Who will be affected by tommorows law?

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:
Seems to me that a much better way to go would be just live as healthy as possible until the money runs out, then off yourself. Sure, my way takes more guts, but it also lessens the odds of your final few years being spent fighting cancer.

This is the plan I fully intend to take. If my syndrome's gene defects hasn't offed me by 65, I'll have 5 years out and then get myself run over or something. As it stands I'm a waste of resources anyway since I don't intend to father a child (disability), so it seems only fair.

As for the smoking ban - all well and good (particularly in restaurants), but IF all these smokers give up, where does the tax shortfall get made up, and how do you fund the people living longer?

Remember - non-smokers die every day too!

quote:

If I had my way I would ban smoking completely. There are only two reasons why people smoke:

1/ They are stupid enough to start in the first place

2/ They are too weak willed to give up.

There are no other reasons.

Why indulge their addiction at the expense of the innocent? Smoking is a filthy dirty habit that causes a disgusting and unhealthy stench. The only joy a smoker gets from smoking is the temporary relief of the withdrawal symptoms. The sheer effing nerve of smokers to bang on about freedoms being eroded by a nanny state beggars belief - if you want to indulge in filthy dirty habits DO IT IN YOUR OWN HOME and don't inflict other people with your disgusting stench. At last decent people can go out and enjoy a drink or meal without having to be polluted by the stench mongers.

The only downside to the ban on smoking in public places is having to see the witless fools indulging in their dirty habit on the streets. Is there anything more pathetic than the sight of these wretched addicts huddled together in dirty little groups outside buildings even in the pouring rain? Their stench is everywhere. It is high time smokers were treated as criminals.

Brilliant. Better than even I could come up with.

(I'd just like to point out that Acad and I are not the same person, though it may appear at times to be so.)

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
In fact I would never enter a hospital for surgery of any kind. I take my chance wil nature in that respect.

ATB from Fredrik

What about when you fall off your bike in front of a truck and end up with your foot hanging off? Or less dramatic, just a nice deep laceration? Or a dental infection?

I have the greatest respect for patients who make difficult descisions about whether to have or decline various treatments WHEN THEY ARE ACTUALLY SICK. But in my experience, the ones who boast most about what they won't do, before anything has happened, are the very ones who end up in a whimpering mess, begging for help, at the onset of often minor problems.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
[QUOTE]

Brilliant. Better than even I could come up with.

(I'd just like to point out that Acad and I are not the same person, though it may appear at times to be so.)

Oh go on, you could at least make an effort - I look forward to reading it.

Dear Doc,

In 1977, I had a proper cancer scare. I was very ill for quite a time, crazy white cell count, un-usable left hip, immense pain and six-weeks off my feet... you get the picture. The results came back as non-malignant [it was an infection on the hip-joint], but I point blank refused the various treatments that were discussed, should the worst outcome be found. The consultant refered to my "incredible sanguine attitude, for one so young," in a letter to my GP. I should not have seen the letter I am sure, but I did...

Been there and done that. I have if anything become more secure in my understanding of what I would do in the future in such circumstances. An individual really may know their own mind, though I agree that not all do.

In my view there are far too many humans on the earth either for the earth's good or the the good of the human population. There is no reason why I would seek to extend my life [or allowed it to be extended] beyond what nature was prepared to let me have, given a reasonably careful existence. When it is time to go then I say go, and don't waste anyone else's time in doing so. As Nicholas Monserrat put it in his novel, The Cruel Sea, Eriksen commented, "Some men know how to die. He died well, without troubling others." I like that sentiment.

ATB from Fredrik

Dear Fredrik

I have unwittingly run into similar problems regarding people's mental health on this forum before. I apologise.

Dear Doc,

No apology needed in my view [Smiley], though thanks for replying. It is odd, because I am utterly serious. When I had the possibility of having the option of LASER treatment to re-stick the retinas of both eyes as the result of Central Serous Retinopathy [currently not getting worse thank goodness] the consultant was staggered that I would not go for it.

