NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1808328,00.html

This is from a survey of 70000 hospital doctors (ie. not GPs).
Basic facts from the article:

40% of doctors believe that smokers who need heart bypasses and alcoholics who need liver transplants 'should not get them free on the NHS'.

25% believe that obese patients should not receive anti-obesity drugs for free, nor orthopaedic treatments (hip, knee replacements, etc).

Over 50% believe that 'gender reassignment' and cosmetic surgery should not be paid for by the NHS.

One third disagree with free IVF treatment for infertile patients, while the same proportion say it should be partially subsidised.

75% think that alternative treatments such as homeopathy should be paid for by patients.

31% say 'elective caesarean sections' (ie. non-emergency) should be paid for by patients.

I agree with a lot of this - especially the last four. They are a waste of money, and contribute a significant amount towards the NHS deficit of £1.3bn. I'm not so sure about the obesity drugs or other treatments for obese people, as there is a serious quality of life issue to be taken into account there that isn't present with the following issues.

The first point - on heart bypasses and liver transplants - probably should be iimplemented. If it is the individual's fault that their health is poor, then they should bear at least part of the cost for the operation, regardless of the fact that they may have contributed a large amount towards the NHS in terms of taxes. Either that or those operations should be given a lower priority than heart bypasses and liver transplants that are not needed as a result of smoking or drinking.

I agree. Aslong as people with conditions with their metabolism or something (not too informed on the subject) that causes them to be obese, and patients with similar conditions/situations remain to receive free treatment on the NHS.

I back all of the above. The NHS is about saving people's lives for free, and treating injuries and illnesses for free, but it should draw the line at self-inflicted stuff and 'lifestyle' preferences.

I agree. Aslong as people with conditions with their metabolism or something (not too informed on the subject) that causes them to be obese, and patients with similar conditions/situations remain to receive free treatment on the NHS.
i agree.

still, if you are a smoker now at the age of 60 and they suddenly placed a law like this, it would be very hypocritical. governments never placed a check on tobacco makers 40-50 years ago and - at least in the US - the industry was adamant (swearing in court) that smoking did not cause cancer.

governments do have a part in the blame of allowing the tobacco industry to put crap like cyanide and ammonia and the like in cigarettes. it was only fairly recently that all this came to light...

actually, governments are still allowing them to do it and taking taxes as well... :confused:

why don't they just simply ban them?...

I agree with some of them. If people need surgery/medical care as a result of thier personal bad habits, then they don't deserve to have their health services be paid by my hard-earned tax money and those of the citizens.

People should receive free health care no matter what the problem.

still, if you are a smoker now at the age of 60 and they suddenly placed a law like this, it would be very hypocritical. governments never placed a check on tobacco makers 40-50 years ago and - at least in the US - the industry was adamant (swearing in court) that smoking did not cause cancer.

governments do have a part in the blame of allowing the tobacco industry to put crap like cyanide and ammonia and the like in cigarettes. it was only fairly recently that all this came to light...
Very true. One of my grandfather smoked 20 a day for 50 years, and spent much of the last 10 years of that trying to give up. He now suffers a variety of health problems, although he's not yet needed surgery. But how would you implement it otherwise? I guess the government could say that anyone under the age of, say, 30 would have to pay for operations needed as a result of smoking, but anyone significantly older than that could claim they were unaware of the health risks when they started smoking. Admittedly they would have had long enough to give up...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1808328,00.html

This is from a survey of 70000 hospital doctors (ie. not GPs).
Basic facts from the article:

40% of doctors believe that smokers who need heart bypasses and alcoholics who need liver transplants 'should not get them free on the NHS'.

25% believe that obese patients should not receive anti-obesity drugs for free, nor orthopaedic treatments (hip, knee replacements, etc).

Over 50% believe that 'gender reassignment' and cosmetic surgery should not be paid for by the NHS.

One third disagree with free IVF treatment for infertile patients, while the same proportion say it should be partially subsidised.

75% think that alternative treatments such as homeopathy should be paid for by patients.

31% say 'elective caesarean sections' (ie. non-emergency) should be paid for by patients.

I agree with a lot of this - especially the last four. They are a waste of money, and contribute a significant amount towards the NHS deficit of £1.3bn. I'm not so sure about the obesity drugs or other treatments for obese people, as there is a serious quality of life issue to be taken into account there that isn't present with the following issues.

The first point - on heart bypasses and liver transplants - probably should be iimplemented. If it is the individual's fault that their health is poor, then they should bear at least part of the cost for the operation, regardless of the fact that they may have contributed a large amount towards the NHS in terms of taxes. Either that or those operations should be given a lower priority than heart bypasses and liver transplants that are not needed as a result of smoking or drinking.

It's a thorny one. A social smoker might hardly ever actually smoke... but they ARE smokers. Is it fair that they are held to the same treatment standard as the habitual, life-long chainsmoker?

Similarly - if I have a couple of glasses of wine with Sunday Lunch -is it just to hold my healthcare to the same standard as those gents who regularly drink a couple of dozen pints on a 'night out with the lads'?

I think the extreme cases should be held to a very different standard, and I'd be worried that unfair judgements would be made.

Example: The person that already HAD treatments related to habitual alcoholism, should be simply REFUSED public healthcare for related illness due to continued abuse.

Whereas, a light, occassional, smoker might have a congenital heart defect. Perhaps smoking might exacerbate it - but the condition was pre-existent.


Less thorny, is the obesity issue. Obesity is a morbid condition - and NOT treating it, leads to more complication. Logically, the thing to do is to prevent more problems. I'd be perfectly in favour of limiting the availability of treatment to patients willing to join in with dietary and exercise regimens.

If they are not willing to do so - let them go to private facilities, and pay for medication.

Regarding gender-reassignment - I find myself wondering what the average person would feel if they woke up one morning, to find that they had been 'gender-reassigned' against their will. Most would feel they had been horribly mutilated, comparable to the damage suffered by, say, a burn victim.

Maybe, thinking like that, might help some people to understand why some people want gender treatments.

I agree with some of them. If people need surgery/medical care as a result of thier personal bad habits, then they don't deserve to have their health services be paid by my hard-earned tax money and those of the citizens.

Why?

For a 'christian nation', the US seems to have embraced passionately the 'me first' mentality...

But how would you implement it otherwise? I guess the government could say that anyone under the age of, say, 30 would have to pay for operations needed as a result of smoking, but anyone significantly older than that could claim they were unaware of the health risks when they started smoking. Admittedly they would have had long enough to give up...
i think something along those lines could work... i also don't feel that life-saving medical treatment should ever be denied to anyone who cannot clearly pay for it... it's just too cruel. but that throws a spanner in the whole thing...

40% of doctors believe that smokers who need heart bypasses and alcoholics who need liver transplants 'should not get them free on the NHS'.


This erroneously assumes that if you're a smoker, the only reason you'd need a heart bypass is because you're a smoker. Untrue, so I don't agree with it. (And since when is anything from the NHS or any other government service 'free?' I mean, if it was free then whats up with all these taxes?)

Why?

For a 'christian nation', the US seems to have embraced passionately the 'me first' mentality...

I'm all for universal healthcare... but... I don't think it should be THAT universal. :)

Alcoholic Smokers(tm) generally have bad teeth, too. Should they be denied dental as well?

Alcoholic Smokers(tm) generally have bad teeth, too. Should they be denied dental as well?
you can survive without teeth... :D using fake ones.... :eek:

25% believe that obese patients should not receive anti-obesity drugs for free, nor orthopaedic treatments (hip, knee replacements, etc).
Hip and knee replacements:fine. But why with hold something that could prevent them from needing hip/knee replacements as well as numerous other sugeries in the future? It seems like it would be MUCH cheaper that way.

75% think that alternative treatments such as homeopathy should be paid for by patients. Alternative medicine does work in a lot of cases. Things like aspirin were re-discovered as effective drug in modern medicine.

31% say 'elective caesarean sections' (ie. non-emergency) should be paid for by patients.

Why?

you can survive without teeth... :D using fake ones.... :eek:

Teeth are overrated in a world full of applesauce and pudding. :D

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1808328,00.html

This is from a survey of 70000 hospital doctors (ie. not GPs).
Basic facts from the article:

40% of doctors believe that smokers who need heart bypasses and alcoholics who need liver transplants 'should not get them free on the NHS'.

25% believe that obese patients should not receive anti-obesity drugs for free, nor orthopaedic treatments (hip, knee replacements, etc).

If it can be demonstrated that the damage to the organs in question was caused by the individual's choice of behavior, then perhaps I could see supporting this.

However, what about (for example) individuals who require a transplant because they suffered organ damage in a car accident while they were driving? They chose to drive, and driving is known to be a behavior that increases one's risk of injury in an auto accident, so should such an organ transplant also be considered the individual's responsibility?

Over 50% believe that 'gender reassignment' and cosmetic surgery should not be paid for by the NHS.

No argument here.


One third disagree with free IVF treatment for infertile patients, while the same proportion say it should be partially subsidised.

I don't think there should be any government support for fertility treatments, myself.


75% think that alternative treatments such as homeopathy should be paid for by patients.

I think the NHS should subsidize homeopathic medicine for up to the cost of one sugar pill, since homeopathy is nothing more or less than a placebo.


31% say 'elective caesarean sections' (ie. non-emergency) should be paid for by patients.

When it comes to childbirth, I think women should get whatever the fuck they want...for pity's sake, have you seen that shit go down? If some woman wants a C-section, bloody well give it to her and don't ask questions!


The first point - on heart bypasses and liver transplants - probably should be iimplemented. If it is the individual's fault that their health is poor, then they should bear at least part of the cost for the operation, regardless of the fact that they may have contributed a large amount towards the NHS in terms of taxes.

The only problem is, you often cannot determine how much of the health problem is directly the result of the individual's behavior. If it were possible for us to determine exactly how much damage has been done by chosen behaviors, then I would be quicker to support this.

Regarding gender-reassignment - I find myself wondering what the average person would feel if they woke up one morning, to find that they had been 'gender-reassigned' against their will.
never thought about that! imagine going in for a small surgery and waking up 'gender-reassigned' by mistake. i tell you, if i ever have to go through surgery, i'll write on my parts with a marker pen:
Do not cut here.

When it comes to childbirth, I think women should get whatever the fuck they want...for pity's sake, have you seen that shit go down? If some woman wants a C-section, bloody well give it to her and don't ask questions!

Haha LOL yes YOU try to tell a labouring woman what she can and can't have!

Haha LOL yes YOU try to tell a labouring woman what she can and can't have!
Seriously!

