Volume 181 - Issue 5

Smoking cessation and elective surgery: the cleanest cut

Author:  Nicholas A Tonti-Filippini

Med J Aust 2004; 181 (5): 283-285. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb06277.x
Published online: 6 September 2004

To the Editor: Some time ago, I was approached by a general practitioner who had been trying for more than 12 months to arrange surgery for a patient who was suffering from intermittent claudication. The indications for surgery seemed compelling. The man was in great pain and disabled by the condition. The vascular unit at a major metropolitan hospital refused to operate on him while he remained a smoker. The man had been an alcoholic, but had managed to beat that addiction and had been “dry” for the entire 12 months.

With the patient’s permission, and at the request of the GP, I contacted the surgeon. The surgeon explained to me that his refusal to provide elective surgery was on the grounds that the patient smoked, which would increase recovery time and the risk of complications. After discussion of the ethical and legal situation, an early appointment for surgery was arranged with the patient.

Peters and colleagues, authors of a recent editorial on smoking cessation and elective surgery,1 would do well to attend to the terms of the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992. It is unlawful for a person who provides services, or makes facilities available, to discriminate against another person on the grounds of the other person’s disability.

It seems legitimate to consider the effects of smoking on success rates as part of deciding whether elective surgery is likely to be safe and effective for an individual patient. However, the editorial suggests that patients be denied surgery, such as joint reconstruction, as a resource-allocation decision, even if the surgery would be in their interests.

It is important that smoking is recognised as an addiction. Some groups, such as the mentally ill, are particularly prone to it. A study by the Harvard medical school found that people with mental illness are twice as likely to be smokers, and nearly 45% of all smokers in the United States are people with a “mental disorder”.2 To the extent that it is an addiction, smoking needs to be considered as a medical condition in much the same way as alcoholism is referred to as a medical condition.

A doctor who did not provide a needed treatment to a smoker on the grounds that the patient was a smoker would be in violation of that person’s fundamental human right to healthcare and his or her right not to be discriminated against because of a disability. In fact, the doctor would be in breach not only of the Hippocratic oath, but of the Australian Medical Association’s Code of Ethics 2004,3 which states “. . . refrain from denying treatment to your patient because of a judgement based on discrimination”.


Author


References


More like this

Surgery Research 22 September 2025 Open Access

The first live term birth following uterus transplantation in Australia

Rebecca Deans, Brigitte Gerstl, Antonia W Shand, Sarah Lyons, Aaron Budden, Helen L Barrett, Grant Luxton, Mangalee Fernando, Kenneth Yong, Karen Keung, Kaushalya Arulpragasam, Henry Pleass, King Man Wan, Eva Kehag, Jana‐Emily Pittman, Mianna Lotz, Maria Fenn, Erin Nesbitt‐Hawes, Lily Byun, Katrina Tang, Mats Brannstrom, Jason Abbott