Blog

Let Them Die

06/11/2011 05:27 PM

Originally written 06/07/09

Jane Deville-Almond has done a wonderful job exposing the anti-smoking movement's ideals and thoughts.  Watch the short video to be stunned:

It is now clear beyond any doubt or rebuttal that they are not concerned with the act of smoking, but their hatred is aimed squarely at the smokers themselves.  Is it a coincidence that her name contains 'devil'? I will let you decide.

There are a few points to make concerning what this "woman" has to say (I use the word 'woman' very loosely).  Firstly, someone should familiarise her with the NHS and the British outlook on medicine and healthcare.  That is, free healthcare is offered to all citizens, based on human right to life and wellbeing.  This, Jane, is what is called compassion and being humane.  Take some time to acquaint yourself with the idea. Taxpayers money funds the NHS so that when a person becomes ill they are entitled to receive healthcare, irrespective of the illness or cause.

Secondly, she is working from the assumption that the patients smoking habit was the sole cause of his illness. She is also assuming that had he ceased smoking, he would not have had a second incident of heart disease.  Both assumptions are highly likely to be wrong. There are many factors of heart disease, and many still unknown.  As stated in the first point, taxpayers money pays for the NHS. As smokers pay approximately £10bn more taxes annually than non-smokers there is room for the argument that this man is more entitled to the healthcare than his non-smoking counterpart.  Fortunately, though, we do not need to venture down this avenue as everyone is entitled to the same care. But it squashes one of her points of argument: he should have paid for his own surgery and healthcare because his illness was self-inflicted. Well Jane, he did pay for his healthcare, many times over and that of many others aswel. He would have been entitled to go to that hospital for surgery as many times as he wanted, hundreds if necessary, and it would not have cost another person anything. Why? Because he paid for it all himself, in advance.

Finally, what qualifies as 'self-inflicted', and where do we draw the line? Are smokers the only ones not allowed the healthcare they pay for? Or are people who get overweight and eat too much sugar not entitled to receive care if they contract diabetes? What about people who consume too much fluoride and suffer from poisoning? Or those who consume too much aspartame and suffer from any one of the lengthy list of illnesses associated with it?