Tobacco gets a bad rap

My uncle, 84 years old, found out today that he needs oxygen at night and breathing treatments during the day. The Doctor blamed it on years of smoking, only problem is my Uncle never smoked in his life. He did milk 30 cows and do all the farming to support them by himslf, for over 50 years, plus, kept on baling and selling hay and growing 12-15 acres of corn since selling the dairy herd. Every tractor he has ever owned has been an open station, he baled hay and ground feed all his life, he sprayed crop land for years and years with no mask or cab. I wonder how many other diagnoses have been this far off.

Silicosis - symptoms are similar to emphasema. Cause: working in dust and dirt for a lifetime. Many of us are headed that way...

I had a great aunt die from liver failure. doctors told us it was from years of alcoholism. My mother said "thats funny i thought you had to drink it to be affected(yes mom is blonde), my uncle drank for years i didnt know you could get it second hand." mom said this kinda sarcastically, the woman never touched a drop her entire life not even communion wine, she always had grape juice. then the doctor said it could have been the medications shes been on for various other health problems.

makes you wonder if they get paid for these diagnosis just to make some studies look better or something.

sorry to hear about your loss.

Meant to say sorry for your hardship. sorry about that. i dont know how to edit my post.

I appreciate your condolences but I should have mentioned that my Uncle does not regret one minute of his life and I can only hope that I can look back on a life as well lived. There are very few people who spend their life doing what they love to do, he did.

A lot, I have a lot of respect for the medical profession, BUT there is a reason they call it "practicing" medicine. They obviously don't have it all figured out yet. Dr.'s guess till they, hopefully, get it right.

doctors always blame it on something but dont people just get old? I am a fairly big guy and the doctor told me i eat to much and dont get enough exercise well i dont eat that much and i am always on the move doing something.All my aunts on my dads sid are three apples tall and three aplles wide

While I don't doubt that smoking and drinking both can cause physical problems I look at it this way. My Grandma never smoked or drank a day in her life and she still got old and passed away in her 70's from various age related problems. On the other hand look at someone like George Burns. He was rarely ever seen without a cigar in his mouth and he also drank. When he died he was right at 100 years old and it was from natural causes.

Like I said I do believe that drinking and smoking have an effect on the body but I've never given too much creedence to the idea that doing either will "kill you".

What is your point? That smoking is good for you?

A misdiagnosis is when the doctor says something is wrong with you when you actually have something different. You're complaining that the doctor gave the wrong CAUSE for your uncle's ailment, which is not really a bad diagnosis. It does indicate that the doctor wasn't listening well or asked the wrong questions, but it doesn't necessarily make for a bad diagnosis or improper treatment.

(quoted from post at 21:31:51 05/30/11) Meant to say sorry for your hardship. sorry about that. i dont know how to edit my post.

Click to expand...

Editing a post is simple.Just switch to Modern view by clicking on the modern box @ RH upper corner. Then click on the edit box in RH upper corner of your post. Edit your post and click submit.

Bingo!

Yea smoking and drinking are good for you,sister in law smoked and drank heavily all her adult life.
Ended up living to the rip old age of 52.

I often wounder if (for some folks ) breathing treatments are more addictive that drink'n are smok'n... One doctor got my mom hooked and a few said she did not need these treatments that her one lung was as healthy as could B... She does not wease, cough, run out of breath,,, when she takes a treatment It looks like she is enjoying a good smoke...

I did not say it was good for you, I said it was blamed out of hand without thought or question. I guess your one of the sheep who thinks the government should stop people smoking in their own homes, on the street, in their cars etc. It won"t end there, be careful what you wish for.

I would be quite disappointed in my doctor if he didn't even know if I smoked or not. That's as big of a problem as, and the cause of, the misdiagnosis.

Are you saying that smoking is ok ?

I think you can read well enough to know I did not say smoking was O.K. Smoking is a choice people make, it is not up to me to say it is O.K. or not. What other people do is none of my business or the governments business. The whole point of the post was to highlight the automatic responses that are given to certain ailments and the resulting level of care offered. If you smoke and get sick the medical establishment will consider your illness self inflicted and you will not get the level of treatment someone else might receive, this is because the abundant agenda demonizes tobacco. If you are a dopehead and get sick the liberals think that unlimited taxpayer funds should be spent on your treatment.

"he sprayed crop land for years and years with no mask or cab. I wonder how many other diagnoses have been this far off."

It tends to have the same effect.

Govt. does not have to interfere.

Smoking, will stop people smoking.

(quoted from post at 06:57:29 05/31/11) I think you can read well enough to know I did not say smoking was O.K. Smoking is a choice people make, it is not up to me to say it is O.K. or not. What other people do is none of my business or the governments business. The whole point of the post was to highlight the automatic responses that are given to certain ailments and the resulting level of care offered. If you smoke and get sick the medical establishment will consider your illness self inflicted and you will not get the level of treatment someone else might receive, this is because the abundant agenda demonizes tobacco. If you are a dopehead and get sick the liberals think that unlimited taxpayer funds should be spent on your treatment.

Click to expand...

In my opinion you hit the nail squarely on the head!

You want facts?Cancer research says a person that smokes is 7 times more likely the get lung cancer
than one that doesn't.Great odds Huh?

(quoted from post at 05:20:20 05/31/11) I did not say it was good for you, I said it was blamed out of hand without thought or question. I guess your one of the sheep who thinks the government should stop people smoking in their own homes, on the street, in their cars etc. It won"t end there, be careful what you wish for.

Click to expand...

The problem with your logic is the proverbial white elephant in the room that is forced to breathe your second hand smoke.

If you smoke and get sick the medical establishment will consider your illness self inflicted and you will not get the level of treatment someone else might receive, this is because the abundant agenda demonizes tobacco. If you are a dopehead and get sick the liberals think that unlimited taxpayer funds should be spent on your treatment.

Click to expand...

You might want to cut your losses, because the more you say the crazier you appear.

The medical establishment is out to make money, and treating illnesses is how they make money. You seriously believe that they would turn away an opportunity to make money just because of this fictitious "abundant agenda?"

Hmm. Your subject, "Tobacco gets a bad rap", would appear to be at odds with your protestations that you didn't say smoking is OK.

As for the level of care your uncle is receiving, here in the US the quality of your medical care is directly related to how much you're willing to spend. I assume your uncle's bills are covered under Medicare and/or Medicaid. So if he's receiving free medical care, it should be no surprise that the level of his care is lower than whale s***.

Now you bring up an interesting point about how we treat smokers (who are, after all addicts) versus heroin addicts in this country. Although it may sound good ideologically to not treat heroin addicts, it doesn't make economic sense to deny them treatment. Why? Figure the cost to our economy of a single heroin addict over the 20-30 year period between when they get hooked and when they finally OD. Between crime, health care, aid to the addict's children, loss of productivity, cost of incarceration, etc., it's safe to say the cost must be well in excess of 2 million dollars per addict. So if we can clean up an addict for a hundred grand, it's money well spent. Admittedly, the success rate is low and recidivism is high, but if we successfully treat one addict in 20 at a cost of 100K, we break even.

Smokers, on the other hand, don't get much money spent rehabilitating them. But since some studies indicate that smokers (because they tend to die before collecting Social Security and Medicare) actually save the government money. So for the good of the economy we should probably encourage MORE smoking. Which seems to be right where you're at.