Can Doctors do a Damn Thing?

I may as well get it out there and just say no. Doctors are backing future industrial action and are refusing to accept the new changes to their professions without a fight. Of course, it’s all about pensions where they will have to put in more to get less out. In theory, it’s upsetting as they had a deal, but in reality they are still getting almost £50,000 a year as part of their pension plans. However, with the British Medical Association now calling for the health secretary Andrew Lansley to resign, things only look like they are going to get worse.

kidding

Let’s look at the way doctors take industrial action. They take industrial action by refusing to carry out non-emergency care. So they still go into work, but instead of doing most of their work they just sit around and do nothing. It’s almost like a passive form of resistance or a slow-down, as some call it. Does it put the public in danger? No. Does it irritate the hell out of people who might have had their operations delayed for months because of it? Yes.

So can doctors do anything?

Any successful strike either has to have popular support or power. Doctors have the power as they can simply refuse to care for people any longer, which would have massive consequences. However, we all know, and health secretary Andrew Lansley also knows, that they won’t do this. Even with the recent industrial action not all doctors supported it as they believed that the general public shouldn’t suffer because of any dispute they had. Ok, so the doctors have power that they can’t use. That’s that out of the way.

Do they have popular support?

It really depends on who you ask about popular support as there will be differing opinions. You ask the government and they will say no, which they’ve actually said on live TV as part of BBC News. If you ask a doctor who wants to go on strike then the doctor will not really answer the question. Instead they’ll just talk about fairness for the next five minutes. So, no, they don’t have popular support. What they don’t realise is that people don’t care about your £50,000-a-year pension. To most people, this is an absolutely fantastic pension, regardless of what happened to change. And people won’t have their healthcare disrupted over a dispute like this. Fairness, in the eyes of doctors, has to come through mass disruption. And people are simply not interested in that.

doctor
It seems as if you have a..ah I don't care, I'm on strike.

So doctors can’t really do anything at all as they don’t have either of the key things they need to produce a successful strike. As for whether they are correct, well that’s up to you to decide. In my opinion, they are only correct because they already signed a deal. Doctors who were already in the profession when that original deal was signed, I believe, should be kept under that deal. The new changes from health secretary Andrew Lansley should only apply to new doctors who will be entering the profession. Yes, doctors will argue that they deserve those massive pensions, but a few more years training than everybody else shouldn’t entitle you to that much when everybody else has to suffer.

Why should you be an exception?

Locked-In, In More Ways Than One

The chances are that you’ve already heard of the case being put forward by the family of 58-year-old Tony Nicklinson. Tony suffers from a syndrome known as locked-in syndrome. This syndrome arose due to the fact that he had a stroke that left him paralysed everywhere, but his mind still functions perfectly.

As a result of his injuries, he can now only communicate through a special computer. This computer monitors his eye movements and allows him to speak. The case being put forward is that he wants it to be made legal for a doctor to allow him to die, but the government has said that this will authorise murder.

Tony Nicklinson
Tony Nicklinson

On one hand, the government is right. Such a system would be open to corruption from dodgy doctors and those who would happily kill off ailing relatives in an attempt to claim what they have without waiting. Yes, this corruption would be there, but it’s also something that has to be worked around. You can’t just accept that nothing can be done about corruption. You can’t just accept this and refuse to implement a better system because of it.

What the government is essentially doing is condemning Mr. Nicklinson to years and years of misery at the hands of locked-in syndrome. And make no mistake, he’s not ill. What irritates him is the fact that he’s still perfectly healthy and he will live for years and years to come. And he will have to live like that for the rest of his life. That’s why he wants to die, but why shouldn’t he be allowed to die? Switzerland has a system where people can get doctors to kill them, a process known as euthanasia.

We have the basic human right that we have a right to life, so surely we also have the right to die? I’m quite frankly sick of the rubbish from the past that says that every life is sacred. No, it’s not. Life is not sacred. It’s just a life like every other animal on the planet. They are our lives. And our lives are something that we should be able to end if we feel like it. Suicide is now legal under the Suicide Act of 1961, and with the excellent safeguards against malpractice in euthanasia other countries have in place, it is an antiquated idea that it should be illegal. It’s unfair and it’s just plain wrong. It’s almost as if it’s admitting that the government has control over our lives.

This case of locked-in syndrome comes just after another case where an anorexic woman from Wales, who wanted to die, ended up in court. The terrifying thing is that even though the woman wished to die, the judge ruled against her and declared that she must be force-fed to prevent her death.

Now we are not only avoiding the issue, we are actively working against it.

Justice

Why Does Nom Nom Time Turn to Hospital Time?

There are many reasons why that great looking tin of sardines would be good to eat, but there are also many reasons why the emergency room is a good possibility. That’s right, the Food Standards Agency has conducted a study that has shown that more and more people are getting food poisoning due to food that was consumed when it should have gone in the bin.

