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]
|
On 27th of May, two eminent medical professors wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph newspaper. Professor N.J. Wald and Professor A.V. Hoffbrand are seriously peeved that the recommendations of the advisory scientific committee on nutrition (COMA) are not going to be supported by the government. Those recommendations are to require by law that all bread in the United Kingdom is fortified with folic acid. This is already mandatory in the USA. In their letter the government funded professors wrote:
We believe that the decision of the Food Standards Agency [not to accept the COMA conclusions] is a mistake and illustrates the structural weakness in our ability to make rational public health decisions. The problem goes further than folic acid. It affects our whole approach to public health.
The contemporary view is that public health is essentially an issue of personal choice. In fact, the essence of public health is that it is a collective strategy that does not require personal choice (it is just there for all to benefit from). At present, individual decisions relating to public health [emphasis added] are a separate issue. We need an agency that is mandated to consider public health in a rational, evidence-based manner, with the authority to recommend policy to government and monitor its implementation. We are, regrettably, far from this paradigm.
We hope that ministers will ignore the view of the Food Standards Agency and implement the strategy proposed by COMA, the Governments’s own scientific advisory committee
First off, let me say that I certainly agree that increasing ones intake of Folic acid has beneficial effects (I take a pill of the stuff myself every day). However that efficacy or otherwise of folic acid is utterly irrelevant. By what warped moral value does COMA and professors Wald and Hoffbrand have the right to decide that the entire population are going to be medicated by the state? There is only one person who has the right to decide if I will add chemicals to my body and that person is me. The only conceivable morally justified circumstances in which I might be medicated against my will is that of highly infectious dangerous diseases, on the theory that if I have smallpox (or whatever) then I would pose a clear threat to others.
Yet that is not the case here, and neither is it in the case of water fluoridation. Both are probably harmless and even beneficial yet it would seem that the morality of using the violence of the state to impose the judgement of technocrats like Wald and Hoffbrand does not even get a mention.
If because it is said to be objectively beneficial to force people to ingest certain chemicals, then why not also allow Wald and Hoffbrand to decide what the nations subjects will be required to eat and not eat? High fat low fibre MacDonald’s burgers? Why not just make them illegal and require all restaurants to serve state approved menus set by COMA? If these professors have no moral problem forcibly medicating millions of people every day ‘for their own good’ then why not try to reduce the incidence of heart disease by shutting down the burger joints and pizza parlours? Except for communicable diseases, there is no such thing as ‘public health’. My diet and supplements are none of Wald and Hoffbrand’s damn business. How dare they try to put chemicals in MY body without my personal and explicit permission?
Of course the totalitarian mindset demonstrated by these people, rooted in collectivist hubris and moral relativism, sees choice itself as irrational… morality does not even come into it. Yet even on the amoral utilitarian basis under which such people operate and to which they would required us to submit our very body chemistry, we all know how well the state’s retained scientists can be trusted regarding ‘public health’. Look at how well they did regarding ‘mad cow disease’.
Nurses, teachers and other state workers in the UK are about to be ghettoised
As a result of their being unable to afford to buy property in London, HM Government has ‘solved’ the problem by announcing that they are going to be coralled into shanty-towns consisting of factory-made pre-fabricated ‘homes’ (tin sheds and plastic boxes to you and I) to be erected on public land which will be set aside for the purpose.
I particularly love this bit of ‘Newspeak’ from the Housing Minister Lord Falconer:
“It’s comfortable, beautiful housing. I would like to see thousands built a year.”
Rumour has it that the public sector ‘tribes’ will be encouraged to earn extra income from tourists by performing native ritual dances, selling beads and arrow heads etc while said tourists tut, roll their eyes, agree that it’s all so terribly sad and that the government should do something aout it.
Britain’s worst-kept secret is now out in the very public domain. Chancellor Gordon Brown announced his annual budget today and, as widely-expected, has hiked up National Insurance (a type of payroll tax) in order to increase funding of the National Health Service.
This was called the ‘Budget For Health’ by the government. Whose health? Certainly not the health of the economy. The business sector will have to stump up a whopping £3.9 billion a year more in taxes in a desperate attempt by the government to placate its public sector supporters and defer the dark day when the NHS simply collapses.
