Where exactly do you draw that line? If we start deciding who 'deserves' healthcare based on personal choices, it very quickly becomes a slippery slope. Is it only smokers and drug users? or does it extend to people who eat poorly because healthier food is more expensive? What about someone who lives a sedentary lifestyle, or drinks socially over many years? Selective healthcare sets a dangerous precedent. Once that door is open, it doesn’t stay narrowly defined. Do we then deny dementia care because someone drank alcohol throughout their life? Refuse a knee replacement because someone spent 30 years playing football? At some point, do genetics come into play - do we reduce care for people predisposed to certain conditions? These lines don’t stay fixed - they evolve, and not in a fair or consistent way. And the helmet argument isn’t as straightforward as it sounds. Riding without a helmet isn’t a purely personal risk. If a motorcyclist pulls out in front of a car, the outcome is very different depending on whether they’re wearing one. With a helmet - perhaps a mild concussion. Without one - potentially a fatality or life-altering brain injury. The driver, even if completely blameless, has to live with that. So it’s not victimless. It affects other people emotionally, and it places a far greater burden on healthcare resources. The reality is that once care is rationing based on perceived “self-inflicted” harm, the system is no longer a healthcare system, but a moral judgement system.
