5 Comments October 4th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
I can’t see what that problem is here:
A calendar showing Conservative MPs from Sussex posing with models dressed as saucy nurses has offended the people it was meant to be supporting.
MPs Peter Bottomley and Tim Laughton appear in the calendar to support a campaign to stop the downgrading of Worthing and Southlands hospitals.
But it offended nurses at Worthing Hospital who complained to Unison which has now called for it to be scrapped…
[Unison says] “It is a dinosaur stereotype of nurses as sexual objects which is deplorable and inappropriate and unacceptable.” (BBC)
Oh come on! Get off your ridiculous high horse. It is a joke to raise money to save a hospital. There are far, far, more distasteful things that happen every day without any intent to do good. It is because Labour have failed to manage the money they have pumped into the NHS properly that such are campaigns are necessary.
What if it was two Labour MPs. Would Unison be complaining then? Bollocks would they be. They’d be lauding them for doing a public good.
Even if the particular calendar may be ill-advised, it is an attempt to a lot of good and to, in the end, save lives. Sex sells, and it’s as simple as that.
Source: BBC
1 Comment September 20th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
A Labour policy I agree with!
Everyone will automatically have their organs taken for transplant unless they have registered their objections under plans being considered by the Government, it will be announced today.
The Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, has ordered a team to explore the issue to reduce the number of people who die each year while waiting for an organ.
A recent consultation found little public support for automatic donations. Opponents say giving an organ should be altruistic, not coercive…
The inquiry team will examine the moral and medical issues, including whether family members have the right to veto the wishes of the deceased, as is often the case now. (The Telegraph)
Excellent. This is what should happen. I blogged about my support for this idea when it was first suggested by the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, and even before that, when the issue was raised by the controversial kidney game show in the Netherlands.
Of course this is subject the various caveats, such as that the opt-out system is very easy and openly available and that the family of the deceased have the right to prevent organs being used unless that person has explicitly expressed the wish that their organs be re-used. That way, anyone who explicitly doesn’t want their organs to be used to save another person’s life can ensure that they are not.
The proposal makes complete sense - it will save lives and should reduce the cost to the NHS of supporting those who need organ transplants, and then enable them to be productive members of society again. It’s a win-win situation.
Source: The Telegraph
Add a comment September 15th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Arrr, I be a pirate?
Children with a lazy eye do not need to wear an eye patch for the whole day to correct their vision, say experts.
A study carried out in two London hospitals found three to four hours a day for 12 weeks is enough to improve sight in affected children.
Wearing a patch can cause considerable distress and should be done as little as possible, the researchers said in the British Medical Journal. (BBC)
Good. I had to wear these when I was young, and I hated them. Hopefully this will mean that more won’t have to suffer like I did.
Add a comment September 14th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Go to hospital under the alcofluence of incohol and you’ll have to pay for it - again - if the Lib Dems get their way:
Drunks who are treated for injuries at accident and emergency wards should have to pay for their treatment, the Liberal Democrats say, signalling a Blairite shift in the party’s health policy.
Norman Lamb, the Lib Dem health spokesman, argues that patients must take greater responsibility for their actions and pay for self-inflicted problems, particularly if they are surly or abusive to NHS staff. He also believes that pubs and clubs should have to pay a contribution if they repeatedly send casualties to A&E. (The Times)
Not only is this a bad idea, it’s pretty stupid too. First problem: define “drunk”. Does this mean the consumption of any alcohol? A certain number of units? A concentration in the blood? How can you define “drunk” and where will you draw the line between not having to pay and paying? Second problem: if injured “drunks” don’t go to A&E, what are they going to do? If they have to pay, many simply won’t. This could well cause their injury to get worse or possibly, in extreme cases, cause death.
Unlike the idiots who made up this policy, I have had experience with drunks as a first aider with St. John Ambulance. Most of them don’t want to go to hospital no matter what they have done - from cuts that need stitches, to suspected fractured bones, to stab wounds - and this idea that if they do go that they will have to pay for it would just mean that they certainly wouldn’t, and could thus seriously damage themselves.
