Rights and Responsibilites Part 1: Healthcare

We hear so much about “rights” in the media.  Somebody fighting for some basic “rights”, debates about personal “rights”.  But we hear so little about “responsibilities”.  When you apply for jobs, or get a bill, or get statements about accounts, you see a section called “Rights and Responsibilities”.  That is because the two go hand-in-hand.  Yet, it seems that most people don’t think about “responsibilities” when they think about “rights”.

Most people can’t even differentiate because rights and privileges.  That is because there really is no such thing as privilege anymore.  Anything seen as a privilege is instantly shot down in this politically correct world. So, everything has become a “right”.

With that in mind, let’s just look at some of these “rights”.  We all have rights to health care.  Fair enough.  But, how much of it is a right?  Some would argue that all health care is a “right” and that no one should be turned down for anything just because of lack of funds.  That is a noble stand.  I agree that it is a shame to withhold medical treatment for purely financial reasons.  But, is there enough funding to continue with that stand?  Residents are entitled to free NHS care “because they pay their taxes” is an argument for free healthcare.  But, what about those who have never paid taxes?  Surely, they are not excluded?  Don’t they have a “right” to free healthcare?  And how far can we take treatment?  Is it a “right” for anyone and everyone to get life-extending treatment even when it is futile and costly?  These are ethical questions that then become legal battles.

On the flip side, what about responsibilities?  If you have a “right” to free health care, shouldn’t there be accompanying responsibilities to ensure that you maintain your health?  Such as following instructions by your doctor to take medications, follow treatment plans and follow-ups, and proper diet and exercise.  There is flagrant abuse of the system when people destroy themselves and then expect the healthcare system to fix everything. 

Case in point (an extreme case): recently, a young man was hospitalised for acute liver failure after a binge-drinking session.  While in hospital, he walks out and enters a pub across the street, attempting to order alcohol.  He was not served alcohol and authorities were alerted and he was taken back to hospital.  His father is understandably upset by the incident, and furthermore, as a good father, he is fighting to overturn a recommendation that liver transplant patients must abstain from alcohol for at least 6 months before getting a transplant.  This young man’s life is in acute danger.  Doctors have given him 2 weeks.  Therefore, he would be dead before he can get a transplant.  He is a binge-drinker, not a chronic drinker, and he may have been suffering some confusion related to the acute liver failure.  Or, he may have some psychiatric disturbance.  Either way, he has no idea why he left the hospital and attempted to get alcohol.  I feel for the father.  It is obvious he is concerned enough to fight for his son to get a liver transplant to save his life.  But, does he have a “right” to this transplant?  The number of liver donors is low; With alcoholism being a serious problem in the UK, that number becomes even lower.  Is it right to give a transplant to someone who may not be able to live up to his responsibilities to protect that transplant?

Of course, the answer to this case is not to make it available only to those who can afford it.  That would only lead to black market transplants.  But, the reason that recommendations are in place is to ensure that those who receive these scarce but life-saving measures are the best candidates. Too many people die waiting for transplants as it is.

Another case in point: An American woman has been granted a rich payout from a tobacco company, on behalf of her mother, who died from longterm tobacco use.  Or, in other words, tobacco abuse.  Of course, the argument was that the tobacco company was liable for the effects of tobacco and fraudulent in its advertising.  Though I would never defend the tobacco industry, is it right that they should pay out to survivors of those who smoked?  The health effects of smoking and tobacco have been highlighted for so long now, that those who really wanted to quit, could have sought help.  Smoking is addictive and it may be very difficult to quit.  Furthermore, lung damage from smoking takes years to reverse, if at all.  So, tobacco companies may be liable for some of the problems, but $13-million worth? 

Some people assert their right to smoke, or their right to decline medical treatment, or their right to make poor choices.  Where is the responsibility in that?  Then, when they run into trouble, they expect that medical treatment will put them right again?

Despite what one believes about fundamental rights to healthcare, it should be acknowledged that many specialists practice outside of the NHS and receive higher pay from private insurance and individuals.  This is an attractive option for many specialists who are at the top of their field, so is access to medical care really equal for all?  Should it be?

English proficiency required

I know that people responding to blog articles may not necessarily spell-check everything they write, but they should at least read over what they’ve written before posting it.  It is very irritating reading a bunch of misspellings and incorrect words and trying to get an understanding of the writer’s thoughts.  If this is what the English education has churned out, it’s no wonder people complain about the standards of education declining.  If you think Americans speak pidgin English, you should read some blogs and their responses.

