Smokers told to quit or be refused surgery in UK

[Grimmlok]

Smokers are to be denied operations on the Health Service unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand.

Doctors will police the rule by ordering patients to take a blood test to prove they have not been smoking.

The ruling, authorised by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, comes after medical research conclusively showed smokers take longer to recover from surgery.

It is thought that 500,000 smokers a year will be affected.

However patients' groups argue that the move is about the NHS saving money rather than improving patient care.

They claim that health trusts do not want to operate on smokers because they stay in hospital longer, blocking beds and costing more to treat.

The ruling applies to routine operations such as hip replacements and heart surgery for conditions that are not immediately life-threatening.

If smokers refuse to give up, they are still likely to be treated but may have to wait longer.

Leicester City Primary Care Trust will become the first health authority to introduce the "quit or wait" rule this summer. Other health trusts are consulting on the idea.

Rod Moore, the trust's assistant director of public health, said: "If people give up smoking prior to planned operations it will improve their recovery. It would reduce heart and lung complications and wounds would heal faster.

"Our purpose is not to deny patients access to operations but to see if the outcomes can be improved."

Patricia Hewitt has described the ruling as "a perfectly legitimate clinical decision".

Yesterday her spokesman explained: "Trusts commission surgery services based on their assessment of the needs of their local population and availability of service capacity.

"The provision and availability of a particular surgical intervention should be dependent on the clinical needs of the individual patient."

• The European Commission is considering a proposal to extend the forthcoming ban on smoking in enclosed public places to cover doorways.

Officials have been studying the Canadian province of Quebec, where smoking is banned within nine metres of the doorway into any healthcare-related building, school or social services building.

The experiment is thought to have shown positive health benefits.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said the Health Act 2006, which covers the July 1 ban, contains reserve powers to extend the law to outside areas. Sports stadia, bus shelters and train platforms are already classed as enclosed public spaces under the Act and it would not have to go back to Parliament to be extended to doorways.

Smokers told to quit or surgery will be refused | the Daily Mail

*chuckles* this will be interesting

[crumpet]

How do these places plan to test for this? Even if someone quits, they may be using nicotine replacements which would still show nicotine in the bloodstream. Idiots.

[pacific breeze]

I'm not in favour of smoking -- although I'm not a Nazi against it either -- but this is ridiculous. As long as smoking remains LEGAL and governments collect TAXES on it, then these kinds of measures are an infringement of civil liberties. Make cigarettes illegal, then these kinds of restrictions could actually be enforced.

[McJag]

It's not like they were on crack cocaine! Next: no one on fatty diet.

[emkat]

The blood test isn't for detecting nicotine.

[western]

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

I'm not in favour of smoking -- although I'm not a Nazi against it either -- but this is ridiculous. As long as smoking remains LEGAL and governments collect TAXES on it, then these kinds of measures are an infringement of civil liberties. Make cigarettes illegal, then these kinds of restrictions could actually be enforced.

Prohibition (making alchohol illegal) didn't stop people from drinking. It just drove it underground and made it more popular (haven't you ever wanted something just because you can't have it?)

I hate smoking and cannot stand being around lit cigarettes, but I can't see how making it completely illegal will solve the issue. Not that I don't agree with banning it in public places (why should I have my health endangered because of someone else's addiction?).

Anyway, what I don't quite understand about the article is how not smoking for four weeks will improve someone's health that dramatically so it speeds up their recovery time. Four weeks?!? Really?!?

And this:

However patients' groups argue that the move is about the NHS saving money rather than improving patient care.
They claim that health trusts do not want to operate on smokers because they stay in hospital longer, blocking beds and costing more to treat.

Shouldn't the patients' groups be looking for ways to get more patients treated faster?

[DeChayz]

Many doctors will refuse to operate on patients unless they quit for at least 2 weeks beforehand - I believe the risks of complications when under anesthesia are greater in smokers, so this measure is benefit to the patient as well, not just the hospital.

[pacific breeze]

Smokers also don't heal as fast.

[McJag]

What about emergency surgery? Just die outright?

[kingcap72]

Being a smoker, I wouldn't want somebody telling me that they aren't going to operate on me unless I quit smoking. Now, I can see saying don't smoke leading up to the surgery to avoid complications, but to outright tell someone they have to quit or you won't treat them is not only stupid, but criminal.

[SVZ]

While I'm not sure about making it a law, it's definitely recommended to be smoke-free before surgery. It puts yourself at a huge unnecessary risk.

[McJag]

Yes. I don't think ANYONE should smoke during surgery.

[A*O]

I think doctors are prefectly entitled to refuse or delay treatment/surgery to patients whose medical condition has been caused or exacerbated by their smoking habit. Ditto any other addict. I don't think people realise how much money and resources are devoted to dealing with smokers and their predictable (and preventable) health issues in the UK's public health system.

[princesspink]

Now, now this is going out of hand. I'm not for smoking but I acknowledge a smoker's right to do as he likes.

[WitchHazelEyed]

Originally Posted by McJag

What about emergency surgery? Just die outright?

I believe the article said it applied only to non-emergency surgeries.


Anyway, I think they have every right to do this. A hospital is a business as well as a health care center. They have the right to cut down costs as well as keep patients' health in mind. Besides the hospital saving money, the patient would save money as well, no cigarettes + less time in hospital = more money in your pocket.

And, just because cigarettes are "legal and the government collects taxes on them" doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to impliment this rule. Hospitals do not create laws and they are not breaking any laws by doing this. The government allows cigarettes to be legal despite the grave risks to your *health*. Notice the key word. I think any doctor/surgeon/health care professional that didn't at least suggest that you quit smoking before major surgery would be very irresponsible.