I reckoned that so long as I was not disabled by it all, then there was no reason to go for treatment. Over eighteen months I went at first monthly and later six monthly over time, but eventually the situation quietened down and my by then friendly consultant lady agreed that using LASER was not likely to have helped what nature sorted out reasonably well with simple patience. My eyesight is not great, but still legal for driving.

Initially my optician thought that it was very serious. At 4 pm I had an eye test, at 5:30 I was seing my GP with a letter, and at 7:30 I was seeing a junior consultant. The NHS can pull its finger out on occasions!!

I think I have become very accepting of what luck throws up.

You would like me as a patient, as I never see my doctor! Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:

Initially my optician thought that it was very serious. At 4 pm I had an eye test, at 5:30 I was seing my GP with a letter, and at 7:30 I was seeing a junior consultant. The NHS can pull its finger out on occasions!!

So Fredrik, looks like you were able to put aside your detestation of the "nanny state" for a few hours - while it nannied you...

Dear Deane,

What a soft observation. I have paid taxes for thirty odd years and if my optician advises [for a private fee, I might add] that a certain course of imminent action needs taking, then who am I to argue, even if I demured at an actual operation when it was eventually offered.

I cannot categorically say that if they had advised the immediate removal I would have declined. The visible signs of CSR are similar to retinal cancer... But it would have been a very quick decision under the circumstances [and with a very high chance of complete removal of the malignancy, though the side effect is rather serious], and then the state would certainly have "nannied" me for the rest of my life.

With time to consider the implications of an attempted LASER repair after the CSR had stabilised, I was more than prepared to wait to see what nature would provide in the way of its own fix. Not worse than would have come from the necessarily risky business of LASER given the proximity of the damage to the place where the optical nerves join the retinas...

I almost wonder what your post was intended to do beyond bait me. Perhaps you would so kind as to explain what positive effect you thought it could possibly have brought about. If not I might think your post is either spiteful or stupid. If this is so it shows a bitterness in you which is a great shame on you. Such issues are not the stuff of levity I feel. Goodness forbid that I ever failed to suppress the thought of writing such things of another human...

Unquestionably in humourless mode, Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:

I almost wonder what your post was intended to do beyond bait me.

Fredrik

While you were on topic, you took the opportunity to unload some vitriol about your government - making it very clear that they should be staying right out of your house and not impinging upon your choices - even when the purpose of that law is to protect the health of the people who have to be around your choices. To then go on in the same thread to praise the health system that they pay for seems somewhat inconsistent.

quote:

Perhaps you would so kind as to explain what positive effect you thought it could possibly have brought about.

I posited that your views were inconsistent. That's positive.

quote:

If not I might think your post is either spiteful or stupid. If this is so it shows a bitterness in you which is a great shame on you. Such issues are not the stuff of levity I feel. Goodness forbid that I ever failed to suppress the thought of writing such things of another human...

The topic of this thread is not your personal life or health issues - although you hijacked it to that purpose which is not unusual.

Deane

Deane,

There is absolutely nothing inconsitent in what I have written in this thread.

What I do in my own house affects nobody who does not, of their own accord, come to see me. I am at work when any workmen may come, for example to inspect the gas boiler...

In my earlier post I deliberately made the point that I have paid my taxes over half a working lifetime - and part of the arrangement with Income Tax and National Insurance in UK is that the NHS provides health care which is certainly paid for by the public, but free at the point of delivery. [I actually foresaw that you would have something to say about this - hence my carefully chosen words - given your perceptions of life in the UK, which are so far wide of the mark all too often. Yet you take a tone which which contains something of the the self given authority of a Pharisee]. The NHS provision of health care has nothing to do with the state interferring with my rights at home, and everything to do with an remarkably fine attempt at providing health care for all regardless of wealth as far as this is possible. Treatment except for some mental illness and certain notifiable diseases is elective within the NHS.