Typos are common.  Even the best typist can sometimes interchange letters while typing very fast.  Not all these mistakes can be caught right away.  Incorrect usage of homophones are also very common, but they are usually quite apparent if you read over it once.  Some common mistakes are “their” and “there”, or “your” and “you’re”, or “its” and “it’s”.  However, sometimes when I read some of these blogs and responses, it appears that the writer doesn’t even have a clue that they’re using the wrong homophone, because they are continually making the same mistake.  Another mistake is the incorrect usage, or lack thereof, of the apostrophe.  One of the biggest mistakes I’ve read involve the word “of” when the correct word (whether the writer knows it or not) is “have”.  Examples: “they should of” instead of “they should have”.  The correct contraction is “should’ve”, pronounced “should of”, but is really “should have”. 

I’m not an English teacher, and I learned American English.  So, of course, there will be differences in spelling and pronunciation of many words, not to mention the differences in vocabulary.  But I cannot believe that some basic English rules, such as the above, could possibly be that different.  For other things, such as, “noone” and “no one”, I still don’t know if the British accept alternate spellings.  No one in the US would spell “noone” on purpose unless it was someone’s name, and it would be pronounced “noon”.

Why do I bother?  Because English was not my first language, but it has become my primary and only language.  I can understand if someone is learning the language and genuinely makes a mistake; but for native speakers to make those mistakes is aggravating.  If they don’t bother to learn it well, why should a foreigner?  If I have to prove to prospective employers that I can read, write, speak and listen in English proficiently, just because I’m an immigrant in this country, I’d like to see that the natives can do even better.

Al-Megrahi’s hero’s welcome is disturbing

So, the Lockerbie bomber has received a hero’s welcome back home in Libya.  I know the US is not happy about that, and I wonder how others who supported his release feel about it.

I did not lose a loved one in the Lockerbie bombing, but I did have a friend in college who lost her brother.  I did not follow the trial and can only accept that Mr. Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was found guilty and imprisoned.  For those who cannot understand how cold Americans can be regarding Mr. al-Megrahi and how angry they are at his release, let me point out a few things.

Mr. al-Megrahi was the only one convicted – he probably was not the only one involved, he may not have been the ringleader, but most likely, he had a hand in it.  Whether he was a scapegoat or not is a different matter.  His government handed him over and he was found guilty.  The Americans were not the judges.  They accepted the verdict.  Had he been found innocent, they would have continued the quest for justice.  He is something tangible for them to take their anger and frustration out on.

A sentence was delivered.  To cut the sentence short, out of compassion, feels like a betrayal to these people.  It does not seem like justice.  People may preach compassion all they want, but victims’ families have a hard time hearing it.  Also, in the US, prisoners get better health care than the general public.  So, releasing him on compassionate grounds would not be considered “compassionate” – though Americans don’t view keeping him in prison as compassionate, they just think it’s justice.  However, if you wanted to argue compassion, they would argue that he would get free medical care in prison.  Was he getting that in the UK?  Is it more compassionate to send him home to Libya where medical care may not be as good?

I’m sure Gaddafi and the Libyans now pretend to show great friendship to the UK (especially Lord Mandelson), but deep down inside I wonder what their feelings are regarding the UK’s “compassionate” stand.  I don’t refer just to Mr. al-Megrahi.  The UK (I am not separating Scotland and England) has shown compassion to several prisoners who are terminally ill.  Do the people in the Middle East admire that trait, or do they scorn it?  Will they be grateful, or will they take advantage of it?  Of course, most people in the UK are probably not as cynical as I am, so they will not care.  They may claim to be atheists, but they show a more Christian-like attitude by turning the other cheek and proving that they can rise above resentment and revenge by showing compassion to someone they feel may be a mass murderer.

But, even so, the fact that he received a hero’s welcome, rather than house arrest, almost comes across as if the Libyans want to stick it to the western world that they can get away with murder.

Addendum:  The fact that al-Megrahi’s solicitor, Tony Kelly, made the following statement (according to BBC online):

“He had to say whether he was going to stay here and die in prison with a view to trying to clear his name posthumously, or to abandon the appeal with a view to getting himself home so he could go back to the bosom of his family.”

seems to imply that al-Megrahi  had prior knowledge of his release, even before the decision was made.  And Mandelson denies he had a discussion with Gaddafi’s son regarding this issue?

Is an independent candidate the right way to go?

