a cynic's guide to modern life
COMMENTARY #2 12.27.01
Doctor
Refuses to Treat Smokers?
Where Do You Draw the Line?
Dr. Frederick Ross, who owns a practice in my hometown of Winnipeg, has courageously struck a blow for the Health Nazi Regime when he proclaimed that as of March 1, 2002, he will no longer treat people who smoke because “people who smoke are seriously not interested in pursuing the goal of their health.”
Now I don’t presume to give Dr. Ross, a 27 year veteran of medicine, a medical lesson, but since I think that Dr. Ross missed that day in medical school, I thought I might enlighten him.
ad·dic·tion n.
1. Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance
Courtesy of Dictionary.com
Now depending on how you interpret that explanation, addiction just might be the grounds to qualify for an illness. In fact, current medical philosophy states that addiction is a disease, a disease that Dr. Ross, bound by the oath he took when he graduated medical school and the professional code that guides his career as a physician, must treat, despite how he feels personally about it and despite the failure of his patients to combat addiction.
Now, in his defense, I can sympathize with his dilemma. I realize that it has to be utterly frustrating to spend a lot of time treating people for smoking-related illnesses when it is just the cigarette that is causing them to be ill. But, I put this to Dr. Ross:
If you are no longer willing to see patients who smoke, is that where you draw the line? What about drug addicts? Alcoholics? People who over-eat? People who don’t exercise enough? People who don’t eat a balanced diet? People who engage in unprotected sex? After all, along with smoking, all of these health problems are directly attributable to a person’s behaviour. Even someone who doesn’t wash their hands regularly can be considered a person who isn’t serious in pursuing good health, because that is a major cause of acquiring illness.
Of course, the Health Nazi Regime sees this as a good move without even considering that most people manage to quit smoking only with the help of a physician. Doctors should know better than anyone that conquering an addiction often takes a long time, with many failed attempts before they can finally lick the habit. Dr. Ross on the other hand would simply cast them away because it is too labourious to deal with. With smoking, the 21st century version of leprosy, Dr. Ross can just close the door to smoking patients and be lauded for it. Apparently, they are under the misguided notion that humiliation and shame is the easiest and quickest way to get people to quit.
Dr. Ross should not be allowed to do this, simply because if medical professionals are allowed to pick and choose which patients they want to treat, you (and that includes you members of the Health Nazi Regime) could be next on the list. This can set a very dangerous precedent. After all, if Dr. Ross is allowed to get away with this, another doctor may decide to stop treating patients whose cholesterol is too high, and they don’t take steps to lower it. Or another doctor might decide to stop treating patients who contract gonorrhoea because prevention is simply a condom away. The list can go on and on, and they only have to point at Dr. Ross to justify their position.
Of course smokers shouldn’t be smoking. Smokers and non-smokers alike know this. But in our society, smokers are singled out while other forms of behaviour that contribute to ill health are not given the same treatment. If Dr. Ross had refused to see obese people until they controlled their dietary habits, this story would be headline news all over North America. But since it is about smoking, which is socially acceptable (and chic) to bash and ridicule, this story only made the local news and is now buried. The only resource I could find was on Canada.com. The medical community itself is oddly silent on this issue and has not commented positively or negatively on Dr. Ross’s decision.
It’s sad that someone in the medical community can be sending this kind of message. And it’s sadder still that no one in the medical community has spoken out against him. But the most powerful voice will come from the ethics committee. Let’s hope they make the right decision.
Copyright © 2001 Don Porter. All rights reserved.