3 Comments November 22nd, 2007 by ThunderDragon
So in a “clampdown on spending” the NHS has turned a £547m deficit last year into a £1.8bn surplus this year. But at what cost to the public? Why do they have this money if not to spend it and use it on bettering facilities and patient care? if they don’t need it for that, cut taxes and give it back to the taxpayer!
However, is this surplus good for the NHS? I doubt it. How could it have turned a large deficit one year into an even larger surplus the next year without something happening to the level of service provided? This “clampdown on spending” has probably led to a lack of investment where it is needed and sacking [or just not recruiting] staff wherever possible, no matter the effect on the overall level of care to the patients.
For this financial turnaround in the NHS to have happened to such a large degree is impossible without the lowering of standards. After all, there’s no other way that they could have done this since all their income comes from our pockets!
It may look good on the news for the NHS to have a surplus, but it’s not good for the NHS on the ground.
Source: BBC
1 Comment November 13th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
I have man-flu, so I’m dying.
Add a comment November 12th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Pointless drugging-up:
Drugs given to thousands of hyperactive children have no long-term benefits and could in fact be stunting their development, a major study has said.
The study of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) found that, while powerful drugs such as Ritalin and Concerta resulted in short-term behavioural improvements, after three years those benefits had disappeared.
Children who took the drugs for the full three years were also found to have stunted growth… (The Telegraph)
Putting boys on medication just because they are being boys was never going to have a good ending. Rather than putting them on drugs, remove the processed food and the like from their diet, which will almost certainly have the same effect but with half the cost and none of the negative effects.
6 Comments November 5th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
A young Jehovah’s Witness has died after refusing a blood transfusion after giving birth to twins. It is, obviously, a terribly sad occasion for the entire family, especially since it should have been such a joyous one.
But they - and she - made a choice, their choice, with the full knowledge of the dangers. We can say that it is stupid etc. all we like, but the choice can only be made by her, her husband, and her immediate family. It is not up to us to approve or disapprove of their perfectly legitimate life choices. They have chosen to follow a particular faith that does not allow blood trandfusion, and chose to die rather than break it - a decision that I am sure was not taken lightly.
She, and they, amde their choice. We can certainly consider it wrong and stupid - and I do. But it was her choice to make, not mine or anyone elses. She had chosen to sign a piece of paper refusing any blood transfusion, and no-one has the right to break that, except maybe her husband if she was incapable at that point in time.
What if she had been given a blood tranfusion? How would she have felt if her right to choose to refuse treatment was overruled? We don’t know - but her husband and family might. And they chose not to break her wishes.
Her body, her faith, her life, her choice.
Source: BBC
Add a comment November 2nd, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Beer:
good to drink after exercise.
I wish these studies would just make up their mind! Is drinking beer going to give us cancer or help us rehydrate or give us liver failure or help our hearts?
The people who make these studies should really look at how contradictory all of their advice is. Something’s good, then it’s bad, then good again… This is why I habitually ignore them with regards to my eating and drinking habits.
2 Comments October 31st, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Well, that’s what they are saying. Along with eating red meat [so they want you be a vegetarian], any extra salt intake, and drinking sugary drinks [which presumably includes fruit smoothies?].
Frankly, it’s all a load of bollocks.
One report says “don’t do (a)”, another says “don’t do (b), but do do (a)” and yet another says “don’t do (c) but do do (b)”. It is pretty much all contradictory in one way or another. Just think of it this way - if you don’t die one way, you’ll die another.
But my problem is less with these studies and more with the way they are presented. They are always portrayed as incontrovertible fact - if you drink alcohol and eat red meat, then you will get cancer is the message they give out, whether or it is actually intended. But, really, none of these make a difference. You could follow the guidelines to the letter and yet still get cancer, or not bother at all about it and never get it.
Whether or not they intend it, it is how it is reported and how people interpret it. I am extremely sceptical about all of these types of reports, especially since it has been revealed that the recommended alcohol limit was just a guess. The “findings” from these reports are of no use to the general public, especially announced like this.
The best way to live a healthy life is to take everything in moderation - except moderation itself, of course.
3 Comments October 23rd, 2007 by ThunderDragon
This isn’t paternalism, and it certainly isn’t libertarian!
A radical plan to persuade people to stop smoking, take more exercise and change their diets was proposed last night by a leading Government adviser…Professor Le Grand said instead of requiring people to make healthy choices – by giving up smoking, taking more exercise and eating less salt – policies should be framed so the healthy option is automatic and people have to choose deliberately to depart from it.
