Apologies for the long silence I have had a break in my blogging not because I ran out of opinions and mad cap ideas but due to lack of time, but if you still haven't tired of my notions I'll start to through them out there again :)
Get into the Ethics Debate
It angers me to say that over the past year I feel I have
become more cynical and less confident in the “power of the people”, or should
I say the vulnerable people and those advocating for them.
I guess the starkest examples of this relate to the removal
of discretionary medical cards from seriously ill children, the increasing gap
between the rich and poor in our society and the lack of progress in relation
to controlling the advertisement and sale of alcohol and tobacco. I’m sure
there are many other examples which could be discussed, but these are the
particular few which have particularly troubled me.
Dr. Ciara Kelly took the brave stand of publically
challenging the HSE in relation to the removal of discretionary medical cards
from seriously ill children or those with lifelong conditions and openly
condemned giving medical cards to all those under six in light of the financial
struggles which still cripple the functioning of the health service in this
country. Much has been said and written in relation to these issues and rather
than repeat what’s been said I’ll just
provide a link below.
I admire Dr. Ciara Kelly because she stuck to her own
personal set of values and the values which she felt are core to her profession
as a doctor. She advocated on behalf of the patients and vulnerable people whom
she treated, and who quite frankly were dealing with enough without having to
prove their need for a medical card to officials in the HSE. She didn’t pull
any punches and she also openly used her own situation as an example of the
gulf between the level of need which those with a healthy child under 6 and
those with an ill child would have. It troubles me to think what would have
happened had she and the families affected had not taken this stand in relation
to the medical card controversy.
How could elected representatives and the directors of the
health service think that it is right to take medical cards from seriously ill
children and the families who devote so much of their time and resources to
care for them at no cost to the state, plunging them into uncertainty and
financial difficulty ? This injustice was compounded by the introduction of free G.P care to children under 6, many of
whom do not require regular attendance at G.P surgeries thereby over-medicalising
childhood and choking up an already stretched system. In my opinion this
represents an attempt at appealing to the voting masses and complete
abandonment a minority of vulnerable citizens.
As a non-drinker, non-smoker I may anger people by writing
about the might of the alcohol and tobacco industry, however I want to clarify
that I don’t have an issue with drinking or smoking per say. To be honest every
smoker I know realises that smoking damages their health and wants to give up
but struggle to do so and as a person with an addictive personality I don’t
underestimate how difficult it is. Similarly I know alcohol and moderate
drinking is perfectly healthy and I often wish I did drink as it can be
extremely social and I’m sure helps to deal with the self-conscious terror
which engulfs me in social situations, nevertheless I doubt my ability to do so
in moderation and don’t want to run the risk of developing an alcohol
dependency. My issue is with the industries surrounding these substances and
the covert tactics they use to market their products, to combat efforts by the
government to reduce their availability and to limit their attractiveness.
These industries are economically powerful with resources and legal expertise
to challenge any well-meaning initiatives from the health service; pedalling on
our fears for the future of the economy and the cultural aspects of Irish life
we value so much.
Recently published statistics
from The National Institute of Cancer Research (NICR) indicate that as a result
of our lifestyle choices incidences of
many cancers are rising at an alarming rate, with cigarette smoking and
excessive alcohol intake contributing to a significant number of cases. In
spite of these alarming statistics behind which lies an enormous human
suffering efforts at reducing the prevalence of these behaviours have been
vehemently opposed. Consider the resistance to the attempts to introduce plain
packaging of cigarettes. This measure, which has been demonstrated to be
effective in making cigarette smoking less attractive to young people and so
decreasing the number of young people taking up the habit. To me this seems
like a no brainer, given the degree of regret many smokers express in relation
to ever having started to smoke and the resources which are channelled into
smoking cessation services.
In my view anything which prevents young people from taking
up smoking is worth it, as the messages on the packages, supported by extensive
medical research, state Smoking Kills. I noticed that the main lobby against
the introduction of plain packaging appear to be coming from those in the
tobacco industry and the legal might which they employ. At a time when we are
just emerging from a recession suggesting that the measure may have a negative
impact on the economy and force more tobacco sales into the black market is an
opportunistic argument , whether it is valid or not. Strangely those who object
to the introduction of a measure which has been demonstrated to decrease the
uptake of cigarette smoking appear to be primarily from middle or upper social
classes, where the incidence of smoking is much lower than that in lower
socioeconomic classes. In this debate those whom are most affected by the
health implications of cigarette smoking have little voice and are reliant on
elected representatives to advocate on their behalf. Somewhere along this path
someone is trying to convince us that the economic success of the tobacco
industry is more important than health and indeed human life. This isn’t a
concept I will buy into and I sincerely hope that the same degree of bravery
which lead to the introduction of the ban on smoking in public places, despite
claims that it would signal the death knell of pubs and cause wide spread
public disorder, is exhibited.
On a similar vein the resistance to two measures which the WHO has recommended as
best buys in terms of improving health , the introduction of minimum pricing of
alcohol and banning of alcohol sponsorship of sport have been resisted by
industry . The objections centre around it’s impact on sport and on alcohol
sales. When we look at the number of huge companies which don’t generate income
from a potentially addictive substance which can seriously damage health and
limit life expectancy there are many, surely they could fill the breach and
facilitate the development of a healthy sporting relationship where it’s
enjoyment and disappointed isn’t associated with alcohol.
For this reason I
welcome with hope President Higgins initiative to stimulate discussion and
debate around ethics. I fear that as our nation has developed and dealt with
the financial setbacks of recent years, we have distanced ourselves from a set
of solid values which determine policy and practice seeking to create a just
society for all. Perhaps we have developed tunnel vision and lost the capacity
to see beyond our own agendas. President Higgins is not alone in his desire to
stimulate