The fat end of the wedge

20 Jun 2008

Quote by Whipsnspurs
i think that if you choose not to have your child vaccinated then the cost of treatment should be paid for by the parent. at the end of the day most of us already pay out to support a system that is used by everyone. however, if you make a life style choices that puts you outside the normal funding for treatment then why shouldn't you pay for the damage you inflict on yourself or your child?
i'm not saying that an adult who wasn't vaccinated should have to pay if the lack of wasn't their choice.
there are losts of things that i would rather not have to pay my taxes towards, but i don't get to choose about that. however, if i had to sign a clause to say that i had to pay for my own treatment based on diseases that occured because of my life style choices i may think twice about it.
we have a multitude of imigrants coming in to the country having had no vaccinations and they are potentcially putting my son, family and myself at risk. if they had to have jabs before they were allowed in to the country fair enough.
all i'm saying is that you are given a choice about vaccination. you are not given a choice if you get cancer. the child would be using money for treatment of a disease that could have been prevented. money that could help a cancer sufferer live, but who has been refused the treatment they need because the funding isn't there.
i'm not on my own in this thinking either. the cost of a vaccination is far cheaper than the cost of treating the diease. and to be honest i would gladly pay for the vaccinations too because my son's life is worth everything to me.
whips

So as I am a smoker if I was to contact say lung problems, would you want me to pay AGAIN for my medication? :shock:
I have spent the best part of 35 years paying into the system and rarely taken anything out. Whereby others dont contribute hardly anything but get all the benefits? Sorry but if you pay in you should be able to take out!
The NHS is there for all no matter what, at this time but....who knows in the future because it is very clear that the NHS is under massive pressure financially. How many people use the system that have never paid a penny into it? I have a RIGHT to be treated no matter what lifestyle choice I choose. I even pay extra for private as lets be fair the NHS what with the bugs and all that, is not a nice place to go a lot of the time. So I am paying twice if you like.

20 Jun 2008

Quote by Whipsnspurs
no kent thats not what i meant, sorry that you have misunderstood me! all i mean is that if you choose not to protect your children against something that everyone else is doing then why should everyone else pay for that?
the cost of a vaccination is far cheaper than putting your child at risk and possible other children too.
whips

Sorry then whips. redface

Tony ( I am an arse ) Blair, made matters far worse by not saying if his child was done or not. By saying nothing in my view he chose NOT to have it done. Now if someone like him, who is more in the know than you and me, then chose not to have it done it makes you wonder why?
If he did he could have put many parents minds at rest but he chose as usual to say nowt! For what it is worth I feel the benefits far outweigh the nagatives, so if my children were young enough to have it done then I would, without question.

20 Jun 2008

I think it's a matter of perspective.
Put yourself, if you will, in the place of a parent in a lesser developed country. Given the offer of inocculation against preventable diseases, the refusal of which would result in your child not being given a free education. Hmm, a no-brainer I think.
H.x

20 Jun 2008

Quote by Whipsnspurs
no kent thats not what i meant, sorry that you have misunderstood me! all i mean is that if you choose not to protect your children against something that everyone else is doing then why should everyone else pay for that?

Actually it is the same thing, it's using semantics to deny it.

21 Jun 2008

Actually this is the thin end of the wedge, what will be next? Refusal of NHS facilities for smokers, or people who are drunk (or drink more than 21 units a week)
Well here goes, a biggie on the 'how to win friends and influence front'!
I did a study at university a number of years ago looking at a tory study and the idea was that NHS facilities should be withdrawn for smokers and let them use their own health insurance, same for car drivers involved in accidents. It would free up significant funding for routine operations and the unfortunate sick and elderly. Now we all know that smoking kills, is dumb and expensive but is a contagious drug. It should be banned in all public places, it should be up to the smoker to insure themselves (if they can afford the premiums) and tough if they fall ill!
Wow, let's see what that one brings in. It's raining, there's cricket on the radio, I'm bored and all alone as hubby is paintballing in the rain.