Though the media have not commented further on MP expenses, it seems the anger has not abated.  In fact, some very public figures are involved in the fray.  Esther Rantzen has already declared her intentions and is happy with the warm reception from Luton South.  Martin Bell, well-known for having been a successful MP when he stepped in as an independent against a sleaze Tory MP, is now possibly considering standing again.  Terry Waite is using his high profile to recruit other possible independent candidates.

But, the question is, will it really make a difference?  Yes, there’s public anger, but some more reasonably minded people still support their MPs. Not all of them, of course.  Even though many MPs were named and shamed, not all their offences were equally offensive.  So, some of them still have supporters.  Not only that, despite their iniquities, some MPs still did a very good job for their constituents (according to their constituents).  So, in the end, the whole brouhaha amounted to very little.

On the other hand, would it be smart to replace a productive MP just because of his/her indiscretions?  Have they really learned any lessons from the scandal or is it all just lip service?  With less than 10 months to go until a general election, how will the expenses scandal play into it?  Will independent candidates be the answer?  Or would anything change, even if independent candidates were to win?  Will people’s anger mean that real changes can really take place?  Or will the anger be misguided into choosing the wrong candidates?  It remains to be seen.

Can the NHS do with some reforms?

This whole controversy about the NHS is so pathetically trivial.  First of all, we know that the US has absolutely no clue about the NHS.  I should know – I’m American.  Yes, we heard all about universal healthcare and the waiting lists, but that doesn’t mean we know it.  Unless you’ve experienced it, you would not know about it.  And, unless you know about it, you can’t make informed decisions, nor can you make any judgments.

It was very obvious that the anti-reform campaign group in the US was ignorant when they mentioned Stephen Hawking.  That should have been a red flag for anyone to laugh at them.  But instead, we have all these MPs and MEPs getting involved.  And on Twitter of all things.  And the politicians comments are just drivel.

The NHS has been talked up in recent months and everyone says the same thing – there needs to be reform, more efficiencies, etc.  So, when it gets attacked, why does everyone suddenly rush to its defense?  Even those who have complained about the NHS are now defending it. Is it just because the ignorant Americans are criticising it?  Do you think the American system is any better?  Why can’t we admit there are things that are wrong, but it’s not as bad as the Americans think?  Why do we have to suddenly present it as the best thing in the world? Of course, Mr. Hannan’s “I wouldn’t wish it on anyone” comment is extremely inappropriate as he has not experienced other healthcare systems, either.

And the comments that the public have left: “The NHS saved my life” – come on, now.  Was it the NHS or was it the doctors?  Give credit where credit is due.  Do you suppose that if you had any different healthcare system you would have been left to die?  Yes, you should be happy that you don’t have to worry about medical bills, but the NHS did not save your life.

I’m surprised to hear all this NHS support now.  I don’t mean that people would want to abolish it, but I’ve heard the complaints, so I would have expected a more reasoned response and not this “I wouldn’t change a thing” attitude.  I once needed emergency care and it was the doctors who talked me into going through the private route in order to be seen urgently.  Afterwards, another doctor informed me that I qualified for NHS care and given that it was an emergency, I would not have been left to wait. So, even those on the inside have issues against the NHS.

Once again, the politicians are behaving so childishly by all this mudslinging that is meaningless.  Who can you trust to save the NHS when none of them would dare to stand up and voice concerns about it?

Big Brother strikes again

Alan Duncan should have known better.  I have commented before that we live in a Big Brother society.  We know that members of the media, the public, even the MPs will secretly tape one another and attempt to discredit them because of some vendetta.  It’s embarrassing to be caught, not to mention potentially career-damaging.

No one’s going to even listen to debate about whether it’s ethical, legal, or moral to use secret tapings as evidence.  It may or may not be accurate, but there’s always the danger of taking things out of context.  But it doesn’t matter to the rest of the public, does it?

I’m not defending Mr. Duncan.  Nor do I believe the age-old excuse of it just being a joke. I don’t even know what expense reforms have really been put in place.  All the talk seemed to amount to nothing, so I can’t even understand why he would complain.  On the other hand, this whole expense thing was so laughable, that his complaints would only trigger an eyeball roll and a chuckle than outright anger.  Then again, maybe I have a better sense of humour than Sir Alistair Graham gives credit to the general public.

Perhaps, Alan Duncan has shown his true colours.  Perhaps, he’s not as good an actor as other MPs who have been in the limelight so long that they have become polished.  Perhaps, he’s not a good judge of character and is too trusting.  I doubt that his sentiments are unique to himself.  He was just the first to be caught out.  Now the others are forewarned.

