Posts by Danielle
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
B Jones, you are most excellent. </Spicoli>
-
Matthew, we get it: they are not, under any circumstances, to be forgiven for their failing, and are therefore lesser humans. Let the shunning commence!
I think that cutting people some slack might be nice once in a while. None of us are perfect.
-
Quick! Look behind that door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'!
-
Yes, Kyle, and the legislation requires whistle-blowers to clear a slightly more stringent bar than "it's a matter of public interest cuz I say so".
Erm. How on earth could it *not* be a matter of public interest?
Also, whoever mentioned the two tribes going to war: thanks for the lesser-hit Frankie Goes to Hollywood earworm. :)
-
I don't accept that either.
Well, in a perfect world, nor do I. But I'm just trying to compromise with our anti-smoker friends, given our current health budget... you do make a good point with the butter, though.
George Best got a liver transplant, kept boozing, destroyed his new liver and was refused another.
See also John Phillips of The Mamas and the Papas:
In the 1990s, his years of addiction took hold; he had a liver transplant in 1992. Several months later, Phillips was photographed drinking alcohol in a bar in Palm Springs, California, as published in the National Enquirer newspaper. Phillips was questioned about the photo on the Howard Stern radio show, saying "I was just trying to 'break in' the new liver".
-
there's no compelling reason why smokers should be allowed to consume limited health resources
OK, fine. How about prioritising people who don't smoke ahead of those who do? There's an incentive for them to quit. But refusing care altogether... these are *people*, with lives and families and friends, who happen to smoke, not 'smokers'. It's dehumanising to define them by that one characteristic. What if that elective surgery means that they have the ability to look after their grandchildren, and before they were basically immobilised? How much 'value' does that have?
I don't accept that a person's choice should then require the health system to pay extra
And there's the rub: there will *always be choices people make that require the health system to pay extra*. It's the very nature of the system. You choose to run a red light and have an accident at an intersection: we could have avoided that cost too. Do we refuse care - say, physio, not urgent surgery or something - because the person ran a red light and it's their own fault? Of course not.
Basically: I say screw this 'why should I pay with my taxes because those people aren't as awesome as I am?' libertarian-lite-ism.
-
Cause I pretty clearly was talking about education.
Except when shame has value sometimes, as you said earlier?
I don't disagree with your main idea at all, actually. I just think it would have to be quite carefully administered. Lots of guidelines and regulations. It's quite easy to become Judgey McShamingpants - I know, I've done it myself. I'm sure we all have.
-
Take your complaint to the smoking advert brigade though, I'm not the one putting them on. Personally I know smokers, and ex-smokers, who think the adverts are good
And I know some who buy a nice tin cigarette can and fastforward through the ads on their MySky. My anecdata cancels out your anecdata!
I'm talking about 'shaming', not 'education'. There's a line to be drawn. Education good: shaming bad.
the non athlete would be quite visibly obese
I note that the Wikipedia article on BMI says that it is not useful for: individuals who are not sedentary; athletes; children; the elderly; the infirm; and individuals who are naturally endomorphic or ectomorphic (people who don't have a medium frame). Oh. Well, that means it's relevant to about four people, then... let's keep using it! That'll work!
And who among us does not see the slippery slope from what is being proposed here and the refusal to cure people who make bad personal choices?
Which... shudder. Apparently we're heading this way: shun the smokers, the fatties, the older peeps, the druggies! Let all who pass through the public health system be morally and bodily pure, lest we all be contaminated by their lungs and their fat and their oldness and their less-than-perfect exercising patterns!
Look, I think if we have a public health system, we *have a public health system*. No exceptions. Even if you think they made 'bad choices'. Even if you think they're horrible people. Even if you, personally, would not have them over for afternoon tea. That's what public health systems are about, dammit. By all means educate people. Help them. Be preventative out the wazoo. But denying them care is a bridge too far for me.
-
I'm a fairly fanatical anti-smoker, and I see it has some value there.
It has value for *you*. It makes *you* feel better. It doesn't help the smokers themselves. You can't hate people for their own good, to quote someone very clever whose name i can't remember.
-
But I wonder at people who regale others with, and seem to exclusively have, bad experiences... I really do wonder where the problem lies.
<Joanne Black-esque rant> It took 2.5 years to get our consent for building our house. It took four weeks to build. And it was a *Lockwood*. Hardly some johnny-come-lately crapola building firm. And I never raised my voice once to the council people, even when they gave our builder *wildly* conflicting rules to follow with each submission. Even when they charged us $20,000 more than we initially thought. Even when they continued to come over unannounced and inspect our house long after it had been supposedly signed off by every human being in Waitakere City. Seriously, I will never build a house again. It was utterly horrid. </Joanne Black-esque rant>
I don't think she should have a weekly column about this issue, though. :)