A, B and G. Having read PA for YEARS I've been educated in many things including attitudes to disability, mainly autism. I often forget to watch it but Attitude on TV ONE Sunday mornings is such a fabulous show that it deserves a mainstream time slot. I get angry that trivialities prevail and I'm always grateful when one of you points to the show on this site or Twitter.
My husband has dementia and is in a home. This has thrown me into the world of mental disability.
Now I'm kind of disabled myself although I think of it as being disfigured. I'm a little bit scarred on the face and a little bit speech impaired after several cancers. Can't eat proper food. Very mobile but always found social interaction hard and now it's going to be even more of a challenge. I'm looking for a creative outlet (I'm sort of newly retired) or some sort of community work where I can help others at the same time as getting out there among people.
Fantastic reviews. Infectious enthusiasm. Have to say, though, that I found 12 Years a Slave unsatisfying if that makes sense.
Going through the alphabet with NZ place names (mainly towns but I allow Vinetown, Whangarei and Upper Hutt) helps. And if that doesn't work I do international countries and cities.
Yes, but I expected Corin Dann or Susan Wood to pull them up on this - or the esteemed political scientist on the panel.
Tend to agree but heard a few pertinent points out around Auckland today. One was from a woman who said, Well we'd rather know, wouldn't we? Hmmmm. And my daughter in law said, I'm from London. If a politician hadn't stolen money or had an affair there would be something wrong.
Thought-provoking doco. Jimmy will make a a great employee and workmate one day soon I hope.
A lovely young man: a programme to watch:)
Hi, Carol. I think Hague is expressing a personal view about "catastrophic rights". Just the fact that he refers to Vitamin C etc as "no proven benefit" shows that he's a clear thinker but wants to extend some sort of hope and comfort to those who are terminally ill. I know what you mean about the value of screening but also think that the concept of "catastrophic rights" is interesting. I like what George said about a "supportive palliative environment".
With Cunliffe's mention of "predistribution" and the promise of thoughtful policy from the Greens, we could be in for a much better win next year than any boat race can deliver us.
I wonder where medical marijuana comes into a Green health picture?
This is the response from Kevin Hague about the Greens’ onsite health policy re complementary therapies. I wrote to him under the assumption that he’d have a part to play in a new govt.
“Thanks for your email. I’m quite keen not to count my chickens etc, but on the other hand am also thinking about priorities for implementation.
The first thing to say is that our Health policy is pretty old and is currently in the middle of a complete rewrite, so by about early next year it will look quite different.
The second thing to say is that in practice such a unit already exists in the Ministry and has done for years, although it has little effect in practice. Where I have been called on to say what this particular policy means I have spoken about the need to enable ‘complementary therapies’ with satisfactory evidence of effectiveness (eg Cochrane review) to be used in our health services. This is sometimes a little tricky because such therapies may not fit easily with other categories (eg pharmaceuticals). You may be aware that in fact many of our established therapies have not had this standard of evidence to support them, but I figure we shouldn’t be funding or advocating anything new – mainstream or complementary – without good evidence.
Some of my medical friends also see a place for integration of therapies that may not have evidence of effectiveness (beyond placebo, which is pretty effective in itself) but which do no harm, in some situations and there are some good reasons to at least ensure health practitioners are aware of and educated about the kinds of complementary therapies their patients may be using, and that an environment is created where patients will disclose what these are.
My own view, although it’s going a bit far to say this is a Green party view, is that there is also a case for ‘catastrophic rights’, where a patient who is terminally ill has the right to access therapies with no proven benefit. Sir Paul Callaghan’s use of high doses of intravenous Vitamin C might be an example, and I have known many people with AIDS in parallel situations.
So that’s the thinking anyway. Of course I have other friends who say if a complementary therapy is shown to be effective then it is no longer complementary. By such a semantic argument anything called complementary would, therefore, be unproven, but that seems to me to be pretty unhelpful. I reckon most people would still think of manuka honey used in wound care, for example, to be complementary.”
Great poll and a great response from Kevin Hague too about Greens' health policy.
I'm thoroughly reassured. Do y'all want me to post his email here?