21 Jun 2008

Quote by jameybruce

Actually this is the thin end of the wedge, what will be next? Refusal of NHS facilities for smokers, or people who are drunk (or drink more than 21 units a week)
Well here goes, a biggie on the 'how to win friends and influence front'!
I did a study at university a number of years ago looking at a tory study and the idea was that NHS facilities should be withdrawn for smokers and let them use their own health insurance, same for car drivers involved in accidents. It would free up significant funding for routine operations and the unfortunate sick and elderly. Now we all know that smoking kills, is dumb and expensive but is a contagious drug. It should be banned in all public places, it should be up to the smoker to insure themselves (if they can afford the premiums) and tough if they fall ill!
Wow, let's see what that one brings in. It's raining, there's cricket on the radio, I'm bored and all alone as hubby is paintballing in the rain.

Sorry but rubbish! I contribute a lot every month into the NHS. I wish that I could withdraw from the NHS and spend that money to up my private health care but...I cannot opt out.
You mention smokers but what about heavy drinkers or people who crashg their cars and its their fault? Do you propose not to treat those people. At this time the NHS treats all no matter what but with people who have strange attitudes about health care and who should qualify for it, can only hope that one day those same people will fail to qualify for something that was their fault. Lets see those people moan then. :shock:

21 Jun 2008

Quote by jameybruce

Actually this is the thin end of the wedge, what will be next? Refusal of NHS facilities for smokers, or people who are drunk (or drink more than 21 units a week)
Well here goes, a biggie on the 'how to win friends and influence front'!
I did a study at university a number of years ago looking at a tory study and the idea was that NHS facilities should be withdrawn for smokers and let them use their own health insurance, same for car drivers involved in accidents. It would free up significant funding for routine operations and the unfortunate sick and elderly. Now we all know that smoking kills, is dumb and expensive but is a contagious drug. It should be banned in all public places, it should be up to the smoker to insure themselves (if they can afford the premiums) and tough if they fall ill!

It looks like your study was flawed. Drivers being brought into A&E after having a car accident are billed/invoiced and they are required to claim reimbursement from their insurance company. This has been the standard NHS procedure for more than 20 years. Admittedly not all hospitals do it, but they are supposed to.
I notice it was a Tory study which will always equate to money over people.
So tell me, where should it stop? Any people who damage themselves? I'm diabetic, if I'm taken in to hospital for a hypo should I be billed for not dealing with my illness effectively?
So yes it is the thin end of the wedge. For some reason all the political parties have failed to understand that the NHS will always run at a loss. This is what happens when you put accountants in charge of things, all they see is the bottom line. They never see the people they are affecting.

21 Jun 2008

I was thinking that there is always a thick end of the wedge if theres a wedge isn't there. If you have a big wedge then the thick end is possibly infinitely thicker than the thin end. Well, if you then chop the wedge to half its length the thick end still remains the thickj end is still infinitely thicker than the thin end thus meaning there can only ever be a thick end of the wedge.
It all goes to show that in the case of a wedge whatever you do to it as long as its a wedge we'll have to live with the thick end of it.

21 Jun 2008

Quote by kentswingers777

Actually this is the thin end of the wedge, what will be next? Refusal of NHS facilities for smokers, or people who are drunk (or drink more than 21 units a week)
Well here goes, a biggie on the 'how to win friends and influence front'!
I did a study at university a number of years ago looking at a tory study and the idea was that NHS facilities should be withdrawn for smokers and let them use their own health insurance, same for car drivers involved in accidents. It would free up significant funding for routine operations and the unfortunate sick and elderly. Now we all know that smoking kills, is dumb and expensive but is a contagious drug. It should be banned in all public places, it should be up to the smoker to insure themselves (if they can afford the premiums) and tough if they fall ill!
Wow, let's see what that one brings in. It's raining, there's cricket on the radio, I'm bored and all alone as hubby is paintballing in the rain.

