Should smokers be treated for lung cancer?

Show all answers

Post your answer

Infobod1st	if they get lung cancer yes of course but i think having chemotherapy and/or having half a lung removed before the disease is even diagnosed just because the odds of getting lung cancer are higher if you smoke is taking the whole concept of preventitive medice a wee bit too far Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

scooby d	HELL YEAH!!!! it ain't that long ago there were advertisements telling you, smoke its good for you and makes you sexy!!!!!!! just because knowledge has developed and the dangers of smoking are better understood this does not mean people who choose to smoke should be punished, under that view should we not remove the cost to the tax payer that ALL drugs cause? i reckon the all the Methadone they hand to smack heads costs us more than smoking related illness. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Jolly Roger	Certainly, they are treated at the moment with contempt mainly because they are supposed to be a hazzard to others, but what about car drivers who drink and drive, cause pollution even worse, they get treated in hospital so why not, all people are equal, its just that some things are harder to break than others and in anycase you can come to my home and see the stress that i have to put up with each day, its not my wifes fault or my own, its her illness and thats what keeps me smoking. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Xindy	Of course. Just because it's self inflicted does not mean they deserve to die. I used to be a self injurer, and I once cut myself so bad I needed 9 stitches. Should the hospital have let me bleed to death? No, because killing myself was not my intention. Smoking isn't much different. Sure, you can't see the damage smokers cause to their bodies unless you take x-rays or whatever they do, but in essence, it's still self-mutilation. They aren't smoking because they want to die. I mean, hell, they even treat people who attempt suicide. Why is this even a question? YES Smokers should recieve treatment for lung cancer if they get it. Besides, if someone smokes, it just increases the chance they will get lung cancer. It doesn't mean the smoking caused it. There are other factors that need to be taken into account. It's like saying people that drink alcoholic beverages shouldn't be treated for liver or kidney disease, or people that eat a lot of sugar shouldn't be treated for cavities or diabetes should they get them. What about people that like to sunbathe? Should they be treated if they get melanoma? We all have our vices to get us through the day. That doesn't make us bad people, just flawed. We still deserve medical treatment. We still deserve respect. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

red lady-bird	Should a fat person be treated for high blood pressure or a heart attack? Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Matt chrome	Damn right they should, After all the tax they have paid to the government........... They have more right than the health tourists who have contributed nothing! Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

The Original Highbury Gal	Yes they should, my mum died in January of this year from lung cancer and although it was quick, 6 weeks to be spot on, it was agonising to watch her die in front of my eyes. Maybe it was self inflicted as it was her own personal choice to smoke, but to refuse to treat somebody with Lung cancer or any form of cancer because they smoke is in my humble opinion barbaric. My cousin found out yesterday that she has got stage 3 breast cancer and yes she is a lapsed non smoker,and yes she's felt all the pangs of guilt "it's my fault because i smoke" i cant imagine how $hit she'd feel if she were refused treatment because of this. How about drug addicts, or people with liver disease who just happen to be best friends with a bottle of Jack Daniels? If you've paid your taxes all your hard working life, then you've paid your dues as far as im concerned and are entitled to treatment just as much as the man/woman who find comfort in a beer glass! Shazz, i hope and pray that you never ever lose somebody you love to Cancer! Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

jackie m	There is no medical proof that smoking causes lung cancer, ask any doctors and they will tell you that we are all born with cancer it just takes something to set it off and it could be smoking but not proven?, should drinkers be treated? as alcohol causes liver problems leading to cancer, and should drivers be treated for cancer, after all they are the ones polluting the air with exhaust fumes. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

neil desperandum	of course they should receive treatment! if you start allocating treatment on the basis of the type of lifestyle people lead - where do you draw the line? do you refuse treatment to heavy drinkers for the various health problems caused by their addiction? do you refuse treatment to sportsmen and women, because they should have been well aware of the risk of injury that their sport could cause? do you refuse treatment to road users - once again they should be well aware of the risks involved on the road? and finally, do you refuse treatment to fatties? - they really should have known better than to let themselves go like that. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

christmas_me_merry	Yes Why? Do we treat car drivers, drinkers, obese people, etc? Yes we do - most of us do something in our lives WE KNOW affects our health. We can not make smokers scapegoats for all ills. x Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

*♥honesty ♥.•´ `.¸ ♥**	i 100% believe they should..... I lost my dad to lung cancer earlier this year.....yes he smoked....no it wasn't smoking that 'caused' his cancer, his inquest on friday stated his cancer was caused bu Industrial Disease....he worked with asbestos for some years! unfortunately by the time it was diagnosed it was too late for any treatment to be effective in 'curing' his cancer But if it had been different and somebody refused to treat him because he smoked...what an injustice they would have served when after his death they found Asbestos to be the main cause! I agree smoking is not good for you in any way shape or form, but people have to stop automatically blaming it ! Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Hugo Fitch	Only if they have lung cancer. And people who have never smoked should also be treated for lung cancer as it is caused by many things, such as the fumes from petrol, household chemicals, bracken spores, etc. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