If we're talking about saving money, then it's still better to just give the damn woman whatever she wants because let me tell you, a woman in labor can do some serious damage. My aunt broke two lamps and a nurse's hand when they wouldn't give her an epidural fast enough.

Teeth are overrated in a world full of applesauce and pudding. :D
i'm letting mine rot on purpose... got a feeling it will be the trendiest thing ever in about a decade. :D

never thought about that! imagine going in for a small surgery and waking up 'gender-reassigned' by mistake. i tell you, if i ever have to go through surgery, i'll write on my parts with a marker pen:
Do not cut here.

I certainly wouldn't want to wake up rebuilt in that respect. :eek:

They already pay. The vast majority of cost in a package of cigarettes these days is taxes, which have been placed to cover the extra health costs smokers incur. Or at least that's the way it's done in Canada.

I imagine most other places with socialized healthcare are the same.

...a woman in labor can do some serious damage. My aunt broke two lamps and a nurse's hand when they wouldn't give her an epidural fast enough.
ROFL-LOL-LOL :D

i can see the lighting industry lobbying the government on this one in the near future...

They already pay. The vast majority of cost in a package of cigarettes these days is taxes, which have been placed to cover the extra health costs smokers incur. Or at least that's the way it's done in Canada.

I imagine most other places with socialized healthcare are the same.
very true... the price of cigarettes in london is outrageous.... i remember packets costing about 6x what they would cost in lisbon or barcelona...

i think that assigning blame is an odd way to decide who gets treatment for what price.

why limit it to those things? why not, at the end of treatment, have a statistician draw up an estimate of how "at fault" the patient was for whatever problem they have and make them pay that percent of it?

if they were in an accident that they were at fault for--100%, if it was shared responsibility--50%

if they eat badly and never exercise, they have to pay 25% of any heart disease or cancer treatment

if they had a pain in their abdomen but didnt come right in and their appendix burst--the difference between perforated and non perforated appendix treatment

AIDS--100%, if it was from sharing needles or unprotected prosmicous sex, 25% of they had been in a monogamous relationship and got it from their spouse who was secretly unfaithful (25% because they should have known not to take up with the ratbastard to begin with)

if they are a chav--100%, those bastards are responsible for everything


i think there may be better ways to ration health care.

maybe governments should impose a special health tax on all unhealthy products, for the purpose of not denying anyone any treatment...

we certainly live in a society where we are sold all sorts of unhealthy crap without very clear information but when it comes to blame it's always the individual... how many people really know how to distinguish between not so good and really bad, when they read stuff like:
ingredients: E456, E743, E928...

also, the argument your body your responsibility is a bit flawed, since the problem usually starts in your mind. advertising is becoming so intrusive these days you could equate it to brainwashing, particularly with children...

At any rate, these stats are hardly as in favour of what the OP is suggesting as he seems to think. Lets turn these stats around"

40% of doctors believe that smokers who need heart bypasses and alcoholics who need liver transplants 'should not get them free on the NHS'.

25% believe that obese patients should not receive anti-obesity drugs for free, nor orthopaedic treatments (hip, knee replacements, etc).

Over 50% believe that 'gender reassignment' and cosmetic surgery should not be paid for by the NHS.

One third disagree with free IVF treatment for infertile patients, while the same proportion say it should be partially subsidised.

75% think that alternative treatments such as homeopathy should be paid for by patients.

31% say 'elective caesarean sections' (ie. non-emergency) should be paid for by patients.

60% of doctors believe that smokers who need heart bypasses and alcoholics who need liver transplants 'should get them free on the NHS'.

75% believe that obese patients should receive anti-obesity drugs for free, nor orthopaedic treatments (hip, knee replacements, etc).

Under 50% believe that 'gender reassignment' and cosmetic surgery should be paid for by the NHS. (And isn't "around 50%" a great boost of confidence in a compilation of stats, anyways?)

One-third agree with free IVF treatment for infertile patients, while the same proportion say it should be partially subsidised.

25% think that alternative treatments such as homeopathy should not be paid for by patients.

69% say 'elective caesarean sections' (ie. non-emergency) should not be paid for by patients.

Taken as a whole, the doctors seem to be in favour of state-paid medicare.

maybe governments should impose a special health tax on all unhealthy products, for the purpose of not denying anyone any treatment...

we certainly live in a society where we are sold all sorts of unhealthy crap without very clear information but when it comes to blame it's always the individual... how many people really know how to distinguish between not so good and really bad, when they read stuff like:
ingredients: E456, E743, E928...

also, the argument your body your responsibility is a bit flawed, since the problem usually starts in your mind. advertising is becoming so intrusive these days you could equate it to brainwashing, particularly with children...

The really sad thing is, we're living in an age where unhealthy options are often cheaper then the premium healthy options.

For example, food. McDonalds is much cheaper than organic foods. In the US and Canada, at least, it's the poor people who are fat.

maybe governments should impose a special health tax on all unhealthy products, for the purpose of not denying anyone any treatment...

Given that the same product can be healthy for one person and unhealthy for another, I don't see how this would be workable. Hell, pretty much every single product that exists can be "unhealthy" if used a certain way, so how are you going to decide when to tax things?


we certainly live in a society where we are sold all sorts of unhealthy crap without very clear information but when it comes to blame it's always the individual... how many people really know how to distinguish between not so good and really bad, when they read stuff like:
ingredients: E456, E743, E928...

What about believing that individuals are smart enough to learn about ingredients and decide for themselves?


also, the argument your body your responsibility is a bit flawed, since the problem usually starts in your mind.

I don't see how that changes the idea that your body is your responsibility. Yes, many problems start with a lack of thought, or a flaw in a person's thinking, but how does that change the fact that they are responsible for their choices?


advertising is becoming so intrusive these days you could equate it to brainwashing, particularly with children...
No, you really couldn't equate it with brainwashing. And, at least in my country, children are under the care of parents/guardians precisely because they are not recognized as capable of making adult decisions; I don't see what that has to do with the subject of ADULT patients being held responsible for their adult decisions.

WOW when you look at it that way these statistics are... EXACTLY THE SAME!
And you did well subtracting from 100 up until here.


One-third agree with free IVF treatment for infertile patients, while the same proportion say it should be partially subsidised.

WOW when you look at it that way these statistics are... EXACTLY THE SAME!
And you did well subtracting from 100 up until here.

Read it again. 1/3 don't believe patients should be charged, 1/3 believe patients should be charged, and 1/3 believe it should be partially subsidized.

And yes, the stats are the same. I'm just pointing out how statistics are often presented in such a way that they seem to support an idea that they don't really support at all.

I'm all for universal healthcare... but... I don't think it should be THAT universal. :)
Then you're not actually for universal healthcare.

Read it again. 1/3 don't believe patients should be charged, 1/3 believe patients should be charged, and 1/3 believe it should be partially subsidized. OK you're smarter than I thought. But I was on kind of a posting roll!

By the way, just wanted to weigh in on the gender-reassignment issue...it's never something done lightly, or without reason, and frankly, if you think a woman should be able to have a C-section just because, I can't see how you could possibly deny surgery to someone who had the misfortune to be born the wrong sex. Labour lasts hours. Transgendered people have a lifetime of suffering ahead of them.

By the way, just wanted to weigh in on the gender-reassignment issue...it's never something done lightly, or without reason, and frankly, if you think a woman should be able to have a C-section just because, I can't see how you could possibly deny surgery to someone who had the misfortune to be born the wrong sex. Labour lasts hours. Transgendered people have a lifetime of suffering ahead of them.
Unfortunately, I don't believe that anybody is born "the wrong sex." I believe some people have a very strong desire to alter their body to take on the physical traits of the opposite sex, and many people wish to live as a member of the opposite sex, and I completely and totally 100% support their right to do this (and their right to be treated with the same respect and dignity as anybody else). However, I still believe that this is a purely elective procedure.

When it comes to elective C-sections, yes they're 100% elective...but you do not, ever, fuck around with a woman in labor. If she demands that she be provided with 10 live iguanas, you get your ass to a pet store and make it happen.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that anybody is born "the wrong sex." I believe some people have a very strong desire to alter their body to take on the physical traits of the opposite sex, and many people wish to live as a member of the opposite sex, and I completely and totally 100% support their right to do this (and their right to be treated with the same respect and dignity as anybody else). However, I still believe that this is a purely elective procedure.

When it comes to elective C-sections, yes they're 100% elective...but you do not, ever, fuck around with a woman in labor. If she demands that she be provided with 10 live iguanas, you get your ass to a pet store and make it happen.What if a bunch of transgendered people had a gun pointed at your head? Do they have a right to surgery then?

What if a bunch of transgendered people had a gun pointed at your head? Do they have a right to surgery then?
They have a right to surgery just as much as anybody else does. I just don't believe they have a right to have their elective surgery paid for by other people.

Maybe it's just that I'm not scared of transgendered people, but I'm fucking terrified of pregnant women. I'm telling you, they are capable of anything. Give them what they want and perhaps they will spare us...

They have a right to surgery just as much as anybody else does. I just don't believe they have a right to have their elective surgery paid for by other people.
Sorry I was not specific enough I meant Do they have a right to have their surgery paid for by the public or NHS organization. It seems that you are only letting women have surgery because you are afraid of them. Are the Trannies, smokers and over weight not scarey enough?

Sorry I was not specific enough I meant Do they have a right to have their surgery paid for by the public or NHS organization. It seems that you are only letting women have surgery because you are afraid of them.

Not just any women. We're talking about women who are in the position of pushing something the size of a watermelon out a hole the size of an orange.


Are the Trannies, sokers and over weight not scarey enough?
I've never been afraid of transgendered people, smokers, or overweight people, myself.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that anybody is born "the wrong sex." And I believe they are. Sorry, but I will take my brother's description on this over anything you might have to say, considering that since he was a child, he has felt that there was something terribly wrong...that he should have been born female. It's not a choice.

When it comes to elective C-sections, yes they're 100% elective...but you do not, ever, fuck around with a woman in labor. If she demands that she be provided with 10 live iguanas, you get your ass to a pet store and make it happen.
You make it sound so horrible. It may be for some...but we don't all turn into raving lunatics as we push our children out of our wombs.

That comes once they learn how to talk...

And I believe they are. Sorry, but I will take my brother's description on this over anything you might have to say, considering that since he was a child, he has felt that there was something terribly wrong...that he should have been born female.
*Shrug* Not really interested in convincing you, as it doesn't particularly matter.

I've felt I should have been born male for pretty much my entire life. Doesn't change my opinion on this subject.

You make it sound so horrible. It may be for some...but we don't all turn into raving lunatics as we push our children out of our wombs.

The way I see it, there are two ways it can go:

Either the laboring woman is a raving lunatic, or she's so fucking hardcore that she could endure CHILDBIRTH and still be sane.