Sorry but rubbish! I contribute a lot every month into the NHS. I wish that I could withdraw from the NHS and spend that money to up my private health care but...I cannot opt out.
You mention smokers but what about heavy drinkers or people who crashg their cars and its their fault? Do you propose not to treat those people. At this time the NHS treats all no matter what but with people who have strange attitudes about health care and who should qualify for it, can only hope that one day those same people will fail to qualify for something that was their fault. Lets see those people moan then. :shock:
I agree. 60 years it's been running, and EVERYONE has a right to NHS treatment regardless of them being a smoker, obese, drinkers etc etc., it's the old ethics rearing it's ugly head again, where do you draw the line, would you not treat an attempted suicide putting it down to their own doing? of course not, they need medical treatment just as the rest do.
What I can foresee, I may be alone in this, is we're heading for a country that will have to pay for medical attention with insurance like our American friends regardless of what or who you are.

23 Jun 2008

Quote by jameybruce
I did a study at university a number of years ago looking at a tory study and the idea was that NHS facilities should be withdrawn for smokers and let them use their own health insurance, same for car drivers involved in accidents. It would free up significant funding for routine operations and the unfortunate sick and elderly. Now we all know that smoking kills, is dumb and expensive but is a contagious drug. It should be banned in all public places, it should be up to the smoker to insure themselves (if they can afford the premiums) and tough if they fall ill!
Wow, let's see what that one brings in. It's raining, there's cricket on the radio, I'm bored and all alone as hubby is paintballing in the rain.

I'll go for that.....
I'm a smoker and by not being treated by the NHS I take it my National Insurance deductions will be reduced accordingly and the amount of money creamed off me by the goverment in tax on the cigarettes I smoke will be refunded to me as well....
I could but one hell of an insurance policy with all the money I dont pay to the goverment....
Oh and just as an aside....
If all smokers did that then there would be one hell of a shortfall in tax income for the goverment that would have to be made up by non smokers :lol2:
A win-win situation ;-)

23 Jun 2008

Quote by Whipsnspurs
i hope i have written in a way that you can understand me. if not then pm me. but don't ever assume that i am writing something to deny what i really mean!

I understand it perfectly fine. They mean the same thing whether you want it to or not.

23 Jun 2008

Quote by Whipsnspurs

i hope i have written in a way that you can understand me. if not then pm me. but don't ever assume that i am writing something to deny what i really mean!

I understand it perfectly fine. They mean the same thing whether you want it to or not.
ok then peanut, tell me exactly how it means the same thing? you said that i had written it in a way as to try and deny that i meant the same thing. i hadn't written it in any such way. how can it mean the same thing to me if i'm saying it's not? to me they are two different situations.
now if you are say that to you and some others it means the same thing then fine. that's your opinion that you are entitled to. but as i said, don't try telling me what i think or what i'm trying to write.
whips
It's quite obvious from your comments that they don't mean the same thing to you.
Just because they don't mean the same to you does not mean that they don't to everyone else.
Let's see if I can boil it down to its basics
A person has no MMR vaccination = voluntary action
.
Person gets Mumps = a result of not having the vaccine which the person knew there was a risk of.
.
Person gets treated for Mumps
...then...
A person smokes = voluntary action
.
Person develops lung cancer = a direct result of smoking which the person knew there was a risk of.
.
Person gets treated for lung cancer.
Seems like the same sequence of events to me. So why do you reckon they aren't the same thing?

23 Jun 2008

Because the smoker may not be a smoker at all and can still contract lung cancer therefore making it unvoluntary, Think you may have to agree to differ on this one

23 Jun 2008

Quote by TanKinky
Because the smoker may not be a smoker at all and can still contract lung cancer therefore making it unvoluntary, Think you may have to agree to differ on this one

That's a different non-argument entirely. It was the fact that smokers were brought into the discussion that makes your statement moot.
The point being made is that Whips was alluding to one voluntary action resulting in no treatment, whereas another voluntary action should result in receiving treatment.

23 Jun 2008

Quote by flower411
Seems like the same sequence of events to me. So why do you reckon they aren't the same thing?