Really I suspect that you are angry because I bested you over the value of your opinion, concening life and laws in UK where you view is undoubtedly less significant than someone who has a vote in parliamentary elections which can affect how the law is made and changed. I agree that you have every right to post your views, but logic suggest that some of the time they carry almost no weight of significance in certain areas of debate. My views on NZ might [or might not] be interesting but carry as little weight as your own on the UK I am sure you will agree.

As regards my posting answers to questions in any given thread where the question is not more than tangentially connected to the Original Post, would you expect me to avoid answering the question so as to steer the thread back to its original theme? If so I beg to differ. I shall answer questions, posed politely, in like fashion, though I find your tone is increasing sneering, and not just towards me.

In some respects this very answer to you falls into this off-topic category, but I see no reason to leave your post unanswered. The questions concerning health [not exactly off topic on a thread about Smoking and the Health of people who are affected by it] from a member who I think is a practicing UK doctor, really are not very far off the topic, and certainly more on topic thn your illogocal comment about the NHS being some extension of the nanny state, which quite clearly nonsense as well being something that adds nothing to the germain debate.

May I advise that you sort your own attitudes out first before lecturing others, who I suspect could teach you a thing or two about human grace and good manners. I think it is probably fair to say that almost everyone has issues based on life's experiences that cause them inner sadness, but not everyone walks round with an outsized chip on their shoulder. I knew something was going wrong with you when you went off at the deep-end over my accidental typo in your name a few days ago. I have not got the possibilty of sorting out your problems for you, but I think you really ought to try to look at yourself with detachment and work out where the bile is coming from. Then you can look for inner peace in some way with an internal resolution of your own personal issues. I have been through this process, and really it has made life much more pleasant for me as a result.

Are you a genuine and kind person? Do you feel your posts here would leave that impression on any readers? Only you can answer your own questions on this. It is your life, and all I shall do is read your posts [if at all] with certainly much reduced respect in future.

Fredrik

Fredrik

A long-winded post - with plenty of the tone of which you accuse me but using up more space - but the fact remains that there is little balance in your opinions about your government.

You somehow draw a line between the government itself; and what the government provides for you. I'd suggest that there is no such line - and I invite your comment.

Taxes or no taxes, your entitlement to the health system is exactly that - an entitlement.

quote:

your illogocal comment about the NHS being some extension of the nanny state, which quite clearly nonsense as well being something that adds nothing to the germain debate

If it is quite clearly illogical and nonsensical - then it won't take you very long to explain why. How is the NHS not an extension of Government? Pray tell. (Don't forget to mention the National Health Service Act...Oh, and the Secretary of State for Health and the Health Department...)

quote:

May I advise that you sort your own attitudes out first before lecturing others, who I suspect could teach you a thing or two about human grace and good manners. I think it is probably fair to say that almost everyone has issues based on life's experiences that cause them inner sadness, but not everyone walks round with an outsized chip on their shoulder. I knew something was going wrong with you when you went off at the deep-end over my accidental typo in your name a few days ago. I have not got the possibilty of sorting out your problems for you, but I think you really ought to try to look at yourself with detachment and work out where the bile is coming from. Then you can look for inner peace in some way with an internal resolution of your own personal issues. I have been through this process, and really it has made life much more pleasant for me as a result.

I have never lectured to you, Fredrik. I pointed out what I saw as a large inconsistency in your opinions about government. You've taken very deep offence. I'd comment that the time and effort you've put into the passage I've quoted above tends to suggest that it's you who is doing the lecturing.

This is a forum where discussions take place. If you are not up to having a discussion - well, that's fine - just say so.

Deane,

Three points, and the conclusion I have drawn in your case.

One: All treatment except for certain mental ilness and treatment of notifiable diseases under the NHS is elective. Therefore this is not nannying. I did say that before, but it seems you missed it, or deliberately ignored it.

