Google analytics

Sunday, 12 December 2010

Kent PCT to deny treatment to smokers.

My letter that I’m cobbling together to write to Kent PCT

I read with some disquiet that you will be forcing all smokers to undergo a "Smoking Cessation" course before they are allowed an operation.

From the article in Kent News I quote:

From this month, patients who smoke and need planned surgery will have to complete a NHS Stop Smoking course before their operation.

My first point in objecting to this is as follows:

To me this breaches the whole Ethos of the National Health Service. Where is “Universal healthcare we were all promised?” I would ask you this question? If I refused to undergo the course, would I be refused surgery?

My second point is:

Considering that the total cost of all smoking related diseases is £2.7 Billion, (Government's own widely known figure) and smokers pay through taxes, more than £10 Billion. It would appear that smokers adequately cover the costs of their treatment. In fact it would seem that smokers are subsidizing the cost of non smoker treatment.

Point three:

If you refuse treatment to a smoker who has paid National Insurance for his entire life, but offer treatment to a non smoker who has paid no NI. Should not the smoker be entitled to a refund of part of his NI contributions?
It would seem to me that this is nothing more than social engineering which should have no place in a TAXPAYER funded PUBLIC institution.

And finally you could cut your costs by binning smoking cessation therapy which has been a disastrous failure. I can think of no enterprise with only a 1.6% success rate, (Government figures) should be tolerated in this Financial climate we find ourselves in.

With no Regards

The Filthy Engineer.

Anyone got anything I should add?


  1. Yes, FE ..

    You could also point out that they run the risk of prosecution under the Human Rights Act ..

    It is the inalieable right of any & every person to smoke if they so wish .. It is still a perfectly legal activity ..

    And whilst Health Authorities may have the power to dictate smoking "policy" on their premises .. they have no such power away from those premises ..

    It might also help bring the message home by pointing out that any potential prosecution would be directed personally at the person, or persons attempting to enforce this particular piece of "Health Nazism" .. rather than at the Authority itself (with its capacity to absorb financial penalties, at public expense) ..

  2. It's a bloody shocker is what it is.


  3. You could mention that private health companies dont discriminate against smokers because they know we dont actually cost any more for healthcare

  4. Perhaps ask where an alternative treatment centre could be provided should you refuse to be blackmailed (literally with threat of serious illness or death) by this one to get the treatment you have actually paid for up front?

    Ask if you can get a refund for your wasted time (your standard fee schedule provided) should their training course fail.

    Ask for a copy of their (company) statement or pledge to customers, or whatever these arrogant fuckers call it these days, and I bet it doesn't say we will harass and blackmail smokers.

    Check if blackmail is legal or lawful. It wasn't last time I checked although councils, DVLA and HMRC seem to be getting away with it?

    Interesting to see what you get back...

  5. Might be worth having a chat with a Human Rights parasite...sorry... lawyer. Much as I fucking detest this completely unconstitutional foreign meddling in our legal system for social engineering purposes, you might be able to employ it to take a swing at the bastards.

  6. You could point out that allowing oldies to smoke may also help assuage the problem of the Ageing Population and reduce its cost.

  7. Actually, I totally agree with you "Just Woke Up" ..

    But as we have their "stick" (albeit forced upon us) .. it would be churlish not to at least make the attempt to beat the bastards over the head with it ..

    What's good for the Goose etc ...

  8. Had they decreed that these actions were 100% clinical decisions I believe the medico opinion would hold sway, wether true or not but since they have stated that the driver is cost cutting there may be recourse through the HR act.

  9. Would the treatment go ahead after a failed course of smoking cessation?
    Then why the insistence on a cessation course that in the majority of cases would fail, cause patients unnecessary physical and mental distress and sense of failure.

  10. Thanks for all your replies. I'm just going to work in a bit about Human rights.

    And a bit about the ageing population being whittled down early due to smoking and thus saving the taxpayer money.

  11. Can we just scrap the disastrous NHS instead?

  12. I've just added this:

    Point Four:

    The fact that anti-smoking has strong financial ties with pharmaceutical multinationals – to the point that it can be said to be a front for the expansionist interests of Big Pharma – demonstrates a double standard and duplicity in public life that has yet to be fully investigated and called out by mainstream media and politicians.
    There is massive profit to be had from the sales of nicotine replacements and psycho-active drugs if tobacco and especially cigarettes were to be abolished. It is not a coincidence that the sales of these pharmaceutical products – many dangerous in their own right -- have skyrocketed since the early Nineties, in parallel with the intensification of antismoking propaganda, disinformation by the mass media, and the heavy financing of antismoking groups such as, for example, Tobacco-Free Kids, ASH,and the Global Framework.

    Point Five:

    I would also imagine if tested in court this policy could in fact be in breach of the Human Rights Act, Article 14, which states:

    Article 14: DiscriminationThe enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

  13. I'd start researching ways to withhold NI if they stick by their guns.


Say what you like. I try to reply. Comments are not moderated. The author of this blog is not liable for any defamatory or illegal comments.