And it probably will collapse in due course. The NHS is Britain’s version of Yasser Arafat; an odious, Soviet-inspired monstrosity that has caused countless deaths and yet is mysteriously exempt from anything even approaching a critical word. Its status among the British is that of Sacred Cow, nay Red Heiffer. It is the Holy of Holies, the state of which is the barometer by which every government is finally judged. It is hardly a surprise that the press roundly trumpets opinion poll results which overwhelmingly endorse tax rises to improve the NHS when an answer in the negative is probably more outrageous than supporting legalised child-prostitution. The left never miss an opportunity to hector the British public with the admonition that, if they want improved health care, they have to pay for it. I agree, of course. I just think they should cut out the middle-man.
But the cracks have been showing of late. Too many people have been travelling abroad for their health care treatment, forking out for private insurance or watching their elderly relatives expire on trolleys in dank state hospital corridors and you can’t keep that kind of disquiet from spreading. Everybody seems to know or sense that the NHS is crocked and beyond redemption but they are prepared to shut their eyes and wish very, very hard that the government will hose enough money at it to make it all wonderful, gleaming, efficient and keep it free.
It won’t work in the long-term or even the medium-term but the government is gambling that the massive cash boost will tide them over to the next election when they will be able to annouce that they have ‘saved’ the NHS and ensured its future as ‘the best insurance policy in the world’. On the face of it, it is a dangerous gamble. The Labour government was elected on the promise that they had put behind them, for ever, their old ‘tax and spend’ policies and it is at least pragmatic to assume that they will be judged harshly for breaking their promise without delivering.
On the other hand, it might just fool ’em by providing a glimmer of ersatz hope. It is almost impossible to underestimate the sacred status of the NHS. The faith it is has traditionally inspired may prove a strong enough medicine to anaesthetise the public’s critical faculties and enable them to go on believing in the Easter Bunny.
In the meantime, we’re all going to get poorer. Poverty is bad for your health.
Several bloggers have reported on the story of a deaf lesbian couple who selected a deaf sperm donor to maximize the chance that ‘their’ daughter would be born deaf. And this is what indeed happened, producing perhaps the world’s first designer handicapped baby.
The way I see it, it is no better, and no different, than if these vile despicable sociopathic women had taken a child and jammed a sharp pencil in its ears to make it deaf. They have intentionally caused harm by any rational objective measure, they are merely using genetic predispositions, rather than sharpened pencils, to do it… it is not a random defect because they have loaded the dice to get the result they want and actually went looking for a donor with defective genes.
I hope the child grows up to hate them for what they did and to do harm back to them. In any reasonable society, the action of these ‘parents’ would be an objectively criminal act quite different from the tragedy of random birth defect. These vile creatures belong in jail for their de facto assault on ‘their’ child.
I am strongly in favour of genetic engineering but would regard creating sentient beings intentionally disabled as just as monstrous as what these evil women did by ‘selective’ breeding.
Russell Leslie wrote in to disagree with David Carr‘s article Buddy, can you spare a lime?
“Even a child knows that nobody ever died from eating vitamins or herbal supplements.”
To which Russell writes:
Actually – people (specifically asthmatic children) die from the common alternative remedy “royal jelly” on a regular basis. People think of royal jelly as being a wonderful natural remedy but it does kill people.
Vitamin A, a fat soluble vitamin, will kill in excessive concentrations. Though generally the people that have died have been people that have eaten the livers of sharks, seals and (ooh! gross) dogs – rather than store bought vitamin supplements.
Comfrey can lead to internal bleeding in excessive doses (there are some reports that Calendula can do this as well, though I am not clear on how reliable these reports are).
Herbal remedies are fine when intelligently used – unfortunately some people do not have the mental wattage to do anything intelligently. It is not to protect the intelligent that some form of controls may be needed – only the truly stupid need protection – but no one wants to admit that they are stupid. It is difficult to devise a system of controls protects the stupid but that doesn’t get in the way of the skilled or intelligent.
However whilst Russell makes some good technical points, I think he asks a very leading question: how do we protect the ‘stupid’ from the consequences of their own actions?
This seems to accept as axiomatic that, firstly, people who take ‘excessive’ doses of vitamins or herbal supplements are necessarily stupid… and secondly that anyone has the right to ‘protect’ said ‘stupid’ people from their own actions. The first point is highly conjectural and the second is morally dubious to put it mildly. Surely the best way to induce sensible decision making to not to insulate people from the consequences of their actions, be they the people who take alternative remedies or the people who market them.
