Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Nanny Bans Fat People III

Nanny Bans Fat People IIII find it interesting that, for once, something that I wrote about earlier (in November to be precise) is now being picked up by the mainstream media.

In Nanny Bans Fat People II I noted that:

"The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (perversely named NICE) have issued guidelines that suggest that medical help could be refused to heavy drinkers, smokers and those who are overweight."

Now it seems that NICE issued a formal report on Thursday repeating that message. NICE, which advises on the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatments for the NHS, said that in some cases the "self-inflicted" nature of an illness should be taken into account.

Nice stressed that people should not be discriminated against by doctors, simply because they smoked or were overweight. Its ruling should apply only if the treatment was likely to be less effective, or not work because of an unhealthy habit.

Nice is a powerful body, primary care trusts regularly wait for many months for a Nice decision before agreeing to fund a new treatment.

Thursday's report, Social Value Judgment - Principles for the development of Nice guidance, said no priority should be given to patients based on income, social class or social roles at different ages when considering the cost effectiveness of a treatment.

That's nice!

Patients should not be discriminated against on the grounds of age either, unless age has a direct relevance to the condition.

However, the report said that if self-inflicted factors meant that drugs or treatment would be less clinically and cost-effective, this may need to be considered when producing advice for the NHS; ie they will ration treatment.

The report said:

"If the self-inflicted cause of the condition will influence the likely outcome of a particular treatment,

then it may be appropriate to take this into account in some circumstances

NICE noted that it can be difficult to decide whether an illness, such as a heart attack, was self-inflicted in a smoker.


"A patient's individual circumstances may only be taken into account when there will be an impact on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the treatment."

Steve Webb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, said:

"There is no excuse for cash-strapped hospitals denying treatment to people whose lifestyle they disapprove of.

Treatment decisions involving people's lifestyle should be based on clinical reasons, not grounds of cost.

The NHS is there to keep people healthy, not to sit in judgment on individual lifestyles

A spokesman for Nice said:

"The only circumstances where that (treatment) may be taken into account is where that treatment may be less effective because of lifestyle choices."

Remember, you read it here first!


  1. Cool... We will save a fortune on the NHS. Only a few people will get treated a year. Probably, Government workers who have given up their health plans because the NHS is functioning correctly.

    Ther reason, car accident victims will be excluded because 'By going into the dangerous environment of the road they contributed to the risk' No treatment for them. People that slip on pavements. Should have been wearing studded shoes. People that get cut by studded shoes on pavements should have been leaving sufficient distance between other pedestrians in the rain. People that get colds and flu should have kept wrapped up and warm and stayed indoors.

    I could go on forever. At least by making this public we could find it raised and dealt with. Not by this Government of course but by the next. Hopefully after the revolution where these Nazi's will be looking for a new job most likely working for our security services where their thoughts are likely to find a new home.

  2. Anonymous1:22 AM

    I rather suspect that railwayman39 has it about right. Especially with the news that the world has, apparently, at the 11th hour of the convention ni Montreal, agreed to do something (not yet clear what?) to 'extend' the Kyoto scam.

    Add to this the newly apointed leader of the Preservatives indicating that he will be changing party colours from blue to green in the next 18 months and planning for a 60% cut in CO2 emissions (whatever relevance that has to anything) by 2050 and the direction is clear.

    For too long mankind (sorry, humankind) has been finding ways to extend life and this must now stop. A 60% reduction in world population is required. Capping life expectancy at 70 will be a huge play in solving the problem whilst at the same time only (taking out - sorry), eliminating an unproductive element of society. (Fortuitously it also appears to assist with solutions to the proposed pensions crisis. :-) One gall stone, two birds.)

    A 60% reduction in world population should make the Kyoto bolleaux achievable - problam solved. Unless those pesky volcano eruptions and other simnilar natural events disrupt the plan.

    For some obscure reason a Mr. David Cameron, claiming to eb "Leader of the Conservative Party" wrote to me today.

    He seems to want to reach out to young people, women, black and minority ethnic communities and to people who live in cities.

    By implication he is not reaching out to me since I qualify in none of those categories. So I presume I am in one of those groups which can be ignored, perhaps culled, so that his newly dioscovered green pals from the eco-nasties can help with the preservatives recolouring process.

    That leaves me to assume I will soon be surplus to requirements and hence on the list of early candidates for the age assessed chop.

    To subsidise this campaign he wishes me to cough up at least 15 quid per annum. That's a bottle of half decent wine or 5 bottles of almost drinkable stuff to make things slightly more bearable out in the pasture.

    I'm sure the word begins with B and ends with OX, or something like that. But mind is fading. I wonder if the NHS has yet received instruction about withdrawl of care for the terminally incapable irrespective of age? If they have, i'm in trouble ...


  3. Anonymous4:48 AM

    We can extend this further.

    Why treat AIDS/HIV patients if their condition is the result of lifestyle choices they have made. The same argument applies surely or do double standards apply?

  4. The extension, revision or whatever it is of the Kyoto agreement will simply serve to give Nanny extra excuses for levying yet more taxes upon us.

    Have you noticed that the 'common demoninator' by this shower with their attempts to get us to act "greener" always results in additional taxation - very strange, I'm sure (not).

    As Prescott races round in his two Jags, or we all go off to illegal wars, or Blair considers presidentially racing around the world in a new Jumbo jet, this crowd appears to not give a stuff about the environment, unless they get additional cash to squander!!

    Talking of squander, just think of the savings if they culled us all at 70. Now that gives me 18 years left, hmmm, must take that holiday I always wanted.

  5. Anonymous3:56 PM

    if it was a matter of choosing between a smoker in need of a lung transplant and a passive smoker in need of a lung transplant, I would definitly chose the passive smoker as being more worthy of the available lung. wouldnt you? just because the smoker has paid more for the priviledge, does not make him more entitled to the lung. just because cigarettes are legal doesnt mean the NHS should spend millions of pounds on the idiots who make the well-informed decision to smoke. it is a well known fact that cigarettess are addictive, before you start saying that smokers cant help smoking. and why should the NHS offer smoking cessation treatment? if people want to stop smoking, they should pay for it themselves