Two: I have found Tony Blair's tenure as PM of our [Queen's] government to be very irritating indeed, though I accept that it is the product of our faulty electoral system that he has been there so long. As for the provision of a National Health Service, this will celebrate it sixtieth anniversary next year. It owes far more to the efforts of preceding governements than the current one for its existence and ideals. I believe it will be in safer hands under Mr Brown than it was under Mr Blair. I don't think there is much linkage between the NHS and the Blair era, beyond the horrible distortions caused by targets and messing with GPs' [and Dentists'] contracts which have done at best only questionable good, and at worst had done immense damage according to the spin put on it. I tend to think that the NHS has improved in some areas and got worse in others. With the massively raise money inputs it really should have been possible to raise standards across the board even if a perfect system will never be achieved I am sure.

Three: Yes, I can confirm that you annoyed me greatly by seeming to take so lightly a response to a post to a medical practitioner about taking professional advice concerning my eyes and attending emergancy appintments which the NHS provided for me. Somehow, you seems to find some linkage to the current new smoking Act. If the response you jumped on was addressed to you, there might have been a discussion point of a different shade to have, but I was clarifying the situation for another member. There is no logical linkage which I can see either in the respect of government policy or my attaitude to the new Act, or even to the governement which enacted it. I have already explained why I answered the post.

This does not preclude your commenting on it, but your combination of high handed [and wrongly based] undestatnding of my postion have led me to the conclusion that you are bringing to bear your own agenda rather than seemingly trying to adavance the debate in relation to the topic: The new smoking ban in UK, which incidentally I support in almost all its provisions as a reading of my preceding post in this thread will show. I just think that in certain aspects it has gone too far.

So your insistence on making light of serious issues and refusing to accept what I meant even when I have explained it, lead me to think that your debating style is more about demeaning your co-debators than finding a valuable advance in inderstanding and thought on all or any sides. Your agenda seems paramount, and the debate secondary.

Conclusion: For me you have damaged the respect I once held you in, so that I was prepared, in light of this former respect at least, to take the trouble to explain it. Your persistence in keeping to your original off-topic agenda leads me to think it is pointless debating with you now. Please do not now try to explain how you see a linkage between elective treatment with the NHS and my considering the new smoking ban [with respect to smoking in one's own home] is the nanny state gone mad. I have expalined why I see no linkage, and rather than explain the link as you see all you have done is insist it exists. Repition of a debating position does not eventually make it a truth, I feel. And having riled me I loose interest in your arguement, your style, and you as a person I once respected. I shall try to refrain from being rude to you, but will certainly refrain from trying to explain to you one more time what my reasoning is. If you do not underatnd it by now, I would think you are in a very small minority here who still do not.

I am sure that you will reaspond, so that will make an interesting read for me, though I have no intention of re-explaining myself. If you can take what i have written as basis for further questions I will try to answer the pont but if it merely amopunts to a false reading of what i ahve already written to you, don't expect a re-iteration...

Fredrik

Fredrik

Seeing as how you cannot refrain from making personal comments about me - I'll return like for like.

I'm speaking for myself here when I say that I'm tired of hearing you talk about yourself in every thread on which you post. You couldn't even stop yourself digressing into the topic of Fredrik when there was a thread about the little girl who went missing. Whatever my agenda might be - and whether or not it might be paramount - your own agenda is very clear. Maybe I do have a chip on my shoulder? But why can you not keep your blogging to your Polish Vodka thread?

Deane,

You will have to do better than that. Try to stop making it up as you go. I never posted anything on the tragic subject of the little girl missing in Portugal.

On the other hand, you could stop reading my posts, which you however seem to find fascinating. I fail to see why...

Fredrik

Fredrik

I read everybodys' posts when I am following a thread. As to being fascinated by yours - well, I think you may be assuming that.

Deane,

At last we find agreement. I was indeed assuming that. As for answering your posts in a style similar to your own, I plead guilty m'Lud. Touché, perhaps.

Fredrik