Dr. Tim Evans has some interesting views regarding the reality of what many people ostensibly on the ‘left’ really think about healthcare
On 11 September 2001, Daniel Kruger, of the Centre for Policy Studies wrote a major feature article in the Daily Telegraph entitled Why half the members of trade unions have private health care. Kruger correctly pointed out whilst many members of the Trades Union Congress (T.U.C) continue to publicly attack Tony Blair’s efforts to establish an ever closer relationship between the National Health Service and British and French private hospitals, the trade union movement are themselves massively involved in a range of private healthcare schemes. Today, more than 3.5 million trade unionists have various forms of private health cover – which is more than half the T.U.C’s 6.8 million membership.
In his article, Kruger points to a trade union web site that spills all the beans called Trade Unions and Not-For-Profit Private Healthcare. It makes for remarkable reading and exposes the hypocrisy of many trade union leaders when it comes to private healthcare. This site quite rightly points out that the history of British independent health and social care is deeply rooted in the not-for-profit traditions of the friendly societies, mutuals, co-operatives and charities from whence the trade unions originally came in the early part of the nineteenth century. Today, for instance, BUPA is a mutual, Nuffield Hospitals are a charity, and people like the Salvation Army, Methodist Care Homes and Jewish Care all provide high quality health and social care services on a not-for-profit basis. There are literally dozens of other organisations underlining this deeply libertarian tradition.
Today, 7 million people have private medical insurance. Another 7 million people have private health cash plans such as H.S.A. (Hospital Saving Association), health cash schemes – as separate from private medical insurance invariably offer cash towards a range of services that were once covered by the NHS. For example, dentistry, ophthalmology, physiotherapy, chiropody, maternity services, allergy testing, hospital in-patient stays, convalescence, home help, and in some cases the use of an ambulance.
Another 1.2 million people have private dental insurance, whilst more than 20 million people pay directly for private dentistry with no insurance at all. 1.4 million people now have critical illness and permanent health insurance whilst 8.5 million will go private in 2002 for complimentary medicines such as osteopathy and chiropractics. Millions of these people will be trade unionists.
Perhaps, as the political scientist Dr. Nigel Ashford pointed out in 1997, it is under the historic and voluntaristic rubrics of mutuality and co-operation that Tony Blair might just continue with his Plan to Privatise UK Health and Welfare(1)
Come to think of it, perhaps that is why Labour’s ministers are beginning to talk about giving the best “three star” NHS hospitals “Independent Foundation Hospital” status and are endlessly obsessing about giving them “earned autonomy”. Strange bedfellows – funny old world!
(1)= (link requires Adobe Acrobat Reader which can be downloaded for free)
Tomorrow, the EU parliament will vote on a Directive that will ‘harmonise’ the sale of vitamin and mineral supplements right across the EU.
The effect in Britain will be to remove some 90% of currently commercially available vitamin and herbal remedies from the shelves of British shops.
“Many people believe these supplements are vital to them. This is heavy-handed legislation which I believe should be withdrawn but all we may be able to do is a damage limitation exercise.”
Britain has always been very relaxed about alternative health remedies and self-help as have countries like Ireland and Holland. But this is all to the great and deep displeasure of the German Pharmaceutical industry whose oily fingerprints are all over this bit of contemptible mischief and are now using their political marionettes in the EU Commission to legislate their competitors out of existance.
As per usual the justification is health and safety:
“Manufacturers will be able to make a case for supplements to be put on the list if they can prove their efficacy and safety, but many small companies do not have the resources for this kind of research trial.”
Even a child knows that nobody ever died from eating vitamins or herbal supplements.
There is widespread and angry opposition to this and not just from Britain but from all over Europe. Millions of e-mails and letters have been sent to the EU Parliament from angry and frustrated people. Sadly, it is likely to avail them nought . The vote will most likely be a rubber stamp by the Teflon Technocrats. The Parliament is just a fig-leaf to give Europeans an illusion of democratic accountability while the Commission agenda is waved through.
“In the UK, vitamin and mineral supplements are now a huge market worth £376 million in 2001. Direct sales are estimated to add £60-£70 million to this total.”
So yet another thriving British industry is executed by fiat and yet another chunk of our choice and independence is chipped away.
‘Harmony’; such a seductive word. We all want ‘harmony’ in our lives. We long for ‘harmony’. Who could possibly object to ‘harmony’?
I just spotted this splendid article on the ‘Grauniad’/Observer website which actually have the bravery to call for the complete abolition of Britain’s third rate socialist healthcare system. The sooner the better.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
