An answer to another question has made me wonder. How many people believe that, if a medical condition is knowingly self-inflicted, the patient should be refused treatment?
For example, the risks of smoking are well-known now and highlighted on packaging and advertising. So would you refuse treatment to an ex-smoker with lung cancer? If yes, where would you draw the line - no treatment for the cancer but yes to pain management? Or no medical treatment at all?
Where would you draw the line? Everybody knowingly takes risks every day. It would be awfully hard to determine for somebody else after the fact which risks were acceptable and which weren't. Would you also refuse treatment for people with heart disease or cancer if they hadn't eaten the best possible diet their whole lives? Do you you refuse to treat sporting injuries because you don't think the injured person should have been playing a contact sport?
I find this is a difficult question to answer, in real life terms anyway. In a theoretical situation then I wouldn't hesitate to say "no". But.... in real life, resources are limited and treating someone with a self-inflicted condition could mean that someone else, who is in no way responsible for their condition, doesn't get the treatment they need. Decisions do have to be made, at a national policy level and at a day-to-day on the ground level, between patients and it's tough.
Particularly if, as in this example, the patient is an EX-smoker, so has realised the damage he or she is inflicting on themselves and managed to fight their addiction.
No, I would never refuse treatment to a cancer patient. Cancer patients in the past made themselves available as the guinea pigs for the treatments now available to people with many different types of cancers. And, it must be difficult for doctors to pick and choose treatment for such patients, as so many doctors are addicted to cigarettes, alcohol and recreational drugs. Bit hippocratical on their part, it would be.