I've walked past this pretty much every day for the last year. Though it looks like the people inside are waiting for a bus, this is in fact a smoking shelter at the local hospital.

I'm sure that smoking in a confined space such as this can't be the best thing for your health, but more importantly, why on earth is the NHS (and our taxes) paying for shiny new shelters to house its staff who choose to smoke?

I've heard it said that smoking actually helps the NHS financially, since the revenue raised from the sale of cigarettes is greater than the cost involved in treating smoking-related illness, but surely providing this shelter is taking it too far.

Furthermore, if despite its role as a health educator the NHS were to take a relaxed attitude to smoking, what I find most baffling about this is that it obviously takes a much more serious approach to the risk of getting wet. Do these shelters serve any purpose other than to prevent smokers from returning to work with wet hair? Perhaps the shelter serves as a communal space, which keeps the smokers away from the main entrance of the hospial where patients would have to learn that the doctor who'd just advised them to quit does himself smoke.

My walk to university takes me through the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, by all accounts a huge complex, bustling with people. I couldn't help but notice on these trips that the number of smokers with whom I share this route make up a significantly larger proportion of people than I have observed in the world at large (except perhaps in Quebec, but that's another story). The hospital really does seem to be inundated with smokers, staff and patients alike. Am I the only one who sees this as a little odd?

I think for all its failings, the NHS is a wonderful thing. Anyone can turn up at a doctor's or a hopital and receive treatment regardless of who they are or their financial circumstances. This is certainly an advantage when compared to the overcomplicated, expensive and socially divisive system which my girlfriend has to contend with in the United States.

But despite the open access approach we practice here in the UK, why do we insist on treating people for conditions which have been caused by wilfull damage of their own health? Surely that's taking the biscuit? We are a caring society, which takes responsibility for the healing of others, but doesn't the arrangement have to require a certain amount of intention from the individual too?

In a private healthcare system, this really doesn't matter. Since you pay a market rate to be treated, who cares what state your body's in? The hospital gets its money, you do what you like to yourself and then pay if you need more treatment - as long as you are able. I'm sure that the NHS shouldn't give this "luxury". The rationing which has always taken place in the NHS can often seem arbitrary, but isn't it time that it's tied to some sort of partnership arrangement?

This does sit awkwardly, though. What about the kayaker who breaks his arm, or even a guy who crosses a road and gets hit by a car? Surely these are also unneccessary risks.

So, perhaps the NHS can't impose these kinds of rations without there being a judgment about "accepted lifestyles", which takes us down a nasty road. But, by having the NHS in the first place - or indeed any community-wide agreed service - haven't we already done so?

In the meantime, the smokers can be hidden away from the main entrance in their shelter - probably a decision which made some middle manager quite chuffed with the coup. But the hospital can't ignore the fact that the message they're sending out loud and clear is "Smoke? Sure... but whatever you do, don't get wet!"