The person who refused the MMR vaccination refused something that is reported to be dangerous and possibly cause autism in their children.
The person who chose to smoke is doing something that is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be dangerous to most people.
Refusing MMR is NOT refusing to be vaccinated, it is refusing to be vaccinated by a particular method that is rumoured to be VERY dangerous in some cases .
That`s the difference
I chose that merely as an example of vaccination, but regardless.
What Whips is saying is that by refusing that vaccination subsequent treatment should also be refused. Whereas a smoker is entitled to treatment regardless of the fact they were doing something they knew to be dangerous.
The fact that you've pointed out that that particular vaccination is unsafe makes Whips argument even weaker.

23 Jun 2008

Quote by Peanut
Because the smoker may not be a smoker at all and can still contract lung cancer therefore making it unvoluntary, Think you may have to agree to differ on this one

That's a different non-argument entirely. It was the fact that smokers were brought into the discussion that makes your statement moot.
The point being made is that Whips was alluding to one voluntary action resulting in no treatment, whereas another voluntary action should result in receiving treatment.
Hey wasnt a dig, i can see both sides, the first bit was just my twopennorth worth

23 Jun 2008

Quote by TanKinky
Because the smoker may not be a smoker at all and can still contract lung cancer therefore making it unvoluntary, Think you may have to agree to differ on this one

That's a different non-argument entirely. It was the fact that smokers were brought into the discussion that makes your statement moot.
The point being made is that Whips was alluding to one voluntary action resulting in no treatment, whereas another voluntary action should result in receiving treatment.
Hey wasnt a dig, i can see both sides, the first bit was just my twopennorth worth
That's okay I didn't take it as a dig. I just thought that you'd made a mistake and wanted to clear it up.
Apologies if I got that wrong.

23 Jun 2008

Quote by Peanut
Because the smoker may not be a smoker at all and can still contract lung cancer therefore making it unvoluntary, Think you may have to agree to differ on this one

That's a different non-argument entirely. It was the fact that smokers were brought into the discussion that makes your statement moot.
The point being made is that Whips was alluding to one voluntary action resulting in no treatment, whereas another voluntary action should result in receiving treatment.
Hey wasnt a dig, i can see both sides, the first bit was just my twopennorth worth
That's okay I didn't take it as a dig. I just thought that you'd made a mistake and wanted to clear it up.
Apologies if I got that wrong.
Nope no mistake made kiss

23 Jun 2008

Quote by TanKinky
Nope no mistake made

Rightio, in that case I have no idea why the non-smoker with lung cancer appeared in this sub-debate.
My bad.

23 Jun 2008

Quote by Whipsnspurs
*snip*
and just so that you know and can understand me fully. both my parents are or have been smokers. neither have smoked around my brother or i. both of my very best friends are smokers too. none of them have private health insurance and all pay in to the system. now while i'm a non smoker and agree with the ban on smoking in public that doesn't mean that i think they should pay for their own treatment. unfortunately both smoking and drinking are socially acceptable (though smoking is becoming less so) things that can be/are addictive. however, those who do one or both aren't the only ones to get liver disease and cancers. how do you prove that if they hadn't done either that they still wouldn't have developed the disease? there is nothing to say that i as a non smoker and occassional drinker won't get the same conditions. *snip*

You're right - anyone could get the same conditions, whether they smoke or not. And yes, smoking is addictive. However, a person chooses to smoke in the first instance, therefore it's a voluntary action which may lead to certain conditions or diseases that are then treated and paid for on the NHS.
Not having a vaccination (which could cause other problems, depending on how it's administered) is also a voluntary action, which may lead to certain conditions or diseases that are then treated and paid for on the NHS.
There's no difference.
It could also be argued that the potential problems arising from having the vaccination, would also cost the NHS - so either way, the NHS pays. And it's still a voluntary action.
And the smoking ban and social acceptance of smoking are irrelevant in this debate.