Either way, not a woman I'm gonna mess with.


That comes once they learn how to talk...
See, that's why you've got to trade them for a VCR before they get too smart for their own good.

The way I see it, there are two ways it can go:

Either the laboring woman is a raving lunatic, or she's so fucking hardcore that she could endure CHILDBIRTH and still be sane.

Either way, not a woman I'm gonna mess with. Have you had kids, Bottle?

Honestly...I think women are more at fault than anyone for putting other women into a panic about childbirth...after the first time, I told people to just shut up when they wanted to tell me their (wildly exaggerated) tales of horrible, excruciating labour...

See, that's why you've got to trade them for a VCR before they get too smart for their own good.
Pshhhaw...you pretty much have to pay people to take them these days...I keep hearing about all these people desperate to have children, but all I run into are the happily childless...just my luck!

Would it be fair then to say that if you've ever gotten a speeding ticket then you shouldn't get coverage for injuries you've sustained in a car accident?

Would it be fair then to say that if you've ever gotten a speeding ticket then you shouldn't get coverage for injuries you've sustained in a car accident?
Maybe if the guy had road rage we'd pay his medical bill. Because we only offer health care to people who frighten us, the rest have to pay their own way.

As a smoker and a heavy drinker (though not an alcoholic by any strange group's deinfition of the term), I have to say this:

Oh, sure, I chose to abuse my body. Of course I did. I made the choice to suck down 3 litres of whiskey a week and smoke more than an 1800s chimney sweep ever took into their lungs, but ...

Yes ... but ....

If the National Health will pay for the ligament surgeries and whatnot from people who choose to jog every day, then they should buy me a new liver.

Also, if we're gonna stop treating people just cuz they have risky habits that they choose, should we not save automobile accident victims if they are the ones responsible for the accident?

And to paraphrase maddox, saying an alcoholic shouldn't receive treatment if he gets liver disease cuz he shouldn't have been drinking anyway is like saying we shouldn't save people who fall into wells because they shouldn't have been wandering around near them anyway.

still, if you are a smoker now at the age of 60 and they suddenly placed a law like this, it would be very hypocritical. governments never placed a check on tobacco makers 40-50 years ago and - at least in the US - the industry was adamant (swearing in court) that smoking did not cause cancer.

governments do have a part in the blame of allowing the tobacco industry to put crap like cyanide and ammonia and the like in cigarettes. it was only fairly recently that all this came to light...

actually, governments are still allowing them to do it and taking taxes as well... :confused:

why don't they just simply ban them?...

YOu're telling me that 60 years ago people didn't know that breathing in smoke through your lungs wasn't healthy?

YOu're telling me that 60 years ago people didn't know that breathing in smoke through your lungs wasn't healthy?
Are YOU telling us that they thought it could kill them? Please.

At any rate, these stats are hardly as in favour of what the OP is suggesting as he seems to think. Lets turn these stats around"



60% of doctors believe that smokers who need heart bypasses and alcoholics who need liver transplants 'should get them free on the NHS'.

75% believe that obese patients should receive anti-obesity drugs for free, nor orthopaedic treatments (hip, knee replacements, etc).

Under 50% believe that 'gender reassignment' and cosmetic surgery should be paid for by the NHS. (And isn't "around 50%" a great boost of confidence in a compilation of stats, anyways?)

One-third agree with free IVF treatment for infertile patients, while the same proportion say it should be partially subsidised.

25% think that alternative treatments such as homeopathy should not be paid for by patients.

69% say 'elective caesarean sections' (ie. non-emergency) should not be paid for by patients.

Taken as a whole, the doctors seem to be in favour of state-paid medicare.
Actually, if you read the article...
41% believe that alcoholics shouldn't receive liver transplants on the NHS, while 42% think they should.

You're missing out the 'No opinion/don't know/don't care' option that is always present on surveys. I'd be surprised if more than 50% of doctors agreed with allowing any of the above treatments on the NHS.

If you care to read the first sub-head of the article, you'll notice it says 'Poll finds hardening of attitudes by NHS doctors'. In 20 years time, I imagine the number opposing free liver transplants for alcoholics will have increased.

One third disagree with free IVF treatment for infertile patients, while the same proportion say it should be partially subsidised.
I don't see why infertile couples shouldn't be given help to conceive. To be told you can't have children would be a terrible thing for most couples, and I'd want help if I ended up in that situation.

I don't see why infertile couples shouldn't be given help to conceive. To be told you can't have children would be a terrible thing for most couples, and I'd want help if I ended up in that situation.
Let them adopt.

Infertile couples like to talk about children as "miracles" and whatnot. I get pissed at infertile couples because many of them have multiples because of the nature of the process. Then they get all kids of charity and assistance for having multiples. Seems to me that God Himself had deemed the couple barren. Doesn't fertility therapy effectively fly in the face of His pronouncement?

Keep in mind I'm not religious, I'm merely pointing out the basic irony.

Let them adopt.
EXACTLY.
Thank you for saying it.

There are plenty of already-born and unloved babies and kids in the world who desperately need parents. But no, Mr. & Mrs. Wingnut MUST PASS THEIR GENES ALONG! Selfish assholes.

Let them adopt.
Not the same thing.

There are plenty of already-born and unloved babies and kids in the world who desperately need parents. But no, Mr. & Mrs. Wingnut MUST PASS THEIR GENES ALONG! Selfish assholes.
Why is it selfish to want to raise your own children?

Why does some obligation fall on infertile couples to adopt? "Hey! Hey you! You're a selfish bugger for wanting children! Yeah, we've got our own children, but we're not the ones who were so inconsiderate to be infertile now, were we?"

If it can proven without reasonable doubt that a persons medical condition is a direct result of their own habits and misuse of their body, and is in no way heridatry or a result of their environment, or plain bad luck, then, in my opinion, yes they should pay a higher cost for their treatment, but not be denied it.

Not the same thing.
I never said it was. However, currently infertile couples get one cycle of IVF treatment free, then have to pay for any further cycles. It costs somewhere between £3000 and £4000 per cycle, and the average number of cycles is about 4. If a couple is willing to spend £9000 to £12000 to get a kid, why shouldn't they spend £12000 to £16000?

Or just point out to them that it's a hell of a lot cheaper to adopt. There's no obligation on their part, just fucking stupidity if they're determined to have their own.

In theory, I support smokers and drinkers having to pay for medical treatment directly caused by their smoking and drinking. However, as has already been pointed out, it is difficult to draw the line at what stage the smoking/drinking caused the problem - could it have anything to do with genes, other environmental factors, etc.

Furthermore, cigarettes and alcohol are heavily taxed (especially the former), so indirectly those consuming them are paying more into public services than the others.

As for the other issues raised, I don't know. I don't see why people should not adopt rather than have infertility treatment, so I suppose I agree with that one. I don't know any transgendered people personally, so don't feel that I know enough about what they're going through to comment on this one. As for C-Sections, not that I ever want a ba, but if I did, I wouldn't be willing to go through such agony as labour apparently is. Nonetheless, that's my choice, so I suppose it's fair enough that I pay for it.

I never said it was. However, currently infertile couples get one cycle of IVF treatment free, then have to pay for any further cycles. It costs somewhere between £3000 and £4000 per cycle, and the average number of cycles is about 4. If a couple is willing to spend £9000 to £12000 to get a kid, why shouldn't they spend £12000 to £16000?

Or just point out to them that it's a hell of a lot cheaper to adopt. There's no obligation on their part, just fucking stupidity if they're determined to have their own.
Well, they may well come a point where it is fair for the NHS to say 'enough is enough', but I certainly think they should get a certain number of cycles provided.

Adoption is something that should be untertaken by people who want to give a child a loving home and raise the child as their own; it's not for people who have it forced upon them when what they really want is something else. I'm not convinced that people who are desperate for their own children are always the best candidates for adoption.

Well, they may well come a point where it is fair for the NHS to say 'enough is enough', but I certainly think they should get a certain number of cycles provided.

Adoption is something that should be untertaken by people who want to give a child a loving home and raise the child as their own; it's not for people who have it forced upon them when what they really want is something else. I'm not convinced that people who are desperate for their own children are always the best candidates for adoption.
I'm not saying infertile couples should be forced to adopt, I'm saying that they should not expect the state to pay for them to have kids. They can pay for the whole shebang themselves, or they can adopt, or they can just not have kids!

I'm not saying infertile couples should be forced to adopt, I'm saying that they should not expect the state to pay for them to have kids. They can pay for the whole shebang themselves, or they can adopt, or they can just not have kids!

everyone i've ever known who has had IVF has had to pay for the treatment. And I believe that this is fair - I agree - state shouldnt pay

I'm not saying infertile couples should be forced to adopt, I'm saying that they should not expect the state to pay for them to have kids. They can pay for the whole shebang themselves, or they can adopt, or they can just not have kids!
The NHS provides for all kinds of psychological treatments. I'm sure that it would be possible to make a reasonable argument about an inability to have children causing mental health problems.

Either way, I have no problem with the NHS providing free treatments, although not indefinately. What is the State there for if not to be our safety net in times of need?

We should just execute smokers and alcoholics. They're scum anyway. Then we can make soylent green of them and abolish famine on earth!

We should just execute smokers and alcoholics. They're scum anyway. Then we can make soylent green of them and abolish famine on earth!

is everyone with an addiction scum?

The NHS provides for all kinds of psychological treatments. I'm sure that it would be possible to make a reasonable argument about an inability to have children causing mental health problems.
Maybe, but those problems are nothing compared to the problems they'd have when the kids are born. :p

Either way, I have no problem with the NHS providing free treatments, although not indefinately. What is the State there for if not to be our safety net in times of need?
I do. My tax money (oh, wait, I'm a student! :D ) should not be used to provide kids for infertile couples. If it's going to be used for the NHS, it should be used for people who have serious problems, not for those whose problems can be solved for free. The State is not our safety net. It is a provider and a stabiliser, but not a safety net.

Interestingly, it's in the government's interest to provide free IVF for pretty much as long as it takes for a child to be conceived. If you add up all the money spent by the state on the child - including IVF treatment, child benefits, state pension, etc. - that still comes to less than the amount that kid will ultimately contribute in tax.

Yes, I know I do actually pay tax - VAT etc.

