Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, because they are starting from almost zero.

    Smokers should get a new set of lungs because it'd give them a new lease on life. And, with new lungs, it would take many years to convert their new lungs into smoker's lungs again, years they probably wouldn't have anyway. If they'd smoke after getting new lungs, they are too addicted to quit so, at least with new lungs, they can enjoy themselves more than they did before the operation. It would take awhile for them to seriously damage their new lungs and, in the meantime, at least they can enjoy what makes them feel good.

  • Non smokers get our lungs, why cant we have theirs?

    Over 25% of lung transplants in the UK come from heavy smokers and about 15% in the USA do to. The latest studies have shown that their relatively little difference in function and just the same occurrence of disease. So, if a smokers set of lungs is good for a healthy person why can't healthy people give back. Sounds like a bunch of indian givers to me.

  • THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED!

    Most people are saying that people should basically die if the smoke and had lung cancer, but if it was any of your family would you be saying that they should die just because they smoke? That's where people change there statement. Some of you say they chose to smoke but maybe, if someone had on little cigarette and they got addicted to it it wasn't there fault because they only smoked one and that made them want to smoke more. I think that people should be allowed to have one because we are all human! And most people smoke because there stressed.

  • Smokers should not be penalized.

    The government supports the selling of tobacco products. Cigarettes are legal drugs. You are legally allowed to take them (given that you are over the age limit), so why should a smoker be penalized for something the government permits? I understand that the government makes a lot of money off of tobacco products. However, smokers have not actually broken any laws and deserve to be treated equally and fairly within in the health care system. For all those people who are against this - what if it was one of your family members? Would you still be against it?

  • Not so black and white

    On the surface, this appears to be a very easy call, i.e.; smokers should not get lung transplants. BUT- even though lung cancer is a main contributer to lung cancer and lung disease, it can not identified as solely responsible, therefore in situations where an individual has lung disease and also smokes (smoked), it can not be ruled out that the disease has other contributors. I would say it should be investigated on a case by case basis and the Lung Allocation Score should (and does) take into account the individuals past behavior. This way these individuals can still be eligible for a transplant, but not at the expense of those who are very young, or have a congenital or genetic cause for disease.

  • Yes, if they can afford it.

    Taxpayers and insurance companies cannot afford to fix every problem. If a smoker wants a lung transplant they should have to pay for it. The act of smoking was a choice they paid for, and so the act of cleaning up the mess should be paid for by them also. This is like a slippery slope question, because if we give smokers lung transplants then we have to give obese people free liposuction. If this is a question not about who should pay for it, then yes, let the smoker get a lung transplant and if he continues to smoke then it is on him. Many people with lung cancer continue to smoke.

  • Yes, if they've stopped.

    If they've stopped smoking, then yes, they should be put on the transplant list just like anyone else. However, if they are still smoking, than they should not be given a new set of lungs to poison. If you make a choice to continue to kill yourself, you should not get to take away someone else's shot at life.

  • No matter what!

    If you are a basic human with basic human qualities you would certainly understand that even though smokers are damaging their lungs they too deserve every chance for a new pair of lungs. It goes without saying every human needs a second chance of life. Remember smokers maybe smoking for a deeper reason than you think e.g. family problems.

  • We can donate why can't we receive?

    I think, if we are going to make these type of judgements where will it end? Should drug addicts receive organs, what about pedophiles, what about wife beaters, what about people that read pornographic books, or rapists, or next maybe it will be "No organs for Catholics" etc. Who are you to sit in judgement. How does that go, let he without sin cast the first stone.

  • They should be able to

    They should because the NHS is for every one no matter what they might have started by peer pressure. They might have been bullied or forced to smoke. Once you start it probably is hard to stop.
    No one should have priority over life and they should be able to make their own decisions.

  • They've already been given a good set of lungs.

    We don't live in the dark ages as far as awareness of what smoking does to one's lungs. My wife smoked for about 16 years but quit when we had our baby. The damage that was done to her lungs was done by her own choice. I love her very much but she should not be eligible for a lung transplant if she needed one to survive. God gave her 2 perfect lungs. Some people aren't so lucky. The same goes for me. Even though I've never smoked, I drank for about 12 years and any damage I've done to my perfectly good liver is my fault. We are both doing things to help correct the damage we did cause and hopefully prevent any major disease states later in life. Anti-smoking proclamation is everywhere. If you smoke, you're a fool and you deserve the damage that's comes with your poor choice of preoccupation.

  • NO! Unless it's at their expense!

    Part of me believes that the smoker of today has an informed choice whether to continue smoking and taking the risks associated, therefore, should not go ahead of non-smokers. However, I think it might be discriminatory not to let the patient be moved to the top of this list as long as it was legal and ethical to do so. But, as long as a smoker is nicotine free for at least 6 months, they can get one.

  • Live with your choice.

    A person who smokes knows that smoking is bad, so why reward them with a new set of lungs to ruin? There are many people out there who have lung disease not caused by smoking and never have smoked. I would not want my lungs to go to a person who did the damage on purpose. It would be like giving a person on death row a new heart only to know that he is going to die when he recovers. Let them die like the way they lived, by choice.

  • I am a smoker

    As a life long smoker, I know the damage I am doing to my body. I would rather see someone who was born with an unfortunate disease and have a chance at life, and take care of themselves better than I did. I made a choice, whereas somebody with cystic fibrosis did not.

  • Give me a break!

    Let them realize the extent of those warnings on the package, and leave the lung transplants for those who didn't poison their own lungs on purpose! Ditto liver transplants for cirrhosis due to alcoholism. Sure cigarettes are legal, but there is also a lot of education about the dangers. Just say no!

  • Defiantly no no

    My mum is needing a lung transplant, as she has Cystic Fibrosis. If a smoker was given priority over my mum I would be highly disappointed in the health team as my mum has always taken care of her lungs and it isnt her fault that her lungs are the way they are from her genetic disorder.

  • Cut Healthcare For Smokers

    We all know effects of smoking. Billions spent on education of public. We should not be spending a Million dollars $$ on anyone who destroyed their own health to do a transplant. Alcoholics shouldnt get liver transplant either. Use that money for those disease treatments that people had no choice about.

  • Whats the point !!!

    Would you put a new engine in a stolen car? Didn't think so... If i were injecting poison in my body for fun, or to cope with life's petty problems i would fully expect my short lived time on earth . My boss smoked almost twenty years and one day he quit cold turkey, yes he had withdraws and fevers but a strong will to live got him threw. That was 4 years ago.. It can be done people. No more excuses. And no free rides!!

  • No need for a lung transplant!!

    If a person can stop smoking, stop taking addictive or any drugs, can work hard to heal their lungs and health then why should they have a lung transplant.? It might ruin their lives in a number of resons; -they might not act in the same way as they acted before smoking.
    -they might be prescribed by their dolctors to eat limited amounts of food.
    -their transplant or surgery might fail causing death.

  • They know the risks

    It is their fault they have cancer, and they know that smoking is dangerous to their health but they keep smoking. If someone who does this and knows the risks then why should they deserve another chance, it they are going to do it again. Its the same with people who drink, why do they deserve a new liver, if they are going to do the same thing again.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-04-26T09:51:03.587
Yes I do think that people should get lung transplants because what I'd it was one of your family members you don't want they to die do you??