23 Jun 2008

Quote by Peanut
Nope no mistake made

Rightio, in that case I have no idea why the non-smoker with lung cancer appeared in this sub-debate.
My bad.
Because someone who has never smoked etc can still have smoking related illnesses should they pay to?? and what will stop everyone just saying they dont smoke or gave up years ago to get free treatment. However only those who have not had a vaccination will get the vaccination related illnesses
Hope that sorta makes sense

23 Jun 2008

Quote by TanKinky
Nope no mistake made

Rightio, in that case I have no idea why the non-smoker with lung cancer appeared in this sub-debate.
My bad.
Because someone who has never smoked etc can still have smoking related illnesses should they pay to?? and what will stop everyone just saying they dont smoke or gave up years ago to get free treatment. However only those who have not had a vaccination will get the vaccination related illnesses
Hope that sorta makes sense
Ah I see where you're going now, but alas it wasn't the disease that was the point it was what one had done to contract the disease. Lung cancer isn't a smoking related disease if the person who contracts it isn't a smoker. It's just plain ol' cancer then.
Another pertinent example would be a bareback swinger contracting an STD. Should they be refused treatment?

23 Jun 2008

Quote by Peanut
Nope no mistake made

Rightio, in that case I have no idea why the non-smoker with lung cancer appeared in this sub-debate.
My bad.
Because someone who has never smoked etc can still have smoking related illnesses should they pay to?? and what will stop everyone just saying they dont smoke or gave up years ago to get free treatment. However only those who have not had a vaccination will get the vaccination related illnesses
Hope that sorta makes sense
Ah I see where you're going now, but alas it wasn't the disease that was the point it was what one had done to contract the disease. Lung cancer isn't a smoking related disease if the person who contracts it isn't a smoker. It's just plain ol' cancer then.
Another pertinent example would be a bareback swinger contracting an STD. Should they be refused treatment?
Again with STD's it doesnt have to be bareback to contract them. Condoms are only 99.9 % safe and then there is all them that a condom does not not come close to protecting against, herpes and warts for instance. So its not just a case of those who chose to do it bareback who are at risk!
Take a smoking related illness like emphysema it isnt just smokers who get these illnesses so IMO it isnt always voluntary

23 Jun 2008

Quote by Whipsnspurs
Nope no mistake made

Rightio, in that case I have no idea why the non-smoker with lung cancer appeared in this sub-debate.
My bad.
Because someone who has never smoked etc can still have smoking related illnesses should they pay to?? and what will stop everyone just saying they dont smoke or gave up years ago to get free treatment. However only those who have not had a vaccination will get the vaccination related illnesses
Hope that sorta makes sense
thank you tan!! that is my point exactly!
and while we are at it can i just point out that I was not the one who brought smoking in to this debate in the first place kent did that by asking if that's what i meant which it wasn't.
as for conditions that may or may not be caused by mmr, because there is alot of conflicting evidence about this, you can still have your child injected seperately with the same vaccines.
whips
Guilty as charged m'lord. lol

23 Jun 2008

Quote by TanKinky
Nope no mistake made

Rightio, in that case I have no idea why the non-smoker with lung cancer appeared in this sub-debate.
My bad.
Because someone who has never smoked etc can still have smoking related illnesses should they pay to?? and what will stop everyone just saying they dont smoke or gave up years ago to get free treatment. However only those who have not had a vaccination will get the vaccination related illnesses
Hope that sorta makes sense
Ah I see where you're going now, but alas it wasn't the disease that was the point it was what one had done to contract the disease. Lung cancer isn't a smoking related disease if the person who contracts it isn't a smoker. It's just plain ol' cancer then.
Another pertinent example would be a bareback swinger contracting an STD. Should they be refused treatment?
Again with STD's it doesnt have to be bareback to contract them. Condoms are only 99.9 % safe and then there is all them that a condom does not not come close to protecting against, herpes and warts for instance. So its not just a case of those who chose to do it bareback who are at risk!
Take a smoking related illness like emphysema it isnt just smokers who get these illnesses so IMO it isnt always voluntary
I'm sorry, but again you are losing sight of the fact that these example are those of people doing things voluntarily that puts them at higher risk than normal. What they get is unimportant in reference to this discussion, it's how they get it that counts.
I know all about these maladies and don't need them explaining. Ten years as a paramedic saw to that.
Once again, it's HOW they are contracted that's relevant not what is contracted.

