The only word I can summon is – urgh …..

Honest to god, sometimes I despair I really do ……

Quotation-Alain-De-Botton-control-despair-events-hope-Meetville-Quotes-163579

 

 

 

 

Urgh 🙁 This was in The Torygraph in July:

Drain on the economy of obese people, drug addicts and alcoholics will be calculated under plans to be announced by David Cameron

I will only share these two small piece of the actual article and will leave it to you to click on the link and read it in full:

Under a major review of the sickness benefit system to be conducted by Prof Dame Carol Black, the chair of the Nuffield Trust, drink and drug addicts could be denied benefits if they refuse medical treatment.  What the treatment that is being cut drastically now that local govts can decide how their monies are spent and drug and alcohol treatment are no longer ringfenced?

Oh and this bit Mr Cameron:

“Our One Nation approach is about giving everyone the opportunity to improve their lives and for some that means dealing with those underlying health issues first and foremost.”  Would help if alcohol was considered a health issue by your Govt rather than a law and order issue.  Plus what about the underlying mental health issues too?

What I will share are these comments which summarises my position:

On the one hand the government take a more relaxed view to the availability of alcohol (extended licencing, cheap alcoholic drinks, ability for it to be sold everywhere etc) but then penalise those who are alcoholics.

On the one hand they take a relaxed view on recreational drugs and do not do enough to penalise criminals who smuggle and sell drugs in the UK yet we penalise drug addicts.

On the one hand the government does not stop drugs companies influencing the NHS and doctors in automatically prescribing Metformin to most T2 diabetics without looking to other preventative measures (eg diet controlled) and yet we chastise them for being a drain on the NHS.

On the one hand we as a society appreciate and have sympathy for physical disabilities but have no patience or understanding of mental illnesses – which is often behind the three areas above.

But we all know who will suffer.

And this one too:

It’s about time the government started leading by example.

Therefore they should be tested for drugs and alcohol abuse (based on government guidelines) and if they fail the test they should be stigmatised and humiliated in various small but significant ways and forced to plead for 80% of the money required for a basic existence, until they sort themselves out – with assistance from the NHS after a long wait. The same should apply if they are judged to be officially overweight according to the government guidelines.

Come on politicians, put your money where your mouth is and subject yourself to the same kind of interference, humiliation and monitoring which we all face in order to receive about 80% of the amount that we need to live on if we ‘fall through the cracks’ and develop a problem.

The 80% part is particularly important, because that’s how the system works for us. Any spare bedrooms, you must downsize or suffer punishment. By being kept at 80% this means you have to spend much of your food, energy, clothing and basic survival money on rent which then provides a nice sprinkling of debt, humiliation, stress, bailiff visits, council harassment, summonses, CCJs etc.

If it’s good for the goose it’s damn well good for the gander in WasteMonster as well. For the record, I am not overweight and I don’t drink or take drugs, so that is not the reason for my comment.

What are we becoming when those who need help are being punished further?

And finally some sense from with the chambers of Govt from Dr Sarah Wollaston who chairs the Health Select Comittee:

Plan to coerce addicts and obese people into treatment ‘probably illegal’ says Tory health chair

Sarah Woolaston, chair of the Health Select Committee said plans to deny benefits to people who refused treatment were “highly misguided”

A plan to deny addicts and obese people benefits if they refuse treatment are ‘probably illegal’ according to the Tory chair of the Health Select Committee.

A review into whether whether people suffering long-term, but treatable conditions should be deprived of benefits if they don’t accept government help was launched today.

The inquiry, to be completed by the end of the year by Dame Carol Black, was promised by David Cameron before the election, and was initially only intended to include the obese.

Now the review has been extended to include people with alcohol and drug dependency.

But Tory MP Sarah Wollaston, a former GP who now chairs the Commons health committee, said:

“It’s a fundamental principle of medical consent that it should be fully informed and freely given.

“This is a form of coercion and I thinks that ethically unacceptable.

“It would be very difficult for a doctor to take part in treating a patient without valid consent. This would invalidate their consent.

“Any doctor taking part in this programme with someone not there voluntary would be in breach of some very fundamental principles of consent. It would probably be illegal.

“And also it would not be effective. Coerced treatments tend not to work. And it would take up places on these very important treatment programmes from people who do want to be there.

“So I think this particular issue about coercion should be utterly rejected.

 

 

8 thoughts on “The only word I can summon is – urgh …..

  1. You find the best stuff to read. You are quickly turning into my news station on all things relevant to politics and recovery health. All I can say #WakeUpWorld. Thanks for the consistent flow of good reads. Lisa

    1. Thanks Lisa 🙂 You are most welcome and thank you for your ongoing support!

  2. You know… I’m not surprised. As the USA has been slowly lurching toward socialized medicine, one of the most persistent concerns from the “anti” crowd has been the specter of government interference into one’s private life. After all, if they’re paying for it, they can attach strings to it, and potentially deny services entirely to those who are deemed a bad “return on investment.” Sort of like how students can lose their taxpayer-funded college education grants if they fail their classes.

    And now that prediction has come true, at least in GB.

    Wonder how long it’ll be before the USA has mandatory public weigh-ins before poor citizens can get their food stamps. “Obese? Sorry, you’re overqualified for this program! ‘Eat’ your body fat first, and then check back with us. In the meantime, enjoy this complimentary bottle of Wal-Mart vitamins!”

    1. I know SC. It is appalling that they can consider this as an option. I do wonder if some kind of obesity-premium is coming to US healthcare costs as the US govt watch the UK as some kind of trial balloon.

Comments are closed.