I WOULD like to comment on a letter in the BEN last night. The

writer seemed to be saying that smokers, drug addicts and alcoholics should go to the back of the line for treatment. Maybe this person could give us a list of his preferences for treatment then we would know who not to treat next. Maybe car accident victims who were found to be at fault. Children who run into the road or play near water and other hazards. Where does it stop?

People who do not eat what is considered a correct diet. Although I am not a alchoholic or drug user, I am a smoker. I have worked for 30 years, never been out of work, 18 of those years down the pit and I resent the fact that somebody wants to deny me medical attention because I smoke.

Alchoholism, if I am not mistaken, is a disease and is treated as such. Drug addiction may be down to being drawn into it as a young child or other legitimate reasons.

Maybe we should go by religion, creed, colour or sexuallity --the potential is enormous for saving money. I cannot belive that we can sort out the problems of funding the health service by excluding our personal predjudices.

I do not have the answers personally, maybe a regional tax purely for the health service in your region. But could I as a smoker then say I pay more than others and I should recieve preferential treatment?

This type of argument is not the way forward for achieving a well funded health service.

Steve Howells

(address supplied) I WOULD like to comment on a letter in the BEN. The writer seemed to be saying that smokers, drug addicts and alcoholics should go to the back of the line for treatment. Maybe this person could give us a list of his preferences for treatment then we would know who not to treat next. Maybe car accident victims who were found to be at fault. Children who run into the road or play near water and other hazards. Where does it stop?

People who do not eat what is considered a correct diet. Although I am not a alchoholic or drug user, I am a smoker. I have worked for 30 years, never been out of work, 18 of those years down the pit and I resent the fact that somebody wants to deny me medical attention because I smoke.

Alchoholism, if I am not mistaken, is a disease and is treated as such. Drug addiction may be down to being drawn into it as a young child or other legitimate reasons.

Maybe we should go by religion, creed, colour or sexuallity --the potential is enormous for saving money. I cannot belive that we can sort out the problems of funding the health service by excluding our personal predjudices.

I do not have the answers personally, maybe a regional tax purely for the health service in your region. But could I as a smoker then say I pay more than others and I should recieve preferential treatment?

This type of argument is not the way forward for achieving a well funded health service.

Steve Howells

(address supplied)