YOu're telling me that 60 years ago people didn't know that breathing in smoke through your lungs wasn't healthy?
smoking has been a cultural activity for millenia. the difference was that before tobacco was nothing but dried weeds and did not include stuff like:

Acetone (nail polish remover), Acetic Acid (Vinegar), Ammonium (Floor/Toilet Cleaner), Arsenic (poison), Butane (cigarette lighter fluid), Cadmium (rechargeable batteries), DDT/Dieldrin (Insecticides), Ethanol (alcohol), Formaldehyde (preserver of body tissue and fabric), Hexamine (barbecue lighter), Hydrogen Cyanide (gas chamber poison), Methane (swamp gas), Methanol (rocket fuel), Napthalene (mothballs), Nitrobenzene (gasoline additive), Nitrous Oxide Phenols (disinfectant), Steric Acid (candle wax), Toluene (industrial solvent)... plus another 4,000...

i argue that smoking has become a lot more dangerous in the last 60 years and this was and still is sanctioned by governments that - sometimes - do not hesitate in blaming individuals alone for their ill health, while never admiting their own hypocrisy in allowing the tobacco industry to sell poison to the people. i started smoking when i was 15 and i certainly didn't know these things. fortunately, it didn't take me 30 years to find out about all this...

is everyone with an addiction scum?

Yes. That's a good thing, more soylent green to the rest of us!
On a serious note then...I despise smokers with every fibre of my body. My father smoked and died from it. Smokers know they'll get sick from it sooner or later. Yet they do it and at the same time force non smokers to inhale their toxic fumes...egoistical fuckers. I wouldn't weep for a second if all smokers dropped dead right...now. Unfortunatly it's just wishful thinking.

Calls to mind the water well paradigm, I think.

If it can proven without reasonable doubt that a persons medical condition is a direct result of their own habits and misuse of their body, and is in no way heridatry or a result of their environment, or plain bad luck, then, in my opinion, yes they should pay a higher cost for their treatment, but not be denied it.
That never happens, except possibly some cases of failed suicide. There always are many things that contribute to a person being ill. But in most cases your choices make a significant difference to the risk of needing any given medical procedure.

And then there is the other side of it too: What treatment should one get for a given condition. For example if you have "stones" in your kidneys, should you then be told to drink a glass of olive oil a day until they come out the natural way, should you be given treatment with ultrasound, or should you get emergency surgery? All three ways generally work, but they have very different costs and cause different amounts of pain. Most likely none of the methods are best for everyone. If you let every patient choose, and pay for their choice, they will do that which is best for them. If you pay for some alternatives with taxes you distort their choice, which puts you in a new conundrum.

Why is it selfish to want to raise your own children?

Why does some obligation fall on infertile couples to adopt? "Hey! Hey you! You're a selfish bugger for wanting children! Yeah, we've got our own children, but we're not the ones who were so inconsiderate to be infertile now, were we?"
No oblligation, but do you think that it is right that when you consciously choose to solve your problems in a way that does not help others you get a subsidy, but when you choose to help others as well as yourself (by adopting) you have to put up with investigations and waiting times and are billed and taxed for all of it?

No oblligation, but do you think that it is right that when you consciously choose to solve your problems in a way that does not help others you get a subsidy, but when you choose to help others as well as yourself (by adopting) you have to put up with investigations and waiting times and are billed and taxed for all of it?
You would rather we didn't investigate people who were adopting? And have more cases of children abused by adopted parents.

As for the financial concerns, I don't think it's right that people are charged to adopt. I don't know enough about it to know if this happens in this country or not, though.

Given that the same product can be healthy for one person and unhealthy for another, I don't see how this would be workable. Hell, pretty much every single product that exists can be "unhealthy" if used a certain way, so how are you going to decide when to tax things?
i believe there are blatantly unhealthy products, like those full with highly saturated fat and sugar. you cannot say that eating one pack of crisps a week is the same as eating none. if you didn't consume them too much you wouldn't be over-paying that tax.
What about believing that individuals are smart enough to learn about ingredients and decide for themselves?
if you believe that you must live in utopia because modern societies are going the opposite way. tv is becoming increasingly worse and full of entertaining rubbish with little information, unless you have access to specialised channels (usually paid), education is no longer free and the internet usually does not reach the poorest of the poorest parents who are educating and feeding their children.
I don't see how that changes the idea that your body is your responsibility. Yes, many problems start with a lack of thought, or a flaw in a person's thinking, but how does that change the fact that they are responsible for their choices?
because you are born with an empty mind and it does not depend on you what goes in there first. not saying this removes all responsibility from the individual, just saying it places some on society as well.
No, you really couldn't equate it with brainwashing. And, at least in my country, children are under the care of parents/guardians precisely because they are not recognized as capable of making adult decisions; I don't see what that has to do with the subject of ADULT patients being held responsible for their adult decisions.
parents do not spend as much time with their children these days as they did 50 years ago, when there was always someone around (usually the mother). advertising in children's channels and between children's programs should be banned. children do not have money to spend. they should not be targets.

YOu're telling me that 60 years ago people didn't know that breathing in smoke through your lungs wasn't healthy?

Yes. They even had doctors recommending cigarettes as a way to relax and unwind.

That never happens, except possibly some cases of failed suicide. There always are many things that contribute to a person being ill. But in most cases your choices make a significant difference to the risk of needing any given medical procedure.

And then there is the other side of it too: What treatment should one get for a given condition. For example if you have "stones" in your kidneys, should you then be told to drink a glass of olive oil a day until they come out the natural way, should you be given treatment with ultrasound, or should you get emergency surgery? All three ways generally work, but they have very different costs and cause different amounts of pain. Most likely none of the methods are best for everyone. If you let every patient choose, and pay for their choice, they will do that which is best for them. If you pay for some alternatives with taxes you distort their choice, which puts you in a new conundrum.

There would be cases were you could determine it though - if a guy needs a new lung cuz his current one is full of tar, and he smokes 50 a day and has done for the last 40 years - then it's safe to say there window of doubt that he's not responsible for his organ failre is minute

Nothing is that simple - i know that - i'm just saying if it was possible to be able to work it out in this manor, then make them pay more - if it's not than it'll just be debated back and forth between all parties involved

Yes. That's a good thing, more soylent green to the rest of us!
On a serious note then...I despise smokers with every fibre of my body. My father smoked and died from it. Smokers know they'll get sick from it sooner or later. Yet they do it and at the same time force non smokers to inhale their toxic fumes...egoistical fuckers. I wouldn't weep for a second if all smokers dropped dead right...now. Unfortunatly it's just wishful thinking.
What a hard ass.

As a smoker and a heavy drinker (though not an alcoholic by any strange group's deinfition of the term), I have to say this:

Oh, sure, I chose to abuse my body. Of course I did. I made the choice to suck down 3 litres of whiskey a week and smoke more than an 1800s chimney sweep ever took into their lungs, but ...

Yes ... but ....

If the National Health will pay for the ligament surgeries and whatnot from people who choose to jog every day, then they should buy me a new liver.
the other non-hypocritical option is not paying for treating people that crash their car while driving over the speed limit...

What a hard ass.
naaaa....... you really think so? what could possibly make you say that?? :D

force non smokers to inhale their toxic fumes...

So do people who drive cars.

I back all of the above. The NHS is about saving people's lives for free, and treating injuries and illnesses for free, but it should draw the line at self-inflicted stuff and 'lifestyle' preferences.

I especially agree with this:

75% think that alternative treatments such as homeopathy should be paid for by patients.

Homeopathy has been proven to be bollocks. I would not pay for it.

Also, as far as obesity goes, it is much cheaper to pay for anti-obesity drugs (provided that they work) than to pay for diabetes, heart disease, and the orthopedic problems.

So do people who drive cars.

Agreed. However, cars are a neccesity in today's world to keep the economy running.

Smokes do not uphold such a prone position. Yes, they can have a relaxing effect on people, but that comes at the price that you have a high chance of being infected by smoking-related diseases. That's practically the same like having sex with a seropositive person because it unstresses you.

Both are unhealthy and therefore you should not pratice them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1808328,00.html

This is from a survey of 70000 hospital doctors (ie. not GPs).
Basic facts from the article:

40% of doctors believe that smokers who need heart bypasses and alcoholics who need liver transplants 'should not get them free on the NHS'.

25% believe that obese patients should not receive anti-obesity drugs for free, nor orthopaedic treatments (hip, knee replacements, etc).

Over 50% believe that 'gender reassignment' and cosmetic surgery should not be paid for by the NHS.

One third disagree with free IVF treatment for infertile patients, while the same proportion say it should be partially subsidised.

75% think that alternative treatments such as homeopathy should be paid for by patients.

31% say 'elective caesarean sections' (ie. non-emergency) should be paid for by patients.

I agree with a lot of this - especially the last four. They are a waste of money, and contribute a significant amount towards the NHS deficit of £1.3bn. I'm not so sure about the obesity drugs or other treatments for obese people, as there is a serious quality of life issue to be taken into account there that isn't present with the following issues.

The first point - on heart bypasses and liver transplants - probably should be iimplemented. If it is the individual's fault that their health is poor, then they should bear at least part of the cost for the operation, regardless of the fact that they may have contributed a large amount towards the NHS in terms of taxes. Either that or those operations should be given a lower priority than heart bypasses and liver transplants that are not needed as a result of smoking or drinking.

Agreed. Overweight people should pay for their weight related medical practices as well, from operations to medicines, if their overweightness isnt caused by genetic factors.

Agreed. Overweight people should pay for their weight related medical practices as well, from operations to medicines, if their overweightness isnt caused by genetic factors.

If willpower were all it took to lose weight and keep it off, then there wouldn't be any fat people.

I've seen obesity drugs work on quite a few people. I've also seen the gastric reduction surgery work extremely well on quite a few people.

Either of those options is far, far cheaper than paying for the long term effects of being obese. If I had to pay, I would pay for the reduction methods in advance, so that the long term effects would not occur.

Agreed. However, cars are a neccesity in today's world to keep the economy running.

Don't worry, legislation is in place to protect your tender body from my cigarettes. Your on your own with factories, motor vehicles, and whatnot.

At least when I smoke a cigarette, it doesn't get into your home.

Homeopathy has been proven to be bollocks. I would not pay for it.

Also, as far as obesity goes, it is much cheaper to pay for anti-obesity drugs (provided that they work) than to pay for diabetes, heart disease, and the orthopedic problems.
Homeopathy can work because of the placebo effect. Another poster in this thread said that homeopathy and other alternative treatments should be subsidised to the level of paying for a sugar pill - which is probably a fair point.

As for paying for anti-obesity drugs as opposed to diabetes etc, I imagine that doctors who are opposed to free liver transplants for alcoholics would also be against free heart surgery for the obese. Orthopaedic treatments were mentioned in the article (and I think my summary of it).

There's a quote from a doctor right towards the end of the article:
There is no point in putting joints into very obese people or doing vascular surgery again and again if the obese patient has not shown efforts at weight reduction before the op, or if the vascular patient demands to smoke his first post-op cigarette on day one.