And, of course, Mr. Heydon Prowse cannot escape criticism.  As a member of the media, his reputation can never escape untainted.  He was a vandal with a sense of humour, but a vandal, nevertheless.  He was charmed by Mr. Duncan, yet was willing to stab him in the back.  He was also dishonest enough not to mention that he was secretly taping him, so it’s doubtful that he even revealed his relationship with a magazine.

So, it would be good to remember, whether you’re a bigwig or a lowly Joe Public, that this is an intolerant, insecure, extremely sensitive and politically correct society.  If you can’t change your attitude, then you will need to consider each and every word you utter, unless you really mean to stir up controversy.

Can atheism answer political crises?

It seems as if the war on terrorism is really a repeat of the medieval crusades.  There are religious undertones, whether intentional or not.  The religious ideologies at war are between the Christians and the Muslims. And, unless or until these religious ideologies are removed, it seems that the two will never agree a truce.

Yet, neither side seem willing to lay aside religious differences.  But, the atheist movement on the Christian side may push that side closer to the negotiation tables.  Will there be enough disillusionment on the Muslim side for them to approach the tables?

Atheism has been growing as more and more people become disillusioned about religion. Perhaps, it is in retaliation towards a particular person or institution which negatively impacted the person in childhood as the individual was being indoctrinated.  Or, perhaps, it is due to lack of tangible evidence of a higher being. God does not appear in a burning bush or call out from the heavens anymore.  Structured religion does not answer people’s common day-to-day needs.  People want instant gratification.  They need money to buy what they need, food on the table, clothes to wear, time to relax and enjoy life.  Prayers for comfort just doesn’t cut it.

The western world is more ready to shed religion because they are somewhat more “liberated” in their thinking.  They see the religious as being “superstitious” and “backwards”, words to describe underdeveloped and developing worlds.  These people hold on to religion as a security blanket.  And when another religion threatens their own, they will fight back.

But, if the west completely drops religion, will the other side do the same?  Christians have been disillusioned for a long time.  How long will it take for the Muslims to feel the same?  Can turning to atheism be the answer to the political crises in the world?  Or will Islam decide to decimate the others?

Once Christianity declines enough and Islam grows, will there be another major religion to challenge them?  Again, religion will set the tone for another crisis.  Or, will Christianity be resurrected?  Some interesting thoughts.

Will Muslims rule the world?

It has come to my attention that a certain video on YouTube has had quite a few hits.  The video apparently presents some erroneous data regarding the Muslim immigration and the impact it has and will have on the world.  A piece on the BBC website attempts to debunk some of the presented “facts”. 

I watched the video, Muslim Demographics, and it was done by an American with a very grave tone.  I don’t know where he gets the data and according to the BBC, it seems some of them have been made up.  However, there really is not a good way to prove or disprove them because the statistics and demographics have not been accurately assessed.  Part of the problem is due to anti-discrimination measures, which prohibits asking about religion and ethnicity.  This video, on the surface, is an apparent propaganda against Muslims – not necessarily violent or hostile, just an attempt to make the other groups of people aware of trends.  He is trying to promote procreation amongst Christians.  I can see where he is coming from. 

As I have mentioned previously, because of issues with global growth rates, the more responsible cultures have decreased their fertility.  However, it does mean that those cultures are in danger of becoming extinct at some point in the future.  Meanwhile, in underdeveloped and developing countries, the birth rate is still extremely high. Even immigrants in developed countries continue with their fertility trends, at least for a while.  So, I can understand why this person claims that it will not be long before Islam will take over the world. 

In support of these claims, though from a different perspective, I also saw a video from an Egyptian preacher who claims that Muslims will take over Europe in 20 years.  His message was different however.  He attempts to tell Muslims that they can take over peacefully.  And that is very true.  With immigration and fertility, the Muslim world does not need to resort to suicide bombings.  Al-Qaeda can sit back and wait for their people to infiltrate slowly and peacefully.   However, this preacher claims that western civilization feels threatened by these Muslims and are attempting to do everything to drive Muslims out, even using the flimsiest of excuses.  He also states that westerners feel threatened because they do not understand Islam or its teachings.  Makes you wonder if they really know about Christianity.

There is likely to be some backlash against Muslims, not to mention any other immigrant group.  In fact, it is already happening in many parts of the world.  However, human rights groups will always be there to protect those persecuted, even if that group becomes the majority. So, will Muslims rule the world?  That is hard to say, but trends do suggest that they are the group that is continuing to increase while other peoples go into decline.  Yet, that does not mean they will be “rulers”.

