We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

How long will the doctors be in loco parentis?

Thirty years? Women of childbearing age should not drink – WHO

How about forever? Face masks should continue ‘forever’ to fight other diseases, says Sage scientist

16 comments to How long will the doctors be in loco parentis?

  • auralay

    Until we refuse to let them any more?
    Auralay. Gender – no sex please, I’m British. Racial affiliation – Homo Sapiens (I think) Pronouns I, me miNE!

  • Wat Tyler

    [Deleted]

  • George Atkisson

    Just as long as there are loco parents who let others make decisions for them.

  • Snorri Godhi

    The first thing that women of child-bearing age should be concerned about, is seed oils.
    Avoid them like the plague.

    The second thing is oily fish: eat plenty of it, while being wary of mercury.

  • Lee Moore

    Shouldn’t that be “Birthing persons of childbearing age…” ?

  • John Lewis

    Ageist!

  • Schrodinger's Dog

    Wasn’t this inevitable? Short of an outright ban, which I think is still about twenty years away, there’s now not much mileage left in anti-smoking measures. So the banning types are now moving on to alcohol. No doubt some of you will say this will never happen, and point to the disaster that was Prohibition. Unfortunately, they’ve learned from their mistakes there. Prohibition was a disaster because it was far too sudden: in a lot of places, booze went from being totally legal one day to totally illegal the next, provoking a backlash.

    Prohibition II will likely be much more gradual. It will start with articles like this, as well as the other negative consequences of alcohol, mainly accidents and violence. Already the term “passive drinking” is in circulation.

    Make no mistake, these people will, ultimately, ban alcohol, unless we tell them, in no uncertain terms, where to get off.

  • Make no mistake, these people will, ultimately, ban alcohol, unless we tell them, in no uncertain terms, where to get off.

    This is an ongoing need, I’m afraid. Every generation needs to learn anew and the battle reboots and starts again with a new generation of bullies.

  • bobby b

    “Women of childbearing age should not drink” – WHO

    “When women and girls can access effective contraception and safe abortion services, they are better able to safeguard their health and well-being.” W.H.O.

    Seems somewhat of a mixed message.

  • Prohibition was a disaster because it was far too sudden: in a lot of places, booze went from being totally legal one day to totally illegal the next, provoking a backlash.

    I’m sorry, but that’s bollocks. After ratification there was a one year period before the amendment came into force, during which time congress passed the necessary enabling legislation and states were told (but by and large, didn’t) to setup their own enforcement regimes.

    The amendment was proposed by Congress on December 18, 1917, and was ratified by the requisite number of states on January 16, 1919. Under the terms of the Eighteenth Amendment, Prohibition began on January 17, 1920, one year after the amendment was ratified.

    The main problem with prohibition was that many were misled to believe that beer and wine would be excluded, which it wasn’t.

    The phrase “intoxicating liquor” would not logically have included beer and wine (as they are not distilled), and their inclusion in the prohibition came as a surprise to the general public, as well as wine and beer makers. This controversy caused many Northern states to not abide by the amendment, which caused some problems. The brewers were probably not the only Americans to be surprised at the severity of the regime thus created.

    Voters who considered their own drinking habits blameless, but who supported prohibition to discipline others, also received a rude shock. That shock came with the realization that federal prohibition went much farther in the direction of banning personal consumption than all local prohibition ordinances and many state prohibition statutes. National Prohibition turned out to be quite a different beast than its local and state cousins.

  • Stonyground

    “Voters who considered their own drinking habits blameless, but who supported prohibition to discipline others, also received a rude shock.”

    That does seem to highlight one of the foibles of the hard of thinking. They are always keen on having rules applied to other people and are totally taken by surprise when they find out that those rules apply to them as well. One of the best stories was about folk who campaigned to have a camera installed to stop cars speeding through their village.

  • Steve

    Doctors making recommendations against drinking? It’s not exactly shocking, they also recommend you don’t eat junk food or smoke.

    This is also on the tail of previous recommendations having been written by alcoholic beverages industry groups. In Australia the recommended consumption was something like 4 standard drinks a day, with allowance for extra on the weekend. The health dept. even made recommendations to compensate for the ‘health effects’ of not drinking for people who don’t consume alcohol!

    IIRC the advice for pregnant women was to limit themselves to one or two standard drinks a day.

    This is in the face of alcohol being a carcinogen with no safe level for pregnancy and the drug with far and away the most associated social harms.

    I’ve got no love for the WHO, but I’d rather have them advising government than industry lobby groups, otherwise you end up with what happened in Australia, where ‘healthy consumption’ was basically low-level alcoholism. It was only meddling doctors with their pesky insistence on sticking to real world data that turned that around.

  • I’ve got no love for the WHO, but I’d rather have them advising government than industry lobby groups,

    Unless you slept through the last year and a half, WHO are an utterly toxic politically driven outfit that needs to be burned to the ground rather than listened to about anything whatsoever.

  • David Norman

    If by ‘doctors’ Natalie means medical doctors, I don’t think these examples suggest that they are in loco parentis. Susan Michie is a behavioural psychologist who happens to have largely repugnant views while I suspect that the WHO consists mostly of bureaucrats who rejoice in telling others how to live their lives and have the presumption typical of the breed.

  • Natalie Solent (Essex)

    David Norman writes,

    Susan Michie is a behavioural psychologist who happens to have largely repugnant views

    Repugnant indeed. She’s a member of the Communist Party of Britain.

    I thought about mentioning that in the post, but I was posting in a hurry and didn’t want to get sidetracked. Odd to find someone devoted to world Marxist revolution advising the capitalist oppressors that make up the British government. Odder still that the British government takes advice from such a person.

  • Paul Marks

    As Professor Michie herself says…..

    ALL members of SAGE want to use government power to create a new society.

    “All” of them – regardless of whether they are members of the Communist Party or not.

    The World Health Organisation is the same – the leader of it is a Marxist doctor of Philosophy (not of medicine) whose life’s work is to push totalitarian tyranny.

    But the non Marxist members also believe in tyranny (sorry I mean a “better society via government power” thank you Professor Michie) – Saint-Simonist “Technocracy” is just a different brand of tyranny, it is still control over all aspects of life.

    “Why does not someone warn the government?”

    They have – Members of the House of Commons have told the Prime Minister, in the House, what Professor Michie and co are about. That they are not medical doctors and that their conception of “Public Health” is POLITICAL not medical.

    The Prime Minister has given no sign (at least no sign that I am aware of) that he understands what various Conservative Members of Parliament have told him.

    On the contrary, the Prime Minister says that “no one” wants restrictions on liberty to be permanent – which is an odd thing to say as the international establishment wish to destroy liberty.

    At some point the “Covid” justification will switch back to the “Global Warming” justification – but this movement is a lot older than the Global Warming theory.

    It is not about the justification – it is about the new society, whether Marxist (as with Professor Michie) or Saint-Simon style Technocracy – the “Stakeholder Capitalism” of Klaus Schwab and other totalitarians (World Economic Forum and so on).

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>