*Shrug* Not really interested in convincing you, as it doesn't particularly matter.

I've felt I should have been born male for pretty much my entire life. Doesn't change my opinion on this subject.

Do you mean you actually get the image, when you look in the mirror, that there is something wrong with your body? That your physical form is 'wrong'...?

Or - do you just mean, you enjoyed tomboyish activity, and feel better suited to some aspects of your oppositely gendered world?

Homeopathy can work because of the placebo effect. Another poster in this thread said that homeopathy and other alternative treatments should be subsidised to the level of paying for a sugar pill - which is probably a fair point.

As for paying for anti-obesity drugs as opposed to diabetes etc, I imagine that doctors who are opposed to free liver transplants for alcoholics would also be against free heart surgery for the obese. Orthopaedic treatments were mentioned in the article (and I think my summary of it).

There's a quote from a doctor right towards the end of the article:


If you're on anti-obesity drugs, and especially if you've had the gastric reduction surgery, you're going to show weight loss. In fact, the gastric reduction surgery is well proven in its results. It's less expensive than paying for the long term effects of heart disease, diabetes, etc.

And the patient can't go back and relapse, because they can't fit any food in their stomach.

YOu're telling me that 60 years ago people didn't know that breathing in smoke through your lungs wasn't healthy?

You have to remember that, 40 years ago, the Surgeon General was actually endorsing cigarettes as medicinal.

I never said it was. However, currently infertile couples get one cycle of IVF treatment free, then have to pay for any further cycles. It costs somewhere between £3000 and £4000 per cycle, and the average number of cycles is about 4. If a couple is willing to spend £9000 to £12000 to get a kid, why shouldn't they spend £12000 to £16000?

Or just point out to them that it's a hell of a lot cheaper to adopt. There's no obligation on their part, just fucking stupidity if they're determined to have their own.

A lot of people feel justified in strange degrees of judgmental mentality on these issues... why is it 'stupidity' to want your own children?

You might want to take into account, also - that there are different rules for adoption, than there are for biologically producing 'your own'... legal ramifications, requirements and regulations.

Personally - I think we should be JUST as selective about who we allow to have 'natural' babies - but that isn't the way the system works.


One of the things that always bemuses me, is the way people talk about the 'expense' of medical procedures. IVF costs so much, this medication costs so much... and somehow, medical tratment is treated like a Holy Grail. IVF costs as much as it does BECAUSE that is what the market will pay. Health is something we are WILLING to pay big money for... it's not an item you can just say "That much? Well, I don't want it"... and the medical industry explaoits that.

If you're on anti-obesity drugs, and especially if you've had the gastric reduction surgery, you're going to show weight loss. In fact, the gastric reduction surgery is well proven in its results. It's less expensive than paying for the long term effects of heart disease, diabetes, etc.

And the patient can't go back and relapse, because they can't fit any food in their stomach.
I'm not sure how prevalent gastric reduction surgery is in the UK. I'm not doubting its effects, I'm just saying that if it's the person's fault they became obese, they shouldn't necessarily expect to have medical costs paid for them.

And if they have to pay for treatment for heart disease, diabetes, or whatever else, because of their obesity, then it would be their choice to have the surgery in the first place. If they were forced to pay for any treatment, they'd go with the one that is best value for money - which I imagine would be the gastric reduction surgery.

Solution: Make them pay for gastric reduction surgery.

You have to remember that, 40 years ago, the Surgeon General was actually endorsing cigarettes as medicinal.

And it was good for a scratchy throat too!
http://www.chickenhead.com/truth/

A lot of people feel justified in strange degrees of judgmental mentality on these issues... why is it 'stupidity' to want your own children?

You might want to take into account, also - that there are different rules for adoption, than there are for biologically producing 'your own'... legal ramifications, requirements and regulations.

Personally - I think we should be JUST as selective about who we allow to have 'natural' babies - but that isn't the way the system works.
I wasn't saying it's 'stupidity' to want your own kids - I was saying it's stupid to pay so much money for the privilege, especially when you take into account the costs you'll incur in bringing up the child.

I know there are rules for adoption - but if a couple can't pass the rules for adoption, why should we allow them to have their own kids? Which, if I'm reading what you said correctly, is what you believe(?)

Homeopathy has been proven to be bollocks. I would not pay for it.


Since when?

"Homeopathy for Menopausal Symptoms in Breast Cancer Survivors: A
Preliminary Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Feb 2005, Vol. 11, No. 1: 21-27"

"Objectives: To carry out a preliminary trial evaluating the
effectiveness of two types of homeopathy for the treatment of menopausal symptoms in breast cancer survivors.

Design: Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled

Settings/location: Private medical clinic, Seattle, WA.

Subjects: Women with a history of breast cancer who had completed all
surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation treatment and who had an average
of at least three hot flashes per day for the previous month.

Interventions: Subjects were randomized to receive either an
individualized homeopathic single remedy, a homeopathic combination medicine, or placebo. Patients were seen by homeopathic providers every 2 months for 1 year.

Outcome measures: Hot flash frequency and severity, Kupperman Menopausal Index (KMI), Short Form 36 (SF-36).

Results: There was no significant difference found in the primary outcome
measure, the hot flash severity score, although there was a positive trend
in the single remedy group during the first 3 months of the study (p = 0.1).
A statistically significant improvement in general health score in both
homeopathy groups (p < 0.05) on the SF-36 after 1 year was found.
Evidence of a homeopathic "drug proving" in the subjects receiving the
homeopathic combination medicine who were not taking tamoxifen also was found.

Conclusions: Small sample size precludes definitive answers, but results
from this preliminary trial suggest that homeopathy may be of value
in the treatment of menopausal symptoms and improving quality of life,
especially in those women not on tamoxifen. Larger studies should be carried out that also include healthy women who want to avoid hormone replacement therapy."

http://www.homeopathic.org/controlled.htm

The jury seems to be very much 'out' on the issue of homeopathy.

Indeed - the tendency seems to be that the only groups that claim 'proof' of the non-viability of homeopathic medicine, are those with vested interests - like the pharmaceutical companies.

I wasn't saying it's 'stupidity' to want your own kids - I was saying it's stupid to pay so much money for the privilege, especially when you take into account the costs you'll incur in bringing up the child.

I know there are rules for adoption - but if a couple can't pass the rules for adoption, why should we allow them to have their own kids? Which, if I'm reading what you said correctly, is what you believe(?)

I believe all potential parents should have to take parenting courses. I believe there should be an 'entrance requirement' to BE a parent. Just as there is for adoption.

But, you may have noticed - for some reason, this most IMPORTANT job, is unlicensed. I have to have a license to carry a gun, to drive a car... but not to father children. Seems strange.

And - as long as we have additional requirements for adoption (by which, in my mind, we should read that there are not ENOUGH restrictions on 'natural' birth) - the playing field is not level.

I can't speak to that inequality. I don't agree with that inequality. But - it exists... and while it does, 'natural' childbirth, even WITH IVF, is going to be preferable to adoption, for a lot of people.

Of course - there will always be some that will want their own 'biological' baby, anyway.


And - again - the ONLY reason that a medical procedure is expensive, is because that is what is charged for it. Don't make the mistake of confusing perceived-worth with a real-world value.

Since when?

"Homeopathy for Menopausal Symptoms in Breast Cancer Survivors: A
Preliminary Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Feb 2005, Vol. 11, No. 1: 21-27"

"Objectives: To carry out a preliminary trial evaluating the
effectiveness of two types of homeopathy for the treatment of menopausal symptoms in breast cancer survivors.

Design: Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled

Settings/location: Private medical clinic, Seattle, WA.

Subjects: Women with a history of breast cancer who had completed all
surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation treatment and who had an average
of at least three hot flashes per day for the previous month.

Interventions: Subjects were randomized to receive either an
individualized homeopathic single remedy, a homeopathic combination medicine, or placebo. Patients were seen by homeopathic providers every 2 months for 1 year.

Outcome measures: Hot flash frequency and severity, Kupperman Menopausal Index (KMI), Short Form 36 (SF-36).

Results: There was no significant difference found in the primary outcome
measure, the hot flash severity score, although there was a positive trend
in the single remedy group during the first 3 months of the study (p = 0.1).
A statistically significant improvement in general health score in both
homeopathy groups (p < 0.05) on the SF-36 after 1 year was found.
Evidence of a homeopathic "drug proving" in the subjects receiving the
homeopathic combination medicine who were not taking tamoxifen also was found.

Conclusions: Small sample size precludes definitive answers, but results
from this preliminary trial suggest that homeopathy may be of value
in the treatment of menopausal symptoms and improving quality of life,
especially in those women not on tamoxifen. Larger studies should be carried out that also include healthy women who want to avoid hormone replacement therapy."

http://www.homeopathic.org/controlled.htm

The jury seems to be very much 'out' on the issue of homeopathy.

Indeed - the tendency seems to be that the only groups that claim 'proof' of the non-viability of homeopathic medicine, are those with vested interests - like the pharmaceutical companies.


Not to the FDA. There was a review of several hundred homeopathic studies that showed that there is no effect beyond the placebo effect.

Life--you are born, you enjoy your time on earth, you die. The world is over-populated already. Why do we not accept that when it's our time to go, we need to go gracefully and make room for the new arrivals? Why continue to overburden our healthcare system like we do?

Of course, it's easy for me to say since I'm not presently on the verge of dying.....

Not to the FDA. There was a review of several hundred homeopathic studies that showed that there is no effect beyond the placebo effect.

I'd say the FDA is a vested interest. Also - the FDA is NOT the last word on scientific efficacy.... indeed, they are not even the first word.

I'd say the FDA is a vested interest. Also - the FDA is NOT the last word on scientific efficacy.... indeed, they are not even the first word.
i would go further... the FDA is either dangerously corrupted or dangerously incompetent. the major problems involving people trying to come off antidepressants, which have been sold to millions of people as non-addictive and withdrawal symptons free for a long time, is one of the best examples of this. God knows how many people commited suicide or turned maniac killers trying to come-off them, never mind the millions that can't come off them. despite severall warnings, this has been ignored over and over for years.

Former Prozac Users Slam FDA
July 27, 2005

A group of patients who once took the antidepressant drug Prozac accuse the Food and Drug Administration of covering up the drug’s dangerous side effects for 14 years. As a result, they say hundreds of people have become victims of murder and suicide.

Bonnie Leitsch, founder of "Prozac Survivors Support Group," and Dr. Ann Blake Tracy, founder of the International Coalition for Drug Awareness, are calling for immediate federal action to warn the public that antidepressants not only can induce suicide in adult patients -- but also acts of violence.