23 Jun 2008

I think that thr general system of being treated if you need treatment however it occurs should be the primary objective. None but the very rare few want to get treated for illness or accident/injury there is no plan to be unwell in the main.
the list of people being liable for there own injury is endless surely.
Sports injuries
fitness injuries
DIY injuries
Motoring injuries (i'm not talking about the Ambulance ride, though i think that should still be free)
Injuries through neglecting to wear the correct clothing in different weathers.
Hobby crafting Injuries
Gardening Injuries.
I guess the list could go on.
I understand that you could never throw enough money at the nhs it would always cost more.
What you could do though is ask the super and very rich who manage to put an educated estimated 70 billion pounds away in off shore accounts in tax evasion (source of info - BBC radio 4) each year to pay up. This would pay for another health service of the equivalent size to be run leaving 8 billion spare. This is tax evasion not anything else not asking these people to pay anything extra than Joe Bloggs. They would still be the very and the super rich.
If theres one thing this country needs it is to get rid of our tax havens. We have the largest amount of tax havens in the world contributing amounting to 750 billion dollars - enough to supply basic health needs to the whole planet, or enough to provide basic education to the whole planet.
Staggering, akes you think don't it.

23 Jun 2008

Quote by Whipsnspurs
I'm sorry, but again you are losing sight of the fact that these example are those of people doing things voluntarily that puts them at higher risk than normal. What they get is unimportant in reference to this discussion, it's how they get it that counts.
I know all about these maladies and don't need them explaining. Ten years as a paramedic saw to that.
Once again, it's HOW they are contracted that's relevant not what is contracted.

you know what peanut? it seems to me that however we try to explain it you are trying your hardest to ignore that fact that there is a huge difference in contracting something you could have definately provented by taking one action. and getting something that you could not have prevented no matter what you did/didn't do. as far as i know there is nothing you can be given to prevent cancer. smoking may put you at a higher risk but there are plenty of smokers out there who live to a ripe old age who never suffer anything.
whips
:thumbup:
The point of how they are contracted is what ive been trying to get at all along not everything is so cut and dry!

23 Jun 2008

Quote by Whipsnspurs
I'm sorry, but again you are losing sight of the fact that these example are those of people doing things voluntarily that puts them at higher risk than normal. What they get is unimportant in reference to this discussion, it's how they get it that counts.
I know all about these maladies and don't need them explaining. Ten years as a paramedic saw to that.
Once again, it's HOW they are contracted that's relevant not what is contracted.

you know what peanut? it seems to me that however we try to explain it you are trying your hardest to ignore that fact that there is a huge difference in contracting something you could have definately provented by taking one action. and getting something that you could not have prevented no matter what you did/didn't do. as far as i know there is nothing you can be given to prevent cancer. smoking may put you at a higher risk but there are plenty of smokers out there who live to a ripe old age who never suffer anything.
whips
Where did you get the idea that vaccinations are 100% guaranteed? They most certainly aren't.

23 Jun 2008

OK a number of points I would like to make on this issue:
1. The MMR vaccination is NOT dangerous.

Quote by flower411
The person who refused the MMR vaccination refused something that is reported to be dangerous and possibly cause autism in their children.

There was ONE study done in 1998 which suggested that there might possibly have been some kind of a link between MMR and Autism but couldn't show anything more concrete. This paper looked at 12 (that's - twelve) children with autism. Its authors were not able to reproduce the original data in further study. Some of them are currently being tried for attempting to falsify evidence ( , and one of them has very publicly changed his mind. There have in fact been many, many studies since which have shown no link, including at least ten looking at thousands of children and at least two looking at every child with autism in the UK; all of which have found no link.

