- #36
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,124
- 20
mishrashubham said:Exactly my point. Just because treating smokers costs money doesn't mean we simply let them die does it? So saying that smoking is good because it saves the system money is not logical. Sure it was their decision, but the aim is to help them start a new life and give them a chance and not let them suffer due to that wrong decision.
Ok I see where this got started. Yes, you of course treat them. However, I think the point we've been trying to get across is if they die early because of the cancer (I believe lung cancer is one of the cancers that has a higher mortality rate), they aren't going to live on to face the various problems people typically face near the end of their life. I'm currently under the impression that as you get further beyond the average life expectancy, your medical costs soar. If you get lung cancer in your 40s or 50s and you survive it, that's about it. If you're 80 and you get cancer, that's usually the tip of the iceberg. Not that I mean to trivialize lung cancer, I'm just saying as you get very old, the problems don't become isolated incidents anymore.
So basically, the point I'm trying to get across is that of course you want to treat someone, but if they die, it will benefit the system considering the average costs of health care as you get old.