They point to 30-year-old Indiana mother Magdalena Lopez, who last week was charged with murdering her two young sons. Lopez, they maintain, had been taking an antidepressant.

In June, the FDA issued its second warning that adults taking antidepressants should be monitored for suicidal ideation and worsening depression. Leitsch says that it is unconscionable that new mothers are being prescribed drugs that have been known to induce psychosis, violence and suicide for more than a decade.

"In 1991, there was evidence of 500 deaths associated with antidepressants presented to an FDA Psychopharmacological Drugs Advisory Committee hearing investigating Prozac," Leitsch said.

"The failure to issue the warning has led to more suicides, homicides, school shooters and mothers killing their own children."

PSSG says it has the original film footage from the 1991 FDA hearings, where dozens of testimonies were given by family members of those who had either killed themselves, or loved ones, or individuals who had attempted suicide which they directly attributed to taking an antidepressant. The group has lined up a number of health professionals who support their position on Prozac and other antidepressants.

"These are extremely dangerous drugs that should have been banned, as similar drugs were in the past. Federal investigations into the violence-inducing effects of these drugs are long overdue," Tracy said.

Tracy has been an outspoken critic of SSRI antidepressant drugs and has testified as an expert witness in numerous court cases involving such drugs.

"The scientific evidence behind this has been out there for decades. All anyone ever had to do was read it," she says.

The group says Magdalena Lopez is not the only woman who has murdered her children while under the influence of antidepressants known to cause violence, psychosis, and suicide in adults. They provided details of several other cases:

• Annie Mae Haskew smothered her 10-week-old son in October of 2002. Before the murder she had been diagnosed with postpartum depression and had been taking antidepressants.
• Andrea Yates drowned her five children, aged 6 months to 7 years in the family bathtub on Nov. 22, 2004, while taking two antidepressants Effexor and Remeron, both had been given at maximum dose.
• Dena Schlosser killed her 10-month-old infant daughter in November 2004 by severing her baby's arms. She had been diagnosed with postpartum depression, hospitalized and prescribed psychiatric "medication for depression" before the crime.
• Mary Ellen Moffitt suffocated her 5-week-old daughter and herself July 26, 2004. Before this she had been diagnosed with postpartum depression and had been taking the antidepressant Paxil.
• Emiri Padron smothered her baby daughter in her crib on June 22, 2004 and then stabbed herself twice in the chest. Emiri was receiving psychiatric treatment before the incident and investigators found the antidepressant Zoloft in the apartment where the crime took place.
• Mine Ener used a kitchen knife to cut the throat of her 6-month-old daughter on Aug. 4, 2003, after being diagnosed with postpartum depression and taking "medication" for the condition.

Leitsch says that the FDA's claim that it could take a year to review the suicide adverse effects of antidepressant drugs is negligent.

"They must warn the public that not only can the drugs include suicide -- but heinous acts of violence -- mothers killing their own children, or children killing other children,” she said.

Late last year FDA directed manufacturers to add a "black box" warning to the health professional labeling of all antidepressant medications to describe this risk of suicide in children, and emphasize the need for close monitoring of patients started on these medications. FDA has also determined that a Patient Medication Guide, which will be given to patients receiving the drugs to advise them of the risk and precautions that can be taken, is appropriate, and is in the process of developing one.

According to Lietsch, 36 million Americans are taking the antidepressant drugs.
source here. (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/fda_prozac.html)

talk about a steady income...

i will never take an antidepressant in my life...

i will never take an antidepressant in my life...

They work for me.

Consider that the people who are taking them are already far more prone to suicide or going postal than the average person.

It just tells me that for those who went off, they weren't getting enough therapy and antidepressant.

then so should fat people

They work for me.

Consider that the people who are taking them are already far more prone to suicide or going postal than the average person.

It just tells me that for those who went off, they weren't getting enough therapy and antidepressant.
or maybe they took too many or for too long... i wouldn't know the specifics obviously but i do know that antidepressants have been surrounded by a terrible reputation since the 80's and it's undeniable that they are addictive, while for years no warning was issued about this. you see, today you probably wouldn't try to finish the treatment abruptly but - a few years ago - people might because they were being told these were completely non-addictive. do the pills you take come with a warning these days or does your doctor recommend reduction before interruption?

also, i don't think the question whether they work or not while you take them but what happens when you try to come off them. i accept that some people are able to come off them without many problems, particularly if they do it slowly or if they take them for short periods of time, but you have to remember that some people are also less prone to addiction and you may be one of them (i don't know), like people who are able to smoke socially only.

i hope you don't take them on a regular basis...

36 million americans is a lot americans on antidepressants.

or maybe they took too many or for too long... i wouldn't know the specifics obviously but i do know that antidepressants have been surrounded by a terrible reputation since the 80's and it's undeniable that they are addictive, while for years no warning was issued about this. you see, today you probably wouldn't try to finish the treatment abruptly but - a few years ago - people might because they were being told these were completely non-addictive. do the pills you take come with a warning these days or does your doctor recommend reduction before interruption?

also, i don't think the question whether they work or not while you take them but what happens when you try to come off them. i accept that some people are able to come off them without many problems, particularly if they do it slowly or if they take them for short periods of time, but you have to remember that some people are also less prone to addiction and you may be one of them (i don't know), like people who are able to smoke socially only.

i hope you don't take them on a regular basis...

36 million americans is a lot americans on antidepressants.


They don't "cure" you in the sense that you take them, and after a while can stop because you're well adjusted again.

The chemical imbalance in your brain is permanent. Any sudden stop in taking the drugs will send you rather rapidly back to your depression. In some cases, just a few days.

Yes, you have to take them forever. It's not addiction, anymore than insulin is an addiction for diabetics.

There isn't a permanent cure for depression.

these cases mentioned in this article do point to problems during treatment, but i've heard of many more problems from people trying to come off them. however, i guess people today are much more wise than the FDA though and realise they need to come off them slowly.

these cases mentioned in this article do point to problems during treatment, but i've heard of many more problems from people trying to come off them. however, i guess people today are much more wise than the FDA though and realise they need to come off them slowly.

That's like trying to stop taking insulin if you're diabetic.

They don't "cure" you in the sense that you take them, and after a while can stop because you're well adjusted again.

The chemical imbalance in your brain is permanent. Any sudden stop in taking the drugs will send you rather rapidly back to your depression. In some cases, just a few days.

Yes, you have to take them forever. It's not addiction, anymore than insulin is an addiction for diabetics.

There isn't a permanent cure for depression.
Jeezzz DK... i am so sorry for hearing this... i suffered two major depressions years ago and never took any pills. surely it did cause major problems at the time. i actually attempted suicide once; fortunately i failed. today i know i will never do it again... depression does have other cures, though i wouldn't argue that everyone can do it without some medication.

i really hope you weren't fooled to take those pills when you may have had other ways to overcome your depression...

That's like trying to stop taking insulin if you're diabetic.
that really depends on the person DK. both my mum and younger brother have taken anti-depressants as well (guess we do have a genetic tendency) but they don't take them anymore... they didn't take them for long periods of time though.

i really wouldn't lie to you about this...

They don't "cure" you in the sense that you take them, and after a while can stop because you're well adjusted again.

The chemical imbalance in your brain is permanent. Any sudden stop in taking the drugs will send you rather rapidly back to your depression. In some cases, just a few days.

Yes, you have to take them forever. It's not addiction, anymore than insulin is an addiction for diabetics.

There isn't a permanent cure for depression.
That isn't entirely true, actually.

For many people, your description is accurate, and they will "relapse" into depression if they go off their medication.

However, some people are able to gradually step down off their medication after a certain amount of time (usually a period of several years, at least) without a return of all their depression symptoms.

It's not entirely clear why, but for some people it appears that antidepressants may be able to somehow shift the balance of chemicals in the brain. After a while, the brain is able to maintain levels of transmitter that are more "normal," and the patient no longer requires drug treatment to stave off depression.

There are also people for whom depression is caused by a temporary imbalance, and they only require drug treatment for the duration of that imbalance. Pregnancy/post-partum depression are obvious examples.

Depression is really a pretty complicated illness. We don't fully understand why certain treatments impact different people in different ways, or why some people are able to stop using antidepressants while other people are not able to do so.

Jeezzz DK... i am so sorry for hearing this... i suffered two major depressions years ago and never took any pills. surely it did cause major problems at the time. i actually attempted suicide once; fortunately i failed. today i know i will never do it again... depression does have other cures, though i wouldn't argue that everyone can do it without some medication.

i really hope you weren't fooled to take those pills when you may have had other ways to overcome your depression...

Nope. Seen the tests of my serotonin and norepinephrine levels.

I would add that therapy along with the Prozac is necessary, as you have to learn to modify your life in order to solve any outstanding issues in reality.

I've been divorced twice, and the first one sent me into this condition. Although my life has been radically transformed back to what I call normal, I still have the chemical imbalance.

I believe that someday they will figure out how to reset that, but until then, I still take the Prozac.

I would agree that a lot of people who don't need it do take it - I know some people who take it merely because it makes them more agreeable (they are in sales).

please, please, please... i'm not implying you should try to come off them now. i don't know you or how long you've taken them and i'm certainly not a doctor.

i believe there are blatantly unhealthy products, like those full with highly saturated fat and sugar.

So butter and sugar should be classified as "unhealthy" products, then?


you cannot say that eating one pack of crisps a week is the same as eating none.

Golly, I guess you've got me there. Eating something is, indeed, different than not eating something.


if you didn't consume them too much you wouldn't be over-paying that tax.

How much is "too much"? And how do you know that a person buying crisps is buying them every week?


if you believe that you must live in utopia because modern societies are going the opposite way. tv is becoming increasingly worse and full of entertaining rubbish with little information, unless you have access to specialised channels (usually paid), education is no longer free and the internet usually does not reach the poorest of the poorest parents who are educating and feeding their children.

Sure, there are plenty of problems in the world. None of these amounts to advertising = brainwashing.


because you are born with an empty mind and it does not depend on you what goes in there first.

As a neuroscientist, allow me to disabuse you of this notion. You are not born with an "empty mind" at all. At least, not if you're human.


not saying this removes all responsibility from the individual, just saying it places some on society as well.

I believe in trusting individuals to make choices about what they eat and drink. I believe in providing them with information about the ingredients in what they are eating, and allowing them to decide whether they wish to consume those ingredients. I believe that other individuals will know more about their own medical status, dietary needs, and health than I know, so it's up to them to monitor and maintain their own body.


parents do not spend as much time with their children these days as they did 50 years ago, when there was always someone around (usually the mother). advertising in children's channels and between children's programs should be banned. children do not have money to spend. they should not be targets.
Given that, as you say, children do not have money to spend, what does it matter if they are "targetted" by ads? It's still up to their parents to choose whether or not the child gets a certain product. It's the parents' responsibility.