Afghanistan war should not be debated; it is equipment that should be questioned

Speaking as an American, which means Britons will take less notice of what I have to say, I am saddened to find that there are many Britons who seem to want to cut ties with the US.

The Afghanistan war has been in the press lately due to issues with the lack of military equipment.  Many people, from politicians to the regular public, have spoken out against the war in various ways.  Some are angry at what they see as Britain being “America’s whipping boy” behaviour.  Others are frustrated because wars in Afghanistan have historically been poorly fought.

I’m not going to talk about military tactics because it is definitely not in my arena.  Those on the ground there are the ones with the experience to talk about it.  What I’d like to touch on is the belief that this is “America’s war” and that the rest of the world should leave it to them to deal with.

I won’t dispute that the war was in retaliation for 9/11.  The US responded by showing the terrorists that they were not going to be cowed by their actions.  Perhaps, it was not as well thought out as it should have been.  Perhaps, it was too knee-jerk.  The Americans had never been in there before – they could not have known what they would be facing, from the terrorists as well as the civilians and the government.

But was it only Americans killed in the Twin Towers?  I think not.  But, it definitely was on American soil.  Should the US have just closed the borders and dealt with suspected internal terrorists?  Or, should they have gone after their leaders acting from afar?  It’s not enough just to close the barn doors after the horses have bolted.  You need to go find the horses.

Many people are opposed to fighting a war that is not on their own soil.  So, if the Germans had decided to leave Britain alone in WWII, then Britain wouldn’t have entered the war?  If people in every country felt the same way, we would end up with another dictator attempting to rule the world.

The same ones who oppose the Afghanistan war suggest that the 7/7 attacks are a direct consequence of that war.  Would they suggest that Al-Qaeda did not have members already installed in this country, ready to do damage when they least expected it?  Can they believe the words of the terrorists when they threatened retaliation against any country that helped the Americans?  Can they believe that these terrorists would only carry out retaliation under said circumstances?  Can they believe that all it takes is to root out the terrorists existing in Britain and remove them?

The US was attacked first because they are the predominant economy in the world.  If the UK was attacked first, how would the people here feel about it?  Would they have apologised to the terrorists and begged them not to attack again?  Or, would they have have raised their arms and gone on the defensive?  If they chose war, would they have expected to go it alone?

I do not advocate war.  In fact, if there was any way, I would promote peaceful negotiations.  Unfortunately, you cannot negotiate with terrorists or any other belligerent groups. 

I would have a very hard time dealing with a loved one entering the armed services, but I realise that it is absolutely necessary.  I can only appreciate that there are many willing men and women who sacrifice their lives for their country.  They may not all have altruistic motives, but at least they are doing something worthwhile. 

To show our appreciation for the services of such men and women, we do need to provide them with everything possible to make their work easier.  Everything is not always possible, but what is possible should be provided.  That is the gist of the current issue.  Do we have enough equipment for the armed services? 

We should not be going off on the tangent of questioning the war, though a rethink on the strategy may be contemplated by those in command.  We, the public, should accept that the military leaders are the ones to make the decision on whether or not to pull out of Afghanistan.  They were not wrong to go in, but they have to decide whether or not they can reasonably win it or create some better order in the country.

Terrorism has to be fought on many levels.  And, even if we are successful in Afghanistan, it does not end there.  There are terrorist cells all over the world.  We have to tackle them as best we can or we will lose our freedom.

BBC’s suspension of bonuses for executives is only one good move

The BBC only half “get it”.  They’ve decided to indefinitely suspend bonuses for their top executives.  Wonderful move. (Wonder what BBC bosses think about it?)  I cannot understand how they could have defended high pay rises in the past in addition to bonuses.  On that point, I wonder if they’re also freezing pay?

What the BBC don’t get is that they are creating a monopoly by issuing and collecting TV license fees for themselves only.  They do not like the idea that a very small percentage of the fees should go to their so-called competitors.  It just points to their greed.

What they also don’t get is that not only are their executives getting exorbitant pay, but some of their regular staff.  92K for a simple newsreader?  Millions for Jonathan Ross?  What are they thinking?  All that wonderful talent at their disposal and they don’t want to let go?  Puh-lease!!!

If they cut back on some salaries, they might have extra money in their budget and not worry too much about the TV license fees.  The quality of their staff would not be compromised in the current economic situation.  They know that jobs are limited out there.  If TV and radio dropped Ross, do you think he could make it on his own as a stand-up?  I doubt it.  He’s not that funny.  He may not have lost all his fans, but while he was gone, did anyone really miss him?