is another thought.. What about non
smokers who live in a smokers environment,
but not by choice? Those are the people
that I think should have priority, because
they do not have a choice but to live in
that envoronment because they are a child,
or teen. Parents do it to their kids all
the time, and when the kids end up sick,
which is so often the case, who takes the
blame then? The parents, who are so
unthoughtful of their children. So, I
definitly believe that non smokers should
always have priority and especially those
who had to live in a smokers world.
People who smoke are not going to quit
just because they have to have surgery,
thats a known fact. They will be smoking
as soon as they can afterwards. I grew up
in a family of smokers and I pay for it
everyday. I am now pregnant and I have
asked people (family) if they would smoke
outside when I am around or when the baby
comes. They all agree that since I am not
a smoker its not unreasonable to smoke
outside. It is in fact encouraging some
family members to quit.
Good luck with your assignment!
|
Jules
Supporter
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3744 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 72
Thanked:65
Posted: 01-10-07 10:04am
I voted yes as well because someone who
has not been knowingly risking the health
of their heart should get priority over
someone who has been taking that risk -
whatever the cause of the heart disease.
|
Melissa_20
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Jan 2006 Posts: 6806 Location: Florida
Posted: 01-10-07 10:18am
I vote yes for the same reason as everyone
else .B.U.T I have 2 different thoughts on
it.The second thought was "first come
first serve" type thing.Who ever got ther
first has a right to go first. . .But,i
dunno.I think I would more go with a
non-smoker.Like kay said,smokers have
already helped ruin their lungs and i'm
sure they wouldn't quit smoking anyhow.
|
tigresacanela24
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 5261 Location: Treat your children well, eventually they'll choose your nursing home.
Posted: 01-10-07 12:01pm
I think the same rules should apply for
other risky behaviors/lifestyles. People
who purposely clog their arteries with the
poison from mcdonalds and other fast food
hellholes, and people with drug problems.
Pretty much anyone who engages in
unhealthy lifestyle choices should receive
lower priority.
|
Makoto
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 263 Location: Japan
Posted: 01-10-07 12:44pm
Hey kia, happy new year.
You question is too narrow.
Should a smoker who otherwise live a
healthy life-style come second to some one
who eats every second meal at macdonalds
and does not maintain a healthy lifestyle,
outside of not smoking?
Basically should obese people be treated
better or worse than smokers.
But of course a person who leads a healthy
life and does not smoke, they should come
first. Given that age and dependants are
not an issue.
A smoker, but is a young father of 2 young
children vs a person that is 65 and has
not dependants. How do you decide?
|
Kia
Supporter
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 6594 Location: Planet Tampaxia,
Posted: 01-10-07 13:50pm
Hey makoto
the question is not relevant to should
obese people be made to wait blah blah
blah. (that's a whole other question)
yes, that is a factor but it is not the
question.
The sole question for the assignment is
"should non-smokers be given priority over
smokers when waiting for heart bypass
surgury".
So if you wish to consider the macdonalds
loving then the question would be "should
a macdonalds-eating non-smoker, take
priority over a macdonalds-eating smoker
when waiting for heart bypass surgury?"
see this isn't a question of obesity over
smokers, young over old or vice versa.
It's a question of - based on the smoking
factor alone - who should take priority.
Other wise the question becomes too broad
for the exam board.
[note once written I will post up my
assignment for you guys to read]
|
Fairy*Godmother
Supporter
Joined: 11 Oct 2003 Posts: 1389 Location: , Georgia USA
Thanks: 48
Thanked:59
Posted: 01-10-07 14:02pm
What about family history of coronary
disease? Does this play a factor in
deciding who gets to go first? I smoked
for almost 20 years, smoked my last jan
1990. I feel there are other factors to
take into consideration upon making this
decision. If there are two subjects up
for the transplant...Ok, who smokes and
who one does not? Which has a family
history of any other types of health
issues (heart problems, high blood
pressure, diabetes,etc). This would be
extremely hard if it were up to me to have
to decide. At first I was leaning on the
non-smoker, but in reality, the smoker
could be in better health than some non
smokers. Someone that smokes could always
quit smoking, where as, someone who has
other health problems can't just "quit".
This is just my opinion, but I feel there
are other things to consider than just
smoking or non smoking.
|
Kia
Supporter
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 6594 Location: Planet Tampaxia,
Posted: 01-10-07 17:49pm
For arguments sake we are going to assume
the two people in question are actually
clones
therefore with the same hereditary
risks.
I know and will cover in the intro to the
assignment that there are many many causes
of heart disease, unfortunately if I were
to cover all side routes, i'd be writing a
specialist book lol
really it comes down to "other factors
aside" who should get preference?
My first thought was non-smokers but then
I had the thought of there is no way of
knowing if that person would have
naturally had heart diease anyway.
This could be an interesting write up.
|
Makoto
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 263 Location: Japan
Posted: 01-10-07 22:50pm
Then of course the smoker should take a
back seat to the non-smoker. The person
knew the risks and yet choosed to ignore
them. However, can some one be blamed
once they are addicted?
Having an addiction is a terrible thing,
especially when a person no longer wishes
to be a slave to that addiction.
My view kia is no one wants to ever be a
smoker. They get trapped and addicted.
The only choice was in the beggining when
the person put the first cigarette in
their mouth. After that it became a trap,
and an addiction.
