The euroClinix Health Blog Everything for your health

Refusing medical treatment can never be justified

Posted in: Weight Loss 30 Apr, 2012

The results of an online survey have shown that a staggering 54% of doctors agree with the principle of refusing medical treatment to smokers and obese people. The basis for the proposal is that the potential benefits of treating these patients are outweighed by the likelihood that the procedures will be ineffective due to their lifestyle.

The poll on was optional and just over 1,000 doctors filled it out, with more than half answering in the affirmative to the question: 'Should the NHS be allowed to refuse non-emergency treatments to patients unless they lose weight or stop smoking?'

Not only does this completely contradict the essence of the Hippocratic Oath and the indiscriminate values of the NHS, but it opens the floodgates for refusing treatment to anyone who is suffering from a self-induced or avoidable condition or injury.

Some private health providers have already begun to deny funding for certain treatments to patients who smoke or are obese, as is their prerogative. To do so on the NHS, however, would risk setting a precedent which effectively means that you are not deserving of treatment if you could have avoided your condition but chose not to, or if your chances of surviving are lower than average.

By following these rules, patients should not be treated if they are alcoholics, drug addicts or suicidal. Neither should we treat anyone whose injuries were sustained in prison, women in a long-term abusive relationship, or elderly people whose life expectancy is relatively low.

The unspoken issue is that of the cost of treating these conditions, which has often been associated with the possible future collapse of the NHS. The study may choose to ignore the financial implications, but whilst we’re on the subject, here’s another thought: Should smokers and obese people be exempt from paying national insurance seeing as they will not be entitled to reap its benefits?

Many overweight people and smokers with health conditions relating to their lifestyle choice are aware of the damage they are doing to their bodies, so perhaps it would be worth examining the emotional factors linked to their inability to stop indulging in the habits which have caused their health problems.

By suggesting that it would be a good idea to alienate a section of society to such an extent that their basic human rights are being violated, the message these doctors are sending is that medical treatment is not a right, but a privilege which has to be earned, and where an abstract morality prevails in order to decide who is entitled to it.

It is also worth noting that it is not illegal to smoke or to be obese, whereas the use of recreational drugs and drunk driving cause a number of conditions and injuries which are treated by the NHS free of charge and jusgement. Surely if we start to legislate who can and who cannot receive medical treatment, those who are reckless with their health and displaying criminal behaviour should be the first to be penalised?

It is not within a doctor’s remit to withhold treatment in order to blackmail a patient into losing weight or stop smoking and if this is the only solution they can think of then perhaps our GPs should be better equipped to make their patients aware of the risks and treatment options available to them.


  • VanessaMonday, Apr 30, 2012

    I agree with the premise of this article - it sounds a lot like the American system of "pre-existing conditions" meaning you can't get healthcare etc - but I think it goes a bit far. I don't think denying certain treatments to smokers is the same as denying treatment to sufferers of abuse. I'm not sure I see the logic there. I also think its problematic to try and draw parallels between smokers and people who are suicidal.

  • MarianneMonday, Apr 30, 2012

    Makes perfect sense to me.

  • JoeMonday, Apr 30, 2012

    Vanessa, you're right. It is totally absurd to compare the two scenarios. Rosie is clearly a fat smoker who has a chip on her shoulder.

  • RosieMonday, Apr 30, 2012

    Vanessa, the theory follows if you assume that anyone who could be considered responsible for their condition/injury forgoes the right to medical treatment. I agree it does "go a bit far" - that is the point. Joe, not that it's any of your business but I'm neither fat nor a smoker. You don't have to be in order to disagree with the violation of human rights.

  • FaithMonday, Apr 30, 2012

    How can you not treat people who need it, it's complete nonsense?! Just because the health service is 'free', doesn't mean that people can be bullied like that. Are we really living in a society where this is our only option?!!??!?? Treating people like naughty children won't work, it's almost like you are forcing people to live in a way that they may not be entirely capable of doing. It's blackmail!

  • CraigMonday, Apr 30, 2012

    It's not even happened, why is everybody so upset?

There are 3 comments. View all
Submit Comment
  • Your Name:*
  • Your Email:
  • Your Comment:*
Continue reading
Discover euroClinix Blog Categories
Discover more
Finding the right bra is no joke. Misery-filled hours in John Lewis,... Continue reading
Chemsex. I wonder if that'll make it into the dictionary next year? If... Continue reading
How do you manage your period? With Kit Kats, crying and a sex desert that... Continue reading