I thought I’d just summarise some of the points raised to the question: should smokers receive free treatment on the NHS when there is plenty of need for such resources elsewhere?
Jon argued that: “the hallmark of civilisation is found in whether we show mercy to idiots” - an argument that has been used by egalitarians with regard to the least in society (as oppose to “idiots”). While this is debatable, his second point reveals further issues with such an approach:
“Do you deny heart surgery or anti cholesterol medication to people who have eaten chips and lard all their lives? It's the same question really.”
If one rule applies to smokers, then surely the same argument could be applied to anyone who puts a priority on something other than health. For example, would someone who does extreme sports also be asked to pay for NHS treatment? The list could go on. What it demonstrates is that such issues are too complex to be taken effectively into consideration by a single economic policy.
Taking a different perspective, the most straight forward response to this question comes from Tom, who said:
“don't smokers more or less pay for the NHS in the tax they pay on fags? is it a bit much to ask them to pay more for treatment specifically for smoking related ailments?”
In other words – smokers already do pay to use the NHS. The taxes they pay could be regarded as a kind of health insurance payment. ASH, the anti-smoking campaigners have themselves stated that “tobacco taxation amounts to £10.5bn per year” – almost 10 times the cost of smoking on the health services.
I wonder if the rest of the money covers those people affected by passive smoking?
On a final note, those who do extreme sports are forced to take out insurance against injury in a similar way, but those who (as Jon argues) “have eaten chips and lard all their lives” are not – is there some injustice here?!