So, people who continue to smoke inspite
of being told they have a bad heart, do
not choose to continue to smoke. They are
trapped. They want to escape but do not
know how.
A person who says they like smoking is
lying.
|
Kia
Supporter
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 6594 Location: Planet Tampaxia,
Posted: 01-11-07 16:08pm
I disagree, makoto.
I started smoking (copying parents) at the
age of 7 of course I didn't smoke regular
or properly then - just the odd stolen
ciggie.
By the time I went to high school (11
years) I smoked 10 a day because I chose
to and wanted to.
I pretty much gave up for a couple years
(5-10) per week.
Then I started again because I wanted
to.
At 18 I got my first horse and quit
smoking dead because I didn't want the
fire risk on the stable yard.
After an incident I started again (again
by choice).
Almost 4 years ago I was drinking at
alcoholic levels and smoking upto 40 a day
because I was choosing too and wanted
too.
I quit both on the same day by personal
choice, without any assistance.
I was able to do this because I was
choosing to do the drinking and smoking
therefore I was just as able to choose not
to do them.
People on the whole don't care or think
"it won't happen to them" or they will
quite tomorrow - but tomorrow never
comes.
I enjoyed smoking, but I only actually
missed it after the evening meal and even
that was short lived.
|
Spanky2005
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 30 Jul 2005 Posts: 76 Location: Philadelphia
Posted: 01-11-07 16:52pm
I am a smoker but I am trying to quit
without success. Sometimes I quit for two
weeks but then get back to it.
I dont think smokers should be
discriminated against as far as being
given less priority for heart surgery.
If the criteria for heart surgery is going
to be peoples habits and/or other
hereditary concerns then the following
could be reasons too:
1) does the person drink a lot of
alchohol
2) does the person have a history of other
problems such as liver, thyroid etc.
3) does heart disease run in a persons
family
4) how about diabetes.
If you consider smoking, then why not
consider these other factors too?
I think everyone deserves equal
consideration. It should only depend on
how seriously they need the surgery and
how critical the time factor is if surgery
is postponed.
|
Dekkie
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Jan 2007 Posts: 2 Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 01-11-07 17:00pm
Hi from the uk
well its a tricky question but heres a few
other similar ones...
Should people who are dleiberatly fat
becasue they insist on eating jumk food be
given priority?
Heavy drinkers, should they be given
priority over non drinkers?
Drug addicts...Where should they stand in
the queue at a&e
people who self harm for sexual
gratification...She they get priority over
a kid who has hurt themself falling from a
bike?
Why should people wanting a sex change be
given priority over someone needing a new
hip?
I have no answers...But some opinions
(which I will kepp to myself)
just trying to open it up a little by
playing the devils advocate
|
Spirit
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Mar 2006 Posts: 387 Location: Canada
Posted: 01-12-07 08:28am
For the most part, I agree with
makoto................Humans are imperfect
and without thinking all the way
through.............Starting a bad habit,
whether it's food, drink, drugs or
smoking...............No one should be
discriminated
against.........................Although
if the person has not received the wake up
call and has no intention of
quitting...............Why waste surgery
on them??
|
Makoto
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 263 Location: Japan
Posted: 01-12-07 10:31am
Kai, you think you had a choice. You
might not have had a physical need to
smoke, but the brainwashing never left you
even if you did stop smoking. That is why
you always started up again.
But could you have not been brainwashed to
think that the cigarette would give you
some kind of benefit. That smoking helped
you in time of stress, and it made
occasions better. So you think you chose
to smoke, but actually the desire to smoke
was implanted into, basically from the
first time you had a cigarette.
At least that what I think where most
people who think they had a choice go
wrong. You never had a choice between all
the influences in society family, people
think the cigarette must have some kind of
benefits.
In fact cigarettes have no benefits what
so ever.
Kia, I hope you do not take any offense.
I mean none towards you at all.
|
Kia
Supporter
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 6594 Location: Planet Tampaxia,
Posted: 01-16-07 16:56pm
makoto
wrote:
kia, you think you had a
choice. You might not have had a
physical need to smoke, but the
brainwashing never left you even if you
did stop smoking. That is why you always
started up again.
nope.
I had a choice.
I am not/was not/never have been
brainwashed.
I didn't always "start up again" because I
felt the urge I did so because I wanted
too and enjoyed smoking.
Quote:
but could you
have not been brainwashed to think that
the cigarette would give you some kind of
benefit. That smoking helped you in time
of stress, and it made occasions better.
So you think you chose to smoke, but
actually the desire to smoke was implanted
into, basically from the first time you
had a
cigarette.
nope, again.
I've never smoked for stress and never
worried if I didn't have ciggarettes.
I quit by choice because I wanted to, and
did so immediately.
Quote:
at least that
what I think where most people who think
they had a choice go wrong. You never
had a choice between all the influences in
society family, people think the cigarette
must have some kind of benefits.
In fact cigarettes have no benefits what
so ever.
Kia, I hope you do not take any offense.
I mean none towards you at
all.
no, I just want it clear
that I had a choice and I used my
choices.
If I had an urge or need to smoke i'd have
gone out of the stable yard to smoke, i'd
have missed it when I quit, i'd have snuck
the odd ciggarette.
I never had an addiction to smoking, same
as I had no addiciton to alcohol even
though I was drinking at alcoholic
levels.
I quit drinking at the very same time as
smoking and never looked back or felt
"tempted".