Among his suggestions are a proposal for a smoking permit, which smokers would have to produce when buying cigarettes, an “exercise hour” to be provided by all large companies for their employees and a ban on salt in processed food.
The idea, dubbed “libertarian paternalism”, reverses the traditional government approach that requires individuals to opt in to healthy schemes. Instead, they would have to opt out to make the unhealthy choice, by buying a smoking permit, choosing not to participate in the exercise hour or adding salt at the table.
By preserving individual choice, the approach could be defended against charges of a “nanny state,” he said… (The Independent)
How can this be defended, at all, and by anyone? The proposals are absurd and certainly cannot be said to fit under the term “libertarian paternalism”. The libertarian bit, for starters, is just utterly opposite to this very idea. And neither it is paternalistic because paternalism isn’t that totalitarian.
This is nothing short of a totalitarian idea. Despite the charade of a claim that this is “preserving individual choice”, that individual choice is subject to their approval - certainly if you want to smoke it is. Why should I have to apply, and pay, for a permit to allow me to kill myself with tobacco smoke? Why should there be an “exercise hour” that I choose or not choose to participate in? If I want to exercise more than walking to the fridge to get another beer, I will as and when I want to. Not when the State says I should.
This idea is proposing nothing short of a totalitarian state, where you can’t do anything without the permission of your “betters” who run the State. This is an Nanny State proposal, and any claim that it “preserving individual choice” is utter bollocks. It quite obviously isn’t.
It’s not paternalistic, it certainly isn’t libertarian. It is nothing short of totalitarian.
1 Comment October 20th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
They didn’t know - or couldn’t be bothered to work it out - so they just made it up!
Guidelines on safe alcohol consumption limits that have shaped health policy in Britain for 20 years were “plucked out of the air” as an “intelligent guess”.
The Times reveals today that the recommended weekly drinking limits of 21 units of alcohol for men and 14 for women, first introduced in 1987 and still in use today, had no firm scientific basis whatsoever.
Subsequent studies found evidence which suggested that the safety limits should be raised, but they were ignored by a succession of health ministers.
One found that men drinking between 21 and 30 units of alcohol a week had the lowest mortality rate in Britain. Another concluded that a man would have to drink 63 units a week, or a bottle of wine a day, to face the same risk of death as a teetotaller. (The Times)
So those bastards just made up a drinking limit and then stuck to it. A limit that is stupidly low and, actually, nothing more than a so-called “intelligent guess” made by people who must have been deeply stupid. They then passed off their guess as incontrovertible fact.
It really pisses me off that “a feeling that you had to say something” on behalf of the Royal College of Physicians led to the constant demonisation of anyone who exceed these limits. They “were really plucked out of the air. They were not based on any firm evidence at all” and yet became the foundations of decades of government policy on alcohol.
What this shows is that these arbitrary statistics on so-called “healthy” levels of various substances are utter bollocks. Based on estimations and on the “average” person, they are next to useless at the best of times, and even worse when they are said to be, or taken as, incontrovertible facts.
Source: The Times
1 Comment October 16th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
A change in the law is to transform the way surgeons are trained, allowing them to practise on bodies left to medical science. Under the Anatomy Act, cadavers could be used for tuition in anatomy but not in technique.
The move has enabled the Royal College of Surgeons to set up a centre in its London headquarters where surgeons will be able to operate on cadavers… Bernard Ribeiro, president of the college, said that the centre would “train the whole surgical team, not just the surgeon”. (The Times)
Why wasn’t this possible before? It seems absurd that surgeons weren’t allowed to practise on cadavers. These people have left their bodies to medical science. They obviously wanted their body to be used in order to save lives, however it may be done. After all, far better that than having surgeons practice whilst operating on live people!
Under what basis was it illegal for surgeons to practise chopping up dead bodies? It really doesn’t make any sense to me - but at least it’s fixed now.
Source: The Times
Add a comment October 11th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Too much blood in your alcohol stream? Try alcohol through a drip!
Australian doctors have kept an Italian tourist alive by feeding him vodka through a drip for three days, medical staff in Queensland say.
The 24-year-old man, who had swallowed a poison in an apparent suicide attempt, was treated while in a coma.
Doctors set up the drip after running out of medicinal alcohol, used as an antidote to the poison. (BBC)
Of course, it would be best not to try - or be worth - trying to kill yourself first. But at least no-one can say that alcohol never saved a life!