Frankly, if there is an adult human being who feels unable to resist the commands coming from their television, then I think that is a person who shouldn't be allowed to have children in their home in the first place.

That isn't entirely true, actually.

For many people, your description is accurate, and they will "relapse" into depression if they go off their medication.

However, some people are able to gradually step down off their medication after a certain amount of time (usually a period of several years, at least) without a return of all their depression symptoms.

It's not entirely clear why, but for some people it appears that antidepressants may be able to somehow shift the balance of chemicals in the brain. After a while, the brain is able to maintain levels of transmitter that are more "normal," and the patient no longer requires drug treatment to stave off depression.

There are also people for whom depression is caused by a temporary imbalance, and they only require drug treatment for the duration of that imbalance. Pregnancy/post-partum depression are obvious examples.

Depression is really a pretty complicated illness. We don't fully understand why certain treatments impact different people in different ways, or why some people are able to stop using antidepressants while other people are not able to do so.
what i do wonder is if - in some cases - taking anti-depressants can actually aggravate the imbalance or make a temporary one permanent...

taking heroin also creates a very permanent chemical imbalance in a person that could be balanced before... that's how hard drugs work really.

As a neuroscientist, allow me to disabuse you of this notion. You are not born with an "empty mind" at all. At least, not if you're human.

that's not saying much, in the case of some people I've met.

Some seem to have been born with the same startup code that you find in a garden slug.

what i do wonder is if - in some cases - taking anti-depressants can actually aggravate the imbalance or make a temporary one permanent...

One of the major problems that we run into is that depression is simultaneously a physical and "psychological" matter. The two overlap a lot, but there are also areas where they don't.

A very real danger is being too quick to medicate without also encouraging counciling options, particularly since there may be issues that the person needs to consciously address if they ever want to be able to fully cope with their depression.

For instance, many people who experience childhood abuse will also be medicated for depression later in life. Some of these people may simply have a physiological makeup that predisposes them to depression, and they might have become depressed even if they had never been abused. However, some of them may need to go through therapy to learn to deal with their memories and feelings about their abuse, and no amount of drug therapy will be able to "cure" them by itself. Still others may have a combination of both conditions.

And, of course, when you start looking at depression in kids you will get an even messier picture, since children are often less able to communicate how they are feeling.

that's not saying much, in the case of some people I've met.

Some seem to have been born with the same startup code that you find in a garden slug.
Plenty of people have brains that they choose not to use...;)

Do you mean you actually get the image, when you look in the mirror, that there is something wrong with your body? That your physical form is 'wrong'...?

Yup. I have come to terms with having a female body, and I find plenty of ways to have fun with it, but it always has felt to me as though I were wearing a mask over my entire body.

To make it even more confusing, I like my body. I also am glad I don't have a penis, because I am certain I would be forever banging it into things and zipping it into things (I'm helplessly clumsy). In a way, I am glad to have a female body instead of a male body...but it still doesn't feel like it IS my body. It feels like I got swapped with somebody else by mistake, though I have come to enjoy the body that I ended up with.


Or - do you just mean, you enjoyed tomboyish activity, and feel better suited to some aspects of your oppositely gendered world?
That too. :)

So butter and sugar should be classified as "unhealthy" products, then?
well, i'm thinking more chocolate, crisps, cookies, pizza and the like; not exactly basic food products like butter and sugar.
Golly, I guess you've got me there. Eating something is, indeed, different than not eating something. How much is "too much"? And how do you know that a person buying crisps is buying them every week?
you don't need to know. if you buy them every week (or every day) you pay more tax than if you don't buy them.
Sure, there are plenty of problems in the world. None of these amounts to advertising = brainwashing. As a neuroscientist, allow me to disabuse you of this notion. You are not born with an "empty mind" at all. At least, not if you're human.
i'm not a neuroscientist so i won't argue about the "empty mind". i accept there is some information and predisposition, as a result of genetics and the time the baby spends in the mother's womb and starts collecting sensorial information. still, i think you know exactly what i meant, considering i'm not a specialist. guess what, you're a neuroscientist and i've got a degree in communication design and advertising and been a teacher at university. i know exactly how subversive advertising is, from a psychological point of view. i studied Freud as part of the history of advertising.
I believe in trusting individuals to make choices about what they eat and drink. I believe in providing them with information about the ingredients in what they are eating, and allowing them to decide whether they wish to consume those ingredients. I believe that other individuals will know more about their own medical status, dietary needs, and health than I know, so it's up to them to monitor and maintain their own body.
and - again - i believe you are living in utopia if you believe everyone has got as much common sense as you and i may have, regarding dietary practice. if this wasn't true, the world wouldn't have so many problems with obesity as it is having today. if we're living in a much more informed society than 20 years ago, why is obesity a much bigger problem than it was then?
Given that, as you say, children do not have money to spend, what does it matter if they are "targetted" by ads? It's still up to their parents to choose whether or not the child gets a certain product. It's the parents' responsibility.
because children will nag their parents over and over about all the toys and fast-food they are sold on TV, without having a clue whether their parents can afford them. it causes unwanted anxiety to the child and - consequently - to the parents. not all parents will know how to deal with the increasing pressure.
Frankly, if there is an adult human being who feels unable to resist the commands coming from their television, then I think that is a person who shouldn't be allowed to have children in their home in the first place.
let me emphasise this: i know what i am talking about, when it comes to advertising. i won't lecture you on neuroscience. please, don't lecture me on advertising.

well, i'm thinking more chocolate, crisps, cookies, pizza and the like; not exactly basic food products like butter and sugar.

You said that the high concentration of fat and sugar are what make products unhealthy. So why would you tax products that contain fat and sugar, while not doing anything about fat and sugar?


you don't need to know. if you buy them every week (or every day) you pay more tax than if you don't buy them.

Um, if you buy anything more often you will (logically) pay more than if you didn't buy that thing.

The whole point is why you should tax something that is not necessarily unhealthy. You seem to be arguing that crisps should be taxed because eating them "too often" is unhealthy, but this still means that it's possible to each crisps infrequently and not suffer any ill effects. Why should somebody have to pay extra for crisps if the crisps will have no effect on their health?

And, again, ANYTHING is unhealthy if you eat it enough. Drinking too much water can be deadly, so should water be taxed additionally? Eating too many oranges can be lethal, so should oranges be taxed?


i'm not a neuroscientist so i won't argue with the "empty mind". i accept there is some information and predisposition, as a result of genetics and the time the baby spends in the mother's womb and starts collecting sensorial information. still, i think you know exactly what i meant, considering i'm not a specialist.

All I have to go on is what you type. The statement you typed out was incorrect, so that's what I replied to.


guess what, you're a neuroscientist and i've got a degree in communication design and advertising and been a teacher at university. i know exactly how subversive advertising is, from a psychological point of view. i studied Freud as part of the history of advertising.

Yes, advertising is designed to be convincing. Yes, it is designed to exploit human psychology in order to sell products. Yes, advertising can have an enormous impact on what people choose to consume.

No, none of this equates to "brain washing." You are perfectly capable of not purchasing items, no matter what commercials you've seen. If you feel unable to resist buying things after you see advertisements, I seriously suggest you seek help from a professional...that kind of compulsive behavior can become very destructive. (I'm not being sarcastic, here. There are people who feel unable to resist buying things or stealing things or eating things, and these are serious conditions that require professional help.)


and - again - i believe you are living in utopia if you believe everyone has got as much common sense as you and i may have, regarding dietary practice.

Perhaps some people do not show as much common sense, I don't really know. Or care. The fact is that they have the ABILITY to show this common sense. If they CHOOSE not to exercise good judgment then that is their business, provided they are not injuring anybody else in the process.


if this wasn't true, the world wouldn't have so many problems with obesity as it is having today. if we're living in a much more informed society than 20 years ago, why is obesity a much bigger problem than it was then?

First of all, I do not believe that the "obesity crisis" is actually a medical crisis at all. But, more importantly, I don't believe advertising is to blame for people becoming obese. I have never heard of an ad that had the power to cause somebody to gain weight.


because children will nag their parents over and over about all the toys and fast-food they are sold on TV, without having a clue whether their parents can afford them. it causes unwanted anxiety to the child and - consequently - to the parents. not all parents will know how to deal with the increasing pressure.

Then that is a failure on the part of the parents. Children have been nagging their parents for treats since long before modern advertising was invented, and they would continue to do so even if every form of advertising was removed from the planet. If a parent is unable to act in a responsible manner, then they should not be allowed to care for children at all.


let me emphasise this: i know what i am talking about, when it comes to advertising. i won't lecture you on neuroscience. please, don't lecture me on advertising.
I'm not "lecturing" you. I am simply disagreeing with you. If you want to disagree with me on a neuroscience-related topic, that's perfectly fine. Facts are facts, no matter who holds what degree.

