Changes in Society: The Nanny State

[John Simkin]

The "Nanny state" already exists in the school canteen and she is an evil nanny who 'protects' schools from providing children with less profitable foods.

Great point. It is just a question of what type of nanny you are going to have.

Here is an interesting article about this on the BBC website today.

Children regularly exposed to smoking are three times more likely to contract lung cancer in later life than those in non-smoking homes, research suggests.

The Imperial College researchers tracked the progress of more than 123,000 participants over seven years.

They told the British Medical Journal that the link between lung cancer and passive smoking was "significant".

Health charity Cancer Research UK said the study raised a "terrifying spectre" for smoking parents.

The researchers tracked 123,479 volunteers - some of whom had never smoked, others had stopped smoking, but all had been exposed to second-hand smoke in their childhoods.

Over a seven-year period they found that 97 people developed lung cancer and 20 more had related cancers such as cancer of the larynx.

In addition, 14 died from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

"Environmental tobacco smoke exposure during childhood showed an association with lung cancer, particularly among those who had never smoked," the researchers said.

The team concluded that the study reinforced past research about the cancerous effects of passive smoking.

The researchers also found that ex-smokers faced up to twice the risk of respiratory diseases from passive smoke than those who had never smoked.

They believe this is because their lungs were already damaged - making them more at risk to the effects of passive smoking.

The British Medical Association (BMA) said the "important study" confirmed that passive smoking kills.

"The results show clearly that second-hand smoke causes cancer of the lung, mouth and throat," a BMA spokesman said.

Professor Robert West, Cancer Research UK's director of tobacco studies, said society's attitude towards passive smoking "has to change".

"As a society we recognise that non-smokers need to be protected from carcinogens when at work but we are not doing enough to protect the most vulnerable non-smokers of all - children," he said.

Amanda Sandford, research manager for Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), called for a smoking ban in all public places.

She added: "The best thing parents can do for the health of themselves and their children is to stop smoking."

Simon Clark, director of the smokers' lobby group Forest, said: "The effects of passive smoking are notoriously difficult to measure.

Most studies are based on imprecise recall and anecdotal evidence concerning the exact amount of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Yet this report, like so many, adopts a preposterous pretence of precise measurement which immediately arouses suspicion.

"To isolate the effect of environmental tobacco smoke on lung cancer cases would require an examination of all possible alternative causes.

"Unfortunately it is just another example of anti-smoking hysteria, a further attempt to demonise smokers for their habit."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4214369.stm

[Rowena Hopkins]

Simon Clark, director of the smokers' lobby group Forest, said: "The effects of passive smoking are notoriously difficult to measure.

Most studies are based on imprecise recall and anecdotal evidence concerning the exact amount of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Yet this report, like so many, adopts a preposterous pretence of precise measurement which immediately arouses suspicion.

"To isolate the effect of environmental tobacco smoke on lung cancer cases would require an examination of all possible alternative causes.

"Unfortunately it is just another example of anti-smoking hysteria, a further attempt to demonise smokers for their habit."

Sounds a little like those weapons of mass destruction, but it didn't stop Britain invading Iraq!

Rowena

[John Simkin]

A report published by the UK National Institute for Health has suggested that patients who smoke, drink too much or are obese might in future be denied medical help if their lifestyle is likely to undermine their treatment. This seems to me very sensible. In reality it has been going on for sometime. A few years ago, my father-in-law needed an operation to remove a growth. His doctor told him that the fact that he was a smoker who was also obese, he was unlikely to survive such operation. He was unwilling to give up his cigarettes or go on a diet and he therefore did not have the operation that might have saved his life. He died a year later. He suffered a great deal of pain over those last few years. However, he was willing to endure this in order to preserve his “lifestyle”.

[Guest]

A report published by the UK National Institute for Health has suggested that patients who smoke, drink too much or are obese might in future be denied medical help if their lifestyle is likely to undermine their treatment. This seems to me very sensible. In reality it has been going on for sometime. A few years ago, my father-in-law needed an operation to remove a growth. His doctor told him that the fact that he was a smoker who was also obese, he was unlikely to survive such operation. He was unwilling to give up his cigarettes or go on a diet and he therefore did not have the operation that might have saved his life. He died a year later. He suffered a great deal of pain over those last few years. However, he was willing to endure this in order to preserve his “lifestyle”.

It strikes me as revolting and uncivilised to withold medical treatment from anyone suffering ill health.

[John Simkin]

A report published by the UK National Institute for Health has suggested that patients who smoke, drink too much or are obese might in future be denied medical help if their lifestyle is likely to undermine their treatment. This seems to me very sensible. In reality it has been going on for sometime. A few years ago, my father-in-law needed an operation to remove a growth. His doctor told him that the fact that he was a smoker who was also obese, he was unlikely to survive such operation. He was unwilling to give up his cigarettes or go on a diet and he therefore did not have the operation that might have saved his life. He died a year later. He suffered a great deal of pain over those last few years. However, he was willing to endure this in order to preserve his “lifestyle”.

It strikes me as revolting and uncivilised to withold medical treatment from anyone suffering ill health.

Resources available for the National Heath Service will always be limited. Therefore a form of rationing is necessary. It is only sensible that doctors take into consideration the long-term health of the patient. They were probably right to assume that unless he lost weight and gave up smoking he would die on the operating table. He remained obese and smoked until the day he died. That was his choice. He might have died happy, but he also died in severe pain.

This is the same issue as the one about George Best’s liver transplant. Many people argued at the time it would have been better to have given the liver to a more deserving patient. They pointed out that he would destroy his new liver in the same way he had destroyed his old liver. He did and that is why some people felt little sympathy for his plight brought about by his decision to start drinking again.

[Guest]

Resources available for the National Heath Service will always be limited.

Capitalist nonsense.