Bad cheese
Yum yum...

But why did they do this? Well it’s not because they were suddenly exposed to radiation that caused mass brain damage. It’s because they decided to make food go further by utilising leftovers and the power of smell. In other words, the date on the packet was completely ignored; although the people who wrote about this seemed genuinely surprised.

Anyway, the Food Standards Agency is expecting the number of food poisoning cases to peak this summer so we don’t actually know how bad it will get yet. According to them, though, it will get much worse.

If I had to give my opinion I can tell you exactly why more and more people are now taking a risk by just smelling food instead of obeying the date on the packet.

1. People just can’t afford to buy so much food these days. Food prices are going up all the time and it’s getting to that point where lots of meals just aren’t worth creating anymore. The government always moans that we should be healthy and we should spend hours cooking these elaborate meals, and yet what they don’t seem to understand is that the bad food tends to be the cheapest food, and that’s all that many people can afford. Lower food prices and this wouldn’t happen as much.

2. The unemployment rates. Regardless of how expensive food prices are, it doesn’t matter if there’s no money coming into a household. People are still losing jobs even today and it only looks to get worse as Spain announces that it needs a bailout. So if people can’t afford good food then they are going to take a risk. We have a free healthcare system so it’s cheaper to actually get food poisoning. Start getting people back to work and the numbers will go down.

3. Travel costs. If you look at those who commute to work in this country then you will quickly discover that it’s one of the biggest expenses around. The buses and the trains are an absolute joke in this country. We have to pay some of the highest prices in Europe for trains where we might not even get a seat. Here’s an idea. I would rather have my taxes raised if the government could nationalise both of those industries and lower the prices.

Empty fridge

All of those reasons contribute to the rising number of food poisoning cases, and the Food Standards Agency will be recognising this. What people need to accept is that if you are going to implement austerity in a country then you are not only making the people depressed but you are also making them unhealthy. It just seems to be incredibly unfair that everybody else has to suffer because a few prats at the top won an election every five years and now think they can play in the Casino of Capitalism.

Voters Reject Prop 29 for Good Reason

50.8% of California voters have decided against Prop 29, which would have raised the tax on a pack of cigarettes in the state by a $1. The vote was close, but in anti-smoker California this signifies a sea change in public opinion: People are beginning to realize that regressive taxation against a minority is wrong. Skeptics rightfully charge that this money would not have gone towards cancer research for smokers by rightfully pointing to the fiscal track record that tobacco control has already left for us to examine. The truth is that the money extorted from smokers has never gone towards cancer research (for smokers), nor has it ever gone towards the research of reduced risk tobacco products. Lung cancer continues to be amongst the deadliest of cancers, not because its trajectory is so much more deleterious in its nature as compared to that of other forms of cancer, but for lack of funds in eradicating the disease due largely to prejudice. Of all cancers, lung cancer receives the least amount of federal funding in the United States, even though smokers are singled out with the highest rates of taxation. Cigarettes are the highest taxed commodity in the United States. Furthermore, smokers pay more into the system than the cost of smoking related diseases, but are denied funding for the very research that we continue to pay for many times over.

This trickery and embezzlement in the name of public health has been propelled upon the unwilling with a swift and unwavering force ever since 1998 when the Master Settlement was called into action. The Master Settlement Agreement was supposed to have been enacted for the purpose of covering the Medicaid costs of treating smokers. Instead what we have witnessed has been the outright theft perpetrated against a group that has been unable to defend itself. For example, many government officials and bureaucrats have been borrowing against future tobacco bonds (to go into the general fund and “other” needs, such as parks and the purchase of undeveloped land) in cash strapped states such as, surprise, California. California Watch, a government watchdog group, has uncovered some startling facts about California’s love of tobacco money:
Rather than waiting for annual payments, the state and some local governments decided to borrow money against their anticipated future revenue. All told, they’ve issued $16 billion in bonds since 2001.
Could it be that the state of California, via Prop 29, was looking for yet another way to tax smokers into oblivion in order to cover the debt that has been incurred by reckless state bureaucrats who borrowed against future smoker money? Nah….. That would be too cynical, right?
In December, California had to dip into its reserves to cover bond payments.
They’re in debt to future tobacco bonds! How could they borrow our money to spend on other things without our permission? That is supposed to be our money! But, but…MSA money was for the treatment of sick smokers on Medicaid…Yeah, right…and pigs fly and all politicians, special interest groups and lawyers are honest; only tobacco companies lie; and as for the people most affected, well, we don’t exist.
As the state’s finances worsened, officials went back to investors.