You said that the high concentration of fat and sugar are what make products unhealthy. So why would you tax products that contain fat and sugar, while not doing anything about fat and sugar?
maybe i would, maybe i wouldn't... i don't know... i would need to ask advice from dietary experts before deciding (if it was my decision) on basic products like butter and sugar, while never ignoring low-income families' needs (who would be most vulnerable). we're talking hypothetically and my mind is open about which products to tax, while yours doesn't seem to be open to the idea at all.
Um, if you buy anything more often you will (logically) pay more than if you didn't buy that thing.
you asked "and how do you know that a person buying crisps is buying them every week?". i answered your question: "you don't have to know". the more you buy, the more you pay, just like with cigarettes.
The whole point is why you should tax something that is not necessarily unhealthy. You seem to be arguing that crisps should be taxed because eating them "too often" is unhealthy, but this still means that it's possible to each crisps infrequently and not suffer any ill effects. Why should somebody have to pay extra for crisps if the crisps will have no effect on their health? And, again, ANYTHING is unhealthy if you eat it enough. Drinking too much water can be deadly, so should water be taxed additionally? Eating too many oranges can be lethal, so should oranges be taxed?
in that sense, we should ban those high taxes on tobacco then, since i may choose to smoke one cigarette a day after lunch and that's probably not as unhealthy as someone eating a 1 kg packet of highly saturated fatty crisps every day. see what i mean?
All I have to go on is what you type. The statement you typed out was incorrect, so that's what I replied to.
fair enough.
Yes, advertising is designed to be convincing. Yes, it is designed to exploit human psychology in order to sell products. Yes, advertising can have an enormous impact on what people choose to consume. No, none of this equates to "brain washing." You are perfectly capable of not purchasing items, no matter what commercials you've seen.
but a 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 year old child can't make that judgement... my view is that in the case of children it is very close to brain-washing and can cause unnecessary anxiety and stress to children and - consequently - to their parents. plus, a child today is an adult of tomorrow... for a child, advertising is like indocrination, indocrination, indocrination...
If you feel unable to resist buying things after you see advertisements, I seriously suggest you seek help from a professional...that kind of compulsive behavior can become very destructive. (I'm not being sarcastic, here. There are people who feel unable to resist buying things or stealing things or eating things, and these are serious conditions that require professional help.)
not me, i hate shopping but i would argue i'm part of a minority these days and i don't assume that everyone is like me.
Perhaps some people do not show as much common sense, I don't really know. Or care.
i'm surprised to hear that actually. maybe you should care a bit more about people, being in a medical profession. if you don't care about people having common sense, i wonder why you chose medicine; to feed your ego or your wallet? i really hope not. i quit advertising because i care about people and i do not want to support their exploitation, weather at home or in sweatshops, at the cost of giving up my nicely located rented flat and the car i had been paying for 3 years... i guess medicine pays better these days, thanks to advertising as well... not with my help anymore (i'm sure they had no trouble finding a cheaper replacement).
The fact is that they have the ABILITY to show this common sense. If they CHOOSE not to exercise good judgment then that is their business, provided they are not injuring anybody else in the process.
tell that to a child... do you realise that if you grow up in front of a TV because your parents are too lazy to find other activities for you, you will become indoctrinated with dreams, dreams, dreams that are simply not at the reach of everyone, however much advertising makes it look as if they are? when children start killing children for a pair of nike trainers, don't tell me advertising has nothing to do with it...
First of all, I do not believe that the "obesity crisis" is actually a medical crisis at all.
i really don't understand what you mean here. if obesity is not a medical crisis i don't know what medical crisis are anymore... or what medicine is all about anymore... can't be about improve people's health and saving lives.
But, more importantly, I don't believe advertising is to blame for people becoming obese.
there are many reasons why people are obese these days and advertising is just part of the equation.
I have never heard of an ad that had the power to cause somebody to gain weight.
how about mcdonalds ads between children's programs? are you going to lecture me that advertising does not have any impact on adults, never mind on a child's mind?!

you are a neuroscientist. you should be acknowledging that fast-food is claimed to be very addictive. if you don't agree, discuss it with these guys:
Fast food 'as addictive as heroin'
Hamburgers and French fries could be as addictive as heroin, scientists have claimed.

Researchers in the United States have found evidence to suggest people can become overly dependent on the sugar and fat in fast food.

The controversial findings add weight to claims that over-eating is simply down to a lack of self-control.

"Some animals - and by extension some people - can become overly dependent on sweet food"
Dr John Hoebel, Princeton University

It may also explain soaring rates of obesity in the western world.

Dr John Hoebel and colleagues at Princeton University in New Jersey based their theory on a study of rats.
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2707143.stm
Then that is a failure on the part of the parents.
everyone can sell crap to individuals without proper medical research or information on health risks but the blame is always of the individual... it's fine selling fast-food in school and university canteens but blame the individuals. that's all society does today; blaming individuals. yes it is a failure of the parents but we don't live in a perfect world and we don't have perfect parents. some parents still smoke in front of children. this is why i feel that governments should draw some lines, not on the parents but on the corporations. modern societies seem to be turning into anarchies, with governments being corporation's muppets. no need for balance or common sense, because we want unbalanced people without common sense; they make better compulsive buyers.
Children have been nagging their parents for treats since long before modern advertising was invented, and they would continue to do so even if every form of advertising was removed from the planet.
do you even know when "modern advertising" was invented in the first place? children nag for things (we all do to a certain extent - e.g. wage rise) and yes they would continue to nag for as long as they had sensorial contact with the treats but increasing over-indulgence in TV and excessive advertising is not helping an inch making those children less anxious about wanting them, it's just pilling up the amount of treats they will nag about, pilling up anxieties and potentially future disorders. ever heard of ADHD? of course you have... that is your department, not mine:
Brain clues to attention disorder
ADHD is linked to brain abnormalities

Scientists have found differences in the brains of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

University of California Los Angeles researchers found some areas of the brains of the children were smaller, but others had more grey matter.

Other studies have suggested that ADHD is linked to abnormalities in areas of the brain which control attention.

But the latest study suggests there are also structural changes in areas which control impulsive behaviour.

"This should give food for thought to those who view ADHD as a 21st century construct."
Dr Mark Berelowitz

The researchers say they were able to combine the latest scanning technology with computer analysis to provide more detailed information about the differences in the brains of ADHD children.

ADHD is a serious behavioural disorder which experts estimate may affect up to 6% of children.

People with the condition have a poor attention span and tend to be impulsive and restless.

However, the underlying cause is still poorly understood.
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3284629.stm

do you realise that ads are purposely and extremely charged with sensorial stimulus, loud and contrasting sounds, loud and contrasting colourful and beautiful images that you simply don't see or hear in real life (nowhere near as often)? do you realise that when you place all different adds together, a 15 minutes commercial break is like standing for 15 minutes in front of a kaleidoscope of different colours, images and sounds? that's what "we" do to grab your attention... imagine the impact on a child's mind. real life will never match advertising in sensorial vibrancy... now tell that to a 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, X year old child.

hey... maybe i could help you become famous. do a bit of research trying to establish a link between the amount of time children suffering from ADHD spend in front of the TV, playstations, how much they are exposed to advertising, how much time they spend in shopping malls, whether they wear a uniform at school or they are exposed to brands, brands, brands, different colours, different sounds...

are you more interested in finding the root of the problems or selling the cure?
If a parent is unable to act in a responsible manner, then they should not be allowed to care for children at all.
and how exactly are you planning to stop them not having a child?
I'm not "lecturing" you. I am simply disagreeing with you. If you want to disagree with me on a neuroscience-related topic, that's perfectly fine. Facts are facts, no matter who holds what degree.
well, we obviously disagree on what the facts are and we are free to not move from our positions. i'm failing to convince you and you are failing to convince me.

somehow, i do have a feeling that you are here defending more of your own financial interests than the mental health of your patients. i really hope i am wrong. please prove me wrong, because i really don't want to believe you are one of those medicine men whose main interest is keeping that steady stream of patients coming. the ones dressed in white, who are supposed to come to the rescue and save the world but who are wolf in sheep's skin.

are you being inconsequent or hypocritical? either way, your position in society demands better than that from you or - at least - so it should.

Yes. That's a good thing, more soylent green to the rest of us!
On a serious note then...I despise smokers with every fibre of my body. My father smoked and died from it.

Interesting. You despise your dead father with every fibre of your body.

I'm no psychologist but I think this has more to do with your mental issues than the topic at hand.

Smokers know they'll get sick from it sooner or later. Yet they do it and at the same time force non smokers to inhale their toxic fumes...egoistical fuckers. I wouldn't weep for a second if all smokers dropped dead right...now. Unfortunatly it's just wishful thinking.

Actually, I know I'll get sick sooner or later, period. Or what, you think health and beauty and life last forever? Ha. This just shows the absurd naivete of anti-smokers. You think that if we just get rid of that pesky minority of smokers, everything will be fine.

And you who are talking about wishing DEATH on 20+% of the population, call OTHERS egotistical? You who thinks all smokers should die, just because your old man did? What a laugh.

Well, we all know my position on nationalized medicine, so there's no point in me saying anything here.

LOL. i just noticed i'm a "Pimp" now... ROFL :D

I agree in general with the concept of making those responsible for their own ill health play some part in paying for the NHS (wonderful organisation) to fix it. What I would propose, however, is a one-chance scheme. If it was caused by something like smoking or obesity, then the NHs would treat it ONCE. If the person continues to abuse their health and thus requires more treatment, they foot the bill.

i would go further... the FDA is either dangerously corrupted or dangerously incompetent. the major problems involving people trying to come off antidepressants, which have been sold to millions of people as non-addictive and withdrawal symptons free for a long time, is one of the best examples of this. God knows how many people commited suicide or turned maniac killers trying to come-off them, never mind the millions that can't come off them. despite severall warnings, this has been ignored over and over for years.


source here. (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/fda_prozac.html)

talk about a steady income...

i will never take an antidepressant in my life...

Actually - the big corruption I was thinking of, has been the FDA policy of screwing around with things like contraception or morning-after medication, for political reasons.

'Vested Interest' is the least accusation I believe SHOULD be pointed at the FDA.

Yup. I have come to terms with having a female body, and I find plenty of ways to have fun with it, but it always has felt to me as though I were wearing a mask over my entire body.

To make it even more confusing, I like my body. I also am glad I don't have a penis, because I am certain I would be forever banging it into things and zipping it into things (I'm helplessly clumsy). In a way, I am glad to have a female body instead of a male body...but it still doesn't feel like it IS my body. It feels like I got swapped with somebody else by mistake, though I have come to enjoy the body that I ended up with.

That too. :)

:D

I'm no expert, being fairly content with my hardware, collectively. :) But, I have had friends who had very real problems in this area. And the way one friend described it - it was like he was forced into a mutilated body... there was just no way to reconcile what was on the 'outside', with what was 'inside'... and it just wasn't the kind of thing he could ever finally become happy with... anymore than he would have been 'happy' about major facial deformity.

Considering the nature of the surgery, and how precious we are about those parts of our anatomy, it seems unlikely that many people ever get such operations 'on a whim'... Im guessing it's fairly safe to assume the average person who wants such surgery, feels very real need.

Yes, advertising is designed to be convincing. Yes, it is designed to exploit human psychology in order to sell products. Yes, advertising can have an enormous impact on what people choose to consume.

No, none of this equates to "brain washing." You are perfectly capable of not purchasing items, no matter what commercials you've seen. If you feel unable to resist buying things after you see advertisements, I seriously suggest you seek help from a professional...that kind of compulsive behavior can become very destructive. (I'm not being sarcastic, here. There are people who feel unable to resist buying things or stealing things or eating things, and these are serious conditions that require professional help.)


I disagree.

Advertising tends to work on many of the same principles utilised in brainwashing... repetition, tones of assurance, promises of redemption... waiting until you are hungry (try monitoring, over the course of a day, when Pizza Hut have paid for most coverage), or overtired.

Further, as independent as many people like to pretend they are, our televisions, radios and newspapers are still assumed by most, to be fundamentally true... and many people attach this trust indiscriminately... without even realising they do it. It verges on subliminal - but it is the 'pattern' of advertising, not one specific advertisement.