susieblake2002	Yes, absolutely. I'm not a smoker, I don't think smoking can be in anyway beneficial to a person's health, but I don't believe that means we leave ANYONE to die from lung cancer. Smoking is a lifestyle choice - it is not illegal. Lung cancer can be caused by smoking - but then, diabetes can be caused by obesity, liver disease can be caused by alcoholism, Hep B can be caused by drug use, HIV and AIDS can be caused by having unprotected sex - again, these are all lifestyle choices we make for ourselves. Does that mean we stop treating all these conditions as well, because effectively they were caused by what we chose to do to ourselves? Where does it all stop? Who makes the judgement call on who gets treatment and who doesn't? Trying to prevent smokers from being treated for lung cancer would create a public outcry. No government is ever going to enforce that. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

**********	Of course, I find it truly amazing that it should suggested that they shouldn’t, they pay taxes to contribute towards the National Health Service. What type of race would we be if we simply left people to die because they became addicted to something? Addiction itself is an illness that not everyone has the strength to overcome. Majority of smokers that I know would love to quit and do keep trying, to like that they wouldn’t receive treatment is preposterous. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

a beautiful lie	ethically yes! we should all equally be given the same treatments even if its a self inflicted disease. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Frogman	Should fat people be treated if they have a heart attack? Should a drunk driver be treated if they have a car crash? Should a junkie be treated if they OD? Who decides who lives and who dies? I certainly hope it's not YOU! What a stupid question !!!!! Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

DemonicaB	Yes. They've paid towards treatment but the major thing for me is where do we stop with this attitude? Should motorcyclists be refused treatment if they crash as they might be doing something risky? If a pedestrian gets hit crossing a road when the traffic lights are still green should we treat them? Drunk people that get hurt in a fight? We all do some stupid things in life after all. :o) Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Byakuya	of course! that's like asking if people who eat fast food should be treated for heart conditions.. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Lovelysexylee	Of course!!! most illness's are life style related, IE high blood pressure, diabetes, what if a footballer tore a ligament should he also not get help? and smokers pay alot of tax on cigarettes anyway Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

nite_angelica	Should people with skin cancer be treated because they went out in the sun? Should diabetics be treated if they are overweight? Should people with high blood pressure be treated if they are overweight? All types of people get lung cancer - not JUST smokers. My aunt is a nurse and she says she sees just as many non-smokers with it as smokers. It sure would be nice if life, death, and illnesses worked this way. However, nobody is guaranteed anything. Everyone is going to die of something and we all pay to be treated for whatever illnesses we develop. Dumb question. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Σαι ™	yeah..not only them but everybody bcos everybody would have been a passive smoker some time in his life... Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

?!	Yes! They pay enough tax on their ciggies! It'll easily pay for all the alcholics, obese and anorexic too! With their tax contributions I reckon they save all the non-smokers a fortune in payroll tax. What a daft question! Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

K k	That is a terrible thing to say of course they should I'm an x smoker now but think about this your mom or dad get lung cancer and they smoke and they are told that they just have to go and die a painful death because of an addiction Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Ginny Jin	Yes. They are suffering from an addiction. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

gingerlatic	only if they actually have it....a few smoking related facts. smokers are 50% less likely to live to cash their pensions than non smokers, saving the tax payer a tidy sum., they also pay enough in tobacco duty to fund the nhs 10 times over, so ,as a life long non smoker, no i dont begrudge people with a terminal illness the treatment they need. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

sara c	you can get lung cancer if you smoke or not , as with any other cancer so my answer is yes Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

۞ Vixen ۞	Of course... if people decided they weren't going to help those who did things that were bad for their health... hardly anyone would get any care. Should we revive drug users that overdosed? What about alcoholics that have drank their livers away? Should we treat fat people for heart attacks? Should we treat accident victims that always drive like jerks? Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Pug the Mighty	Hell yes, the tax they pay is all that keeps the NHS going Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

mickey g	only if you have cancer!!! you cant treat someone for cancer if they dont have it, you'll most likely kill them! but if you mean should a smoker with cancer be treated for it, then yes. thats like asking if someone with skin cancer should be treated, just because they went outside without sun screen!! its their dicision to smoke, and its their money thats paying for the treatment, so why not? Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

krystal k	Yes. What a dispicable question. If you reply "No, they shouldn't" then I would like to see how quickly your answer changes once your mother or father, sister or brother, best friend or grandmother is diagnosed with cancer from smoking. What an absurd question. Everyone should be treated for cancer regardless of self infliction or not. My mother was diagnosed with cancer 4 years after she quit smoking....yes she was a smoker but she did the right thing by quiting and still was a victim of cancer....Since she USED to smoke she shouldnt' be treated??? who would agree with that insane nonsense??? Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Vivi	Yes! We pay tax on cigarettes so why shouldn't we be allowed treatment? If smokers were to be denied treatment, you may as well stop fat people from having heart operations, drivers from having treatment after car accidents and stop people from being treated for sports injuries. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No