"Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.

The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as "out*rageous" and "disgraceful".

About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.

Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.

The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050.

Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations.

Meanwhile, £1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade.

Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.

One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements.

Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's ethics committee, said it would be "outrageous" to limit care on age grounds. Age Concern called the doctors' views "disgraceful".

Gordon Brown promised this month that a new NHS constitution would set out people's "responsibilities" as well as their rights, a move interpreted as meaning restric*tions on patients who bring health problems on themselves. The only sanction threatened so far, however, is to send patients to the bottom of the waiting list if they miss appointments.

The survey found that medical professionals wanted to go much further in denying care to patients who do not look after their bodies.

Ninety-four per cent said that an alcoholic who refused to stop drinking should not be allowed a liver transplant, while one in five said taxpayers should not pay for "social abortions" and fertility treatment.

Paul Mason, a GP in Portland, Dorset, said there were good clinical reasons for denying surgery to some patients. "The issue is: how much responsibility do people take for their health?" he said.

"If an alcoholic is going to drink themselves to death then that is really sad, but if he gets the liver transplant that is denied to someone else who could have got the chance of life then that is a tragedy." He said the case of George Best, who drank himself to death in 2005, three years after a liver transplant, had damaged the argument that drinkers deserved a second chance.

However, Roger Williams, who carried out the 2002 transplant on the former footballer, said doctors could never be sure if an alcoholic would return to drinking, although most would expect a detailed psychological assessment of patients, who would be required to abstain for six months before surgery.

Prof Williams said: "Less than five per cent of alcoholics who have a transplant return to serious drinking. George was one of them. It is actually a pretty successful rate. I think the judgment these doctors are making is nothing to do with the clinical reasons for limiting such operations and purely a moral decision."

Katherine Murphy, from the Patients' Association, said it would be wrong to deny treatment because of a "lifestyle" factor. "The decision taken by the doctor has to be the best clinical one, and it has to be taken individually. It is morally wrong to deny care on any other grounds," she said.

Responding to the survey's findings on the treatment of the elderly, Dr Calland, of the BMA, said: "If a patient of 90 needs a hip operation they should get one. Yes, they might peg out any time, but it's not our job to play God."

Source:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../27/nhs127.xml

dang wat will ppl think of next.......

Ok this is very interesting but thatlast line interests me the most.. "if a patient of 90 needs a hip operation they should et one. Tes they might peg out at any time bt its not our job to play God"?? they are playing God by giving him/her a new hip in the first place?? If it was Gods way he would keep is busted hip but i digress.

Immoral as it may seem i agre with alot of this. i come from a long line of heavy drinkers and bad livers but i dont believe i deserve a new one just because i trashed the one i was born with? it is a choice i make to drink alot.

I dont however agree hat social abortions should not be preformed. If the NHS is worried about costs imagine the differance in the cost of the state to aborting a child as opposed to paying out the benefits and ais that the child will entitle its parents to. and thats if i doesnt become a ward of the state?

It is a sad but true fact that oerpopulation is one of if not the largest problems facing the planet. helping the elderly stick around and drain resources for a few more years wont help, and preventing abortions wont help. And those that volountarily put themselves at risk to increased health problems should recieve less help than those that dont

dude my spelling bad but wat the fucf did u say?

Rev was saying:

"Fuck old people, they don't deserve to live because they are old."
"Fuck smokers and drinkers too, they don't deserve to have transplants"
"Fuck people who are not cost effective."

Add some unintentional double negatives, a dash of a "god's will" proclamation, and you have got the jist of his post.

Thats just pure fucking greed. Medical shit is so fucked up, its like they don't even care.

"Thats just pure fucking greed. Medical shit is so fucked up, its like they don't even care."

It's not just medical care, it's the whole fucking world... which is why there is probably going to be a war soon that will fuck over everyone.

War over what exactly... Medical care?