Ban on surgery for patients who are overweight or who smoke?

Aaah so for smokers then, there is an alternative that can alleviate additional health risks if for example surgery is required, so no need to deny them medical treatment.

We'll have to agree to disagree, smileless. They're being told that the op is likely to be risky and unlikely to improve mobility.

I disagree, lizzie, about cooking in schools. I never had a cookery lesson and I'm glad I spent my time learning about things I couldn't have learnt for myself. Only an ostrich can ignore healthy lifestyle messages.

Weight can be lost, even though one can't exercise. I have lost two stone counting calories. Still got some way to go, before having a knee replacement.

Yes, but how long ago was that? Academia isn't for everyone, dd but we all need to eat. Both parents working nowadays may not have the time or the cooking skills to pass on to their children and as a former primary teacher I can vouch for the fact that many parents barely speak to their young children. They are too busy looking at their phones and iPods! Many little ones arrive at school unable to string a coherent sentence together. That's no exaggeration.

iPads

@whitewave

You won't escape advice about smoking cessation and weight loss, even if you go to a BUPA hospital.

Preparing for hip replacement

If you smoke, you will be asked to stop. This is because smoking increases your risk of getting a chest and wound infection, which can slow your recovery. If you’re overweight, your surgeon will discuss the benefits of losing excess weight. This will help reduce the strain on your hip and may mean you’re less at risk from complications of surgery.

www.bupa.co.uk/health-information/directory/h/hip-replacement

@lizzy

I agree, but I don't see why I or either of my children should have been forced to learn about cooking at school. It should be offered, but not compulsory.

I'm a former secondary school teacher and most parents had learnt how to speak to their children by then. I learnt how to cook and about nutrition from reading about it at a stage in life when it was important. Calorie counting and understanding the need for three basic macro nutrients isn't rocket science.

Well done, anniesgrannie! I'll look out for you in the next London marathon!

As a teacher you must've been fully aware of all the young people who couldn't do what you did dd. Learning to learn is a buzz word these days. Perhaps you only taught the academically competent youngsters. Functional illiteracy is still running at about 16%. Give those kids a cook book and see how much use it is to them. Then there are the ones who can read pretty well but without a high level of understanding. They don't learn anything well independently. There's plenty of time in the curriculum for important skills if other subjects take a back seat. RE is still compulsory up to year 11 but who needs it? The ability to lead a healthy life including feeding yourself is surely more important than knowing facts about history, geography, etc. English, Maths, Science (my subject hehe ?) healthy living and COOKING. Drop the rest!

I don't think this is about blaming people, or about rationing or cutbacks. It's more about safety and a good recovery.

anniesgrannie, I did think that that had to be the case, that it was quite possiblt to lose weight without any exercise.
Can I ask, were you told to lose the weight before you are allowed the operation?

lizziepopbottle, I think that that is a good point too, that is often very much missed in lots of conversations about all sorts of things.

lizzy,

Childhood obesity in the UK has fallen since 2006/7, except amongst children from the most deprived families. Obesity prevalence for children in the most deprived areas was double that of those living in the least deprived areas. I think that needs addressing and I am not convinced that cooking lessons for all even starts to make a difference.

The least deprived children are most likely to be those at independent schools and/or not to study 'life skills' at school, but they seem to be the slimmest.

I am concerned that the most deprived children are likely to end up with a dumbed down and patronising curriculum, which doesn't give access to higher education and better opportunities.

Children get all sorts of healthy living messages throughout school until they're sick and tired of them and they're likely to have a negative effect. Cynicism about experts starts early and is least likely to be effective with the children who need education most. You only have to look at GN to realise that education isn't the only barrier to maintaining a healthy weight.

I really disagree with your ideas on the curriculum. School is the only place that most children have an opportunity to learn about something outside their normal lives and all children should have access to those opportunities.

PS. Teach them to read better if they can't understand a cookbook!

Hi obione young people have to stay in education till they are 18 now:

www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school

What should they be learning if they're not destined for university? Even A level students, who take up to three or four subjects, have loads of time left in the school day for life skills. If their parents aren't able to help them learn vital skills, why shouldn't schools provide the opportunity? ?

lizzy, do you mean daphnedill?

daphnedill, do you agree that there is functional illiteracy? Which is says lizzy at 16% +?

Yes, I do agree and it won't be improved by condemning children to so-called life skills - that's what 19th century elementary schools did. I also don't see why the vast majority of pupils, who aren't functionally illiterate, should be forced to do dumbed down subjects. That's why comprehensive schools differentiate.

What they should be learning if they're not going to university is high level skills. There's no reason why those not going to university shouldn't learn humanities subjects anyway. Just because somebody isn't a graduate doesn't mean they have to be a philistine.

PS, lizzy, A level students have very little time, if they do an adequate amount of independent study.

In my opinion, we're moving into very dangerous territory when we accept that people who have a higher risk factor of suffering from complications following surgery should be denied that surgery.

Using the same reasoning - which is basically about cost-effectiveness - it could be said that elderly people - who I would imagine carry much higher risk factors for complications after surgery - should also take a back seat. Or people with congenital disabilities. Older people tend to put on weight for a variety of reasons and people with certain disabilities, e.g. Downs Sydrome, are also more likely to be prone to obesity.

I think this singling out of certain people and possibly denying them the treatment they need could introduce a very worrying trend that might, at some stage, affect some of the people who now applaud it.

I agree with your comment about dangerous territory, eloethan. The problem that then hits me between the eyes is that, given a limited funding supply (fact), how can health trusts decide between one patient and another when they both need the same treatment but there is only funding for one? It seems to me that, horrendous as such decisions must be, the only thing health trusts can really fall back on to make such decisions is to try to assess which patient will "get the most out of" the treatment.

Ideally there would be no funding shortage, no shortage of hospitals, no shortage of medical staff, etc. Realistically, there always are limitations.

And, no, lizzy, I didn't just teach academically able youngsters. I taught in comprehensives with a full range of abilities.

I agree that it's dangerous territory, but do you agree that people should at least be warned that obesity and smoking, etc. are possible risk factors? They can do something about lifestyle, whereas those with disabilities can't.