The NHS is pad for by taxes, everyone’s taxes - taxes that include that levied on alcohol. Saying the drunks should have to pay for their treatments removes the very point of a publicly-funded health service. It also sets a dangerous precedent: smokers should have to pay for lung cancer treatment because they knew the risks; alcoholics should have to pay if they have liver problems; and then, eventually, old people should have to pay because they should have known better than to get old. if the NHS is funded by taxpayer’s money, no British citizen should be charged at the point of delivery for health care by it. We all pay for it - to different extents, true - but we do all pay for it. And thus drunks - or any other group defined in this way - should be charged at the point of delivery for the healthcare that they have already paid for.
At least we know that they want Charles Kennedy to pay for his healthcare…
Sources: The Times, The Guardian, BBC
Add a comment September 13th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Children don’t get enough exercise.
Fewer than three per cent of 11-year-old children are taking enough exercise at the time in their lives when they should be most active, a major research project on the inactivity of youth reports today.
Only one in 250 girls and one in 20 boys is active enough to stay healthy, says the study of 5,500 youngsters. Researchers say Britain has built “an environment that is toxic” to children being active. (The Telegraph)
I can’t say that I am overly surprised at this. Playing outside has become a luxury denied to many children through fears of accident, crime or of paedophiles. Computer games have replaced riding your bike, playing football, “It”, and the like. And parents even drive their kids to school every day.
But I am shocked that the study revealed that “children averaged just 17 minutes of moderate exercise, and two minutes of “vigorous” exercise a day.” How is it so low? Do they do nothing with themselves all day? Kids are supposed to be active, not couch potatoes. Being a kid is the only time you get to run around all day, and they should make the most of it.
When I was eleven, we’d play outside all the time we could, pretty much just coming in for meals and sleep during the summer. Whilst we weren’t “active” all that time, we were for much of it. If something is not done, this generation of kids will grow up fat, lazy, and mollycoddled. Parents need to learn to relax their grip around their children and their activities, and kids need to be encouraged to get outside and play! Go ride your bike, play football, etc. Don’t just sit inside and play on your computer.
Sources: The Telegraph, BBC
Add a comment September 3rd, 2007 by ThunderDragon
How much?!
A confidential internal report on health tourism estimates that the bill for treating foreign patients amounts to at least £62 million a year, The Times has learnt.
The figure is “bound to be an underestimate” since new rules intended to prevent the abuse of the NHS by foreign patients are being ignored, according to the report.
A survey has found that NHS managers are failing to ensure patients are asked to prove their eligibility and are chasing only around half of the debts owed. The findings suggest that taxpayers are picking up hospital bills for foreign patients that come to more than £30 million a year. Some of the £62 million is paid back by the patients. (The Times)
A minimum of £62million on health tourism?! Why are we funding people who don’t even live here to have healthcare? We may have a free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare system, but that is no excuse for allowing it to be abused. Free emergency care is fine, but £62 million goes way beyond that.
When the NHS is as skint as it is at the moment, despite the amount of money that has been pumped into it, we shouldn’t be making it so easy for it to be basically ripped off. Ben Wallace, the Conservative MP who uncovered the report, said:
This Government is conniving at a ‘Don’t ask, don’t charge and don’t chase’ policy that is leaving the NHS wide open to abuse.
They are, and it is. And it is costing us millions that could - and should - be put to better use.
Source: The Times
2 Comments August 29th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
More attempts to make people stop smoking, this time using pictures:
Images highlighting the dangers of smoking will be printed on all tobacco products sold in the UK by the end of 2009, under regulations being set out.
Manufacturers will have to start complying from October next year.
After a public consultation 15 images, including ones of diseased lungs, have been chosen to accompany text warnings about lung cancer and heart disease.