Yes, you have read that right: There are people who invest in MSA money. Isn’t that just lovely? For the love of righteousness and justice, I can’t fathom how this could be a legal endeavor. The very people who have kicked us smokers to the curb (under the false premise that we’re a financial burden to society) are investing in the very commodity that they profess to hate. It makes one think that there is something putrid abound, as we smokers are denied the very benefits that we have already paid for. I want to know why we have been denied the lifesaving research that has been paid for several times over. I don’t expect that we’ll get an honest answer to that question any time soon.

I have a striking suspicion that there is a dark and pernicious force in action with the intent of keeping all tobacco products as dangerous as possible in order to justify the continued extortion. The damage done to smokers goes far beyond that of punitive taxation, for any government backed industry that borrows against “sin” taxes is an industry that stands to lose revenue when new and novel reduced risk products are introduced into the marketplace.

Saving the lives of smokers does not appear to be profitable for some. The prohibitionist “quit or die” approach put forth by modern day tobacco control movement is merely a thinly disguised veil for its true intent, which is to abolish and bury any alternative measures (like tobacco harm reduction) that may actually work to save the lives of millions while respecting the sovereignty of individuals and nation states everywhere. For those among us who don’t believe that this accusation carries any merit, I would like to provide unbelievers a mere glimpse into the window of modern science and tobacco harm reduction, which happens to be rife with empirical information that is irrefutable:

It is already possible to eliminate the carcinogenic nature of combustible tobacco cigarettes by 90%. There have been many studies and cigarette models developed which prove this to be the case; many more models are being studied as I am typing this commentary. Of course, none of us have had the pleasure of hearing about these revolutionary discoveries from our public health officials or via the nightly news. This proves that if Prop 29, the MSA, as well as that of all tobacco taxation, were really about the health of smokers, then existing tobacco tax codes would instead ensure that a significant proportion of tobacco taxes go towards reducing the harm(s) caused by active smoking via the marketing and production of future harm reduction products and that of those reduced risk tobacco products that already exist:
Scientists have tried to make safer cigarettes in the past. Haemoglobin (which transports oxygen in red blood cells) and activated carbon have been shown to reduce free-radicals in cigarette smoke by up to 90%, but because of the cost, the combination has not been successfully introduced to the market.
..”Because of the cost”… What about all of that tobacco money that smokers have been coughing up at the local, state, and federal level for all of these years? Clearly, there is enough money to save the lives of many smokers. Nicotine replacement therapy (ie., patches and gum) has a 90+% failure rate. Here we have (thanks to the brave scientists who continue to study harm reduction) access to the knowledge that could actually work by lowering the risk of smoking related disease(s) by 90%, yet it is ignored by the very people who purport to care about public health. Not having the access to and the knowledge of these advancements is an outrage and a violation of human rights. Smokers are dying while politicians and bureaucrats stuff their pockets whilst golfing on the green-grass-manicured lawns that dead and dying smokers have paid for.
Haemoglobin and activated carbon cigarettes should already be on the market (and we should know about it, as well as that of other reduced risk cigarettes such as those who utilize anti-oxidants). Here is another such development listed below:

Using natural antioxidant extracts in cigarette filters, the researchers were able to demonstrate that lycopene and grape seed extract drastically reduced the amount of cancer-causing free radicals passing through the filter.
I’m only approaching the tip of the iceberg here, for there have been many more such studies which have shown how various anti-oxidants can be used to reduce the harms caused by active smoking. I have many of them listed on my blog.
There is no reason why smoking has to continue to be nearly as dangerous as it has been up until the present. This is the 21st century after all. It is clear that the health of smokers has been sacrificed on the altar of heavy taxation and greedy hands. What we need are massive reforms to current tobacco taxation laws, not more taxation to feed a broken system. Smokers deserve to have a say in these much needed reforms. No one wants to be “unhealthy” after all, and no one deserves to die for lack of funding and prejudice. Some of us are aware of the scientific advancements that have been made and we rightfully would like to be the benefactors of such inventions.
Prop 29 failed for a reason: it was an egregious attempt to beat up on an already bruised and battered minority. People from all walks of life are beginning to question the tactics of the anointed anti-tobacco establishment as a result. It is my hope that all similar attempts in the future will fail, and not only in California.

Why Would Anyone Want to Care for the General Public?

This is a question many people in the National Health Service (NHS) must be asking themselves after a leaked document revealed that staff in the south-west of England will have to work more, get less, whilst still adhering to those strict targets set up for trusts all over the country.

I believe everybody understands that there will be pay cuts/freezes for people in all sectors, but those in the NHS are seemingly being hit over and over and over again. The latest comes from a leaked document which reveals the following. Staff will have to deal with:

  • Salary reductions across the board.
  • Even more cuts to their allowances.
  • Considerably more hours.
  • The amount of leave they have per year reduced.
  • Mass changes to their sickness benefits.
  • And to put the flies on the pile of faeces, they will all be dismissed and will have to reapply for their own jobs.