Quote by the NHS website
In November 2003 Dr Simon Murch - one of the authors of the 1998 paper (Wakefield A J et al) suggesting a possible link between MMR and autism - stated in a letter to the Lancet that there is now 'unequivocal' evidence that there is no link between MMR and autism.
Dr Murch stated that no vaccine has ever been studied in as much detail as MMR and that making a decision on whether to immunise with MMR should be easy for both doctors and parents.
NHS MMR info site

Now, you could claim "conspiracy", and try to suggest that the entire medical establishment, the government, the universities and the NHS are all trying to lie to us; then you'd have to ask, why? Or, you could just accept the weight of research and go with "The MMR vaccine is not dangerous," which to me seems like a much simpler solution.
Yet, despite the fact that any research suggesting there might be a link was based on a tiny sample, hazy at best, was ten years ago and has since been both discredited and massively outweighed by research pointing the other way, this smoke still persists, pretty much in the absence of any kind of a fire. Which brings me on to my second point:
2. This proposal under discussion is really not going to become law - it's a load of bullshit journalism.

Quote by kentswingers777
The very people who start these crazy things off are called the " Monday morning brigade " .
In that I mean...they come into work on a Monday morning with nothing in their in or out trays. They then start to drift off into their own little worlds, which is dangerous. They then come up with these half baked cranky things. Give these people some proper work to do and maybe these cranky ideas will never come to fruition!!

Couldn't agree more; I just think it's worth pointing out that there are at least as many of these people
working in journalism as in politics.

Quote by de_sade

Maybe im wrong.

You are.
Someone's gotta pull you up on this surely? She's not wrong. Very nice articles you've linked, but did you actually read any of them?
Both the ITV and the Guardian articles include the Labour Party's official policy:

Quote by A Labour Party Spokesperson
"Labour has no plans to introduce compulsory vaccination for children."

If you read these articles, you can see that what has happened is that a backbench MP has ran her mouth off about something which she herself says is only an idea; and then the party has gone, "She said what? Nononono...."
The strongest evidence the other one has is "Rumour has it that the government want to introduce compulsory vaccination in the UK." Well, if rumour has it, it must be true. The more you read that site, the less credible it gets - it's got a lot of the hallmarks of conspiracy theorism. Give me ten minutes and I'll find you a hundred sites telling you that the CIA is using infrasound to drive people mad (without really explaining why) or god was an alien; doesn't make it true.
3. Everything Lost has said in this thread has been brilliant.
Especially the stuff about wedges.

23 Jun 2008

Quote by TanKinky
I'm sorry, but again you are losing sight of the fact that these example are those of people doing things voluntarily that puts them at higher risk than normal. What they get is unimportant in reference to this discussion, it's how they get it that counts.
I know all about these maladies and don't need them explaining. Ten years as a paramedic saw to that.
Once again, it's HOW they are contracted that's relevant not what is contracted.

you know what peanut? it seems to me that however we try to explain it you are trying your hardest to ignore that fact that there is a huge difference in contracting something you could have definately provented by taking one action. and getting something that you could not have prevented no matter what you did/didn't do. as far as i know there is nothing you can be given to prevent cancer. smoking may put you at a higher risk but there are plenty of smokers out there who live to a ripe old age who never suffer anything.
whips
:thumbup:
The point of how they are contracted is what ive been trying to get at all along not everything is so cut and dry!
No, my understanding of what you've been pointing out is that these diseases could be contracted by anyone, which of course I'm in agreement with. The point is thought that, for example, a smoker is much MORE likely to get say lung cancer than some poor sod who's been a good boy all their life. Every packet of fags tells you that should you smoke then you are going to get horrible diseases. So it's fair to assume that every smoker knows the probability they are going to get something is quite high.
Like you said nothing is cut and dry and I for one was not talking in absolutes. I was talking in general terms on a hypothetical point. That point being that some people are arguing that one person's voluntary action should result in no treatment, yet the otherwise similar action of someone else should result in them getting treatment. The point I'm making is that anyone should get treatment regardless of what voluntary action they've taken where it's been to light up a ciggie or refused a polio vaccination.
It seems that some people round here are quite happy for a kid whose mother refused a vaccination to not get medical treatment or an education. I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong and positively immoral.