Wednesday, 8 April 2015
Liberty
An important milestone was passed today, one I that think is worth noting, routine exit checks been have introduced at UK borders. Fine -- that would be the kind of thing we used hold up as an example of autocracy and routine affront to liberty in the erstwhile USSR and its satellites, cue a Robbie Coltrane jokey Russian accent '...and what is your reason for wanting to leave the glorious motherland, when will you be returning?'. The advent of exit checks implies a power to deny the privilege to cross the border, If that were a general rule it would be a severe infringement of civil liberties and a breach of treaty commitments. Of course there's always a way round these technicalities, probably a suspicion that a person refused passage was liable to commit illegal acts abroad would be cited as justification. We have had a few people travelling abroad recently whose journey has made an impact on the media, I suspect those instances will be cited as justification for this move. So we can expect these measures to be temporary, only extant until the current crisis has abated, can't we? yeah like that's gonna happen. No, I think those checks are here to stay, meanwhile if you wanna wallow in nostalgia for a while, why not look up an old seventies speculative TV drama, 1990 with Edward Woodward. 1990 portrays a near future Britain (near future in 1970 something) where people are smuggled out of the country. One of the reasons for those people wanting to leave is to get treatment for health problems untreatable by a health system in distress, ring any bells?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Except, at the moment, it still seems to be operating in reverse, with people coming to this country for free NHS treatment that they can't get in their homeland or elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI'm not an expert on the subject Kid but I can relay a lot woe about trying to wring treatment out of the NHS, especially regarding Southampton General, the specific authority in question here. One of 'em denied therapy unless he took an experimental drug, I wont relay the details because it ended very badly. Another one, this in Winchester, denied basic antibiotic treatment because she was too old, that one was particularly egregious because she was recovering after I spent three hours badgering for an intravenous drip. I took a break after about 18 hours without sleep to be told they stopped the treatment. after I woke. That's not the end of it either I've got other instances, all about eight years ago, I'm told it's worse now.
DeleteThe thing is, I've learned that treatment is allocated preferentially, both through regional funding, per capita funding is here about 1/3 of that in London, and favoured demographics. Needless to say I'm a bit bitter about the topic, so I don't give a toss about the tax dodgers they kick up a fuss about in the press, if a window cleaner can keep hold of his dosh, that's good, it means he beaten the thieves and maybe afford to get treatment if he gets sick.
Bit of a rant I know, it's touchy subject for me. The reason I think this is move is relevant to health care is the state is only obliged to provide basic health care through the NHS (which in some instances just means a diagnosis) but treaty obligations mean they must reimburse for care provided in EU states, which is what happened in the proton beam case. It doesn't take a great deal of effort to realise, that now this means of circumventing NHS allocation is public knowledge, that many more people would be thinking of that as an option, routine exit checks, effectively close the door on that contingency.
The instances you cite are shocking of course, but they result from lack of funds, rather than as a result of an anti-health care philosophy - and it's only going to get worse. When faced with the expense of giving an 85 year old a hip replacement or medicine to a sick toddler, decisions have to be made. I'm glad that it's not me who has to make them. I'd just give the 85 year old a walking stick. And as for sex-changes on the NHS, I'd do away with them. It's an expense too far. I know that may sound a bit heartless, but believing yourself to be 'trapped inside the wrong body' isn't an illness (unless it's a mental illness), so shouldn't be dealt with on the NHS. Of course, no doubt the topic is far more complicated than anyone realises, especially me.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree about the cause the shortfall in healthcare that many people experience. Funding and spending do need reform but the notion that has become prominent through the practice of rationing care, is that is that the patient is subject to the will of those charged with that care. Which is why the authorities are able to reconcile the manhunt for a man taking his child abroad, the charge lodged was: taking his child without -medical consent- which is absurd.
DeleteAbsurdities have become commonplace though and the notions behind gender reassignment are another example but that's not just another case of pathological science. The acquiescence to idealogical doctrine has impinged in a very dangerous an material way on the way those with genuinely ambiguous gender, those with congenital conditions,.are considered by the medical establishment.
As you probably know, it's illegal in the country to perform any from of surgical genital mutilation on females but the long standing inequities between the sexes in this attitude has enabled the health and legal system to reconcile the grossest mutilation of male patients. That's not just inconsistent, it's a failure of care for those who're troubled by gender identity, those not subject to an identifiable congenital condition. Those people are vulnerable and the wide spread notion that sex can be reassigned through surgery is specious. Specious solutions and vulnerable individuals are a combination for tragedy, add delusional ideology into that mix and you get exploitation as well.