And this is ignoring absolutely everything to do with NHS pensions. So if they are earning less after these changes whilst still having to pay more then what’s left? Why would anybody want to work for the public healthcare system in this country? Let’s get one thing straight. The health system is one of the toughest to work in as hours are long, targets are strict, and it gets battered by disgruntled members of the public and the media on a consistent basis. It’s like they are trying to destroy the whole thing and turn us into an Americanised copy.

Let’s look at one area of the health system that’s tiny these days. The dentists. Now, have you ever tried getting an appointment with a dentist in this country outside of the private sector? If you haven’t then I assure you that you certainly won’t find it easy as there are so few dentists. Yes, it’s true that all dentists in this country have to go through a few years of training in the public system before going into private practice, but how many of them are going to stay? You get less than private practice and you are under the control of somebody else, what’s the point?

Dental floss

All these changes are going to do is continue to push the brightest and the best out of this country and into the waiting arms of another country. Alternatively, if they decide to stay then they are probably either going to create or join a private practice instead. So tell me one thing, exactly how does the government hope to keep a fresh and competitive health system when they are constantly throwing people out of it with their ludicrous changes? I hope for the future of the NHS that their answer is a pretty damn good one.

Give a shit

Your Kids Are Depressed? No They’re ******* Not!

If there’s anything that’s truly a fixture of the world we live in then it certainly has to be the fact that we always have to think that every child is depressed because they’re not happy. A recent BBC article really highlighted the whole depressed people thing today as it reported that 1,000 under 18s had been referred to mental health teams in Sussex.

Sad child

We’ve actually had this turn up quite a few times now as a few years ago there was a big media storm over the subscribing of antidepressants to young people. Now, depression is a strange beast. It’s not something that’s imaginary, like certain people would have you believe. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the person is weak either. What it means is that when depression is genuine something needs to be done. The problem is that you can be diagnosed with depression at the slightest thing these days.

Obviously, the number of children who are depressed is going to be higher due to the fact that this isn’t something that was taken seriously; mental health problems as a whole weren’t taken seriously. We also have to acknowledge that our population has increased significantly over the years so the number of depressed people will naturally increase.

What people have to acknowledge is that being sad once in a while does not equal depression. Depression can come in many forms, but it isn’t occasional. Some depressed people may switch between happy and sad every few hours, or it may even be prolonged periods of happy and sad over months. This is depression and these people need help, they are the genuine ones, and many of the ones who claim to have depression today won’t fall into these groups.

What would make a child fall into depression, though?

I’m not going to go into the blatantly obvious things like an abusive household because that’s plain obvious and it would be an insult to dedicate half of a page to it. Some people believe that the accessibility of the world’s events is to blame. There’s no doubt that the world is a depressing place to be in, and this worry and anxiety that’s always permeated the mass media will naturally fall on the heads of children. And children will have access to all of this stuff because they are usually more technology orientated than most adults.

Another reason? Well there’s the argument that the stress of school is a major factor, but I completely disagree with this for the most part as that’s always been present and we are seeing a spike in the number of depressed children in recent years. I would agree that those who are bullied on a regular basis may garner some depression as being bullied is a traumatic experience. I, myself, was bullied and I had a horrible time for years, but luckily for me the chav bastard died at the age of 18 from an ‘unlucky’ brain aneurysm. I’m very happy about what happened and it did lift a weight off my shoulders as I did believe that justice was done, but such karmic justice isn’t present for many people. I understand that many children who don’t have their bullying issues resolved will feel cheated, and that will certainly contribute to depression.

Dead guy
An over exaggerated representation of karmic justice.

However, what I believe the main reason is is the lack of parental love in the world these days. There’s no getting away from the fact that many depressed people don’t have the support or regular companionship of their parents. And this can be attributed to many things. Some may argue that it’s declining family values. Some may argue that it’s because most families tend to have both parents who work for long periods these days. I believe that it’s due to the fact that many parents don’t realise what they are doing. If a parent decides to forgo spending time with their child for an hour or two then what happens? Usually, absolutely nothing so they believe that everything is ok when really it’s not.

This is usually when we start seeing the spoiled brat who has all of these presents and gifts and yet they are still upset. Many people can’t fathom why someone with everything could be so upset. But what they don’t take into account is that material goods can’t substitute long-term love and affection. It just doesn’t work. There’s absolutely no correlation between amount of material goods and long-term happiness. In fact, that’s how those with everything can still become depressed. This is due to a psychological incident known as hedonic adaptation (or the hedonic treadmill), which is where humans become happy when they receive material goods and revert back to emotional stability after the initial period of euphoria is over.

Materials are temporary. Love is forever. That’s why your kids are supposedly depressed.