Anti-smoking campaigners welcomed the move but smokers’ lobby group Forest said they were being “victimised”. (BBC)
Why are they doing this? Aren’t the current ‘warnings’ such as “smoking kills” etc. good enough? Why do they want to change it all? And what do they expect it to achieve? Either the government think that smokers are too stupid to read, hence the pictures, or they are on a crusade against people making their own choices.
People will not stop smoking because of a few nasty pictures, any more than they will due to a line of text telling them how bad smoking is for them - something smokers already know. Yet they actually made a mistake on at least one of the new warnings - the one I’ve used in the picture [right] says “Smoking causes fatal lung cancer”. The truth is actually that smoking can, potentially, cause lung cancer - which may or may not be fatal. But I suppose that wouldn’t fit on quite so easily.
Smoker choose to do so. The government has already tried almost everything to stop them from doing so - that constant addition of tax, the ban on smoking in public spaces, the first attempt at warning labels, and probably many others I’ve forgotten. These new warning labels will make no difference to those who smoke and those who want to smoke. They already know it’s bad for them, they already know that it is addictive. Yet they smoke anyway.
What business of the government’s is it to stop them from harming themselves? The government’s job stops at the education of the potential risks. After they have done that, it is up to the individual to make their choice. To smoke or not to smoke, to drink or not to drink. That is the question, and the answer can only be made by the individual themselves.
Sources: BBC, The Telegraph
Add a comment August 21st, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Keep away from me - I don’t want to
catch your fat!
A vaccine to cut the risk of becoming overweight could be ready for testing within the next five years, according to research that suggests obesity can sometimes be catching.
A common virus may be one factor that contributes to the obesity epidemic sweeping the west, according to the research in the United States.
Although there is overwhelming evidence that obesity is linked to eating too many calories or burning too few, other factors are now thought to play a role, from lack of sleep to changes in stomach bacteria and now, thanks to new experiments, a common virus…
This study gives up to 30 per cent of them a new excuse - they “caught” their obesity in much the same way as they might catch a common cold. (The Telegraph)
So you can “catch” fat. It does seem rather absurd. The head of the BMA thinks that fat people are just greedy, but now it seems that he is even more wrong. However, even if you can “catch” obesity, that is no excuse for being fat. There is such a thing as dieting and exercise!
Add a comment August 10th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
I’m not going to comment on
this decision not to allow people which early stage Alzheimers to get a new drug on the NHS at all, because I (a) know nothing about it [even though that has never stopped me before] and (b) can’t be bothered. Instead, I’m just going to point a message on one of the placards pictured in the
Telegraph article which I found immensely funny [I'm a bad person who is
going to hell]:
Remember those who forget.
Add a comment August 8th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
I have never subscribed to the idea of eating “diet” varieties of food. I have never seen the point. Just either eat less or exercise more. There is now evidence that for children, “diet” foods could cause them to become obese:
“Diet foods for children may inadvertently lead to overeating and obesity, say researchers.
In tests on young rats, animals given low-calorie versions of foods were induced to overeat, whether they were lean or obese.
The researchers believe low-calorie versions of usually high-calorie foods disrupt the body’s ability to use taste to regulate calorific intake…
Lead researcher Professor David Pierce said: “Based on what we’ve learned, it is better for children to eat healthy, well-balanced diets with sufficient calories for their daily activities rather than low-calorie snacks or meals.”" (BBC)
It is pretty obvious in many ways that eating healthy balanced meals and exercising is better for children - and for adults. Whilst so-called “diet” alternatives have less calories than the standard foods, they often appear to have higher levels of salt or sugar instead - just as bad for you. It really is obvious that just replacing what you already eat with the “diet” variety is not going to help all that much. It is your lifestyle that needs to change more than anything else.
Children anyway shouldn’t have any need to be fed “diet” foods. They should be actively playing enough to work off at least most of any surplus calories they ingest anyway. They shouldn’t need to be fed “low calorie” snacks, and those that do need to should get up from in front of the TV and go out and run around outside.
Source: BBC
