Its just my opinion.........Why waste a surgury on someone who dont value their life. They are killing themselfs by smoking anyway.

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.

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!)

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...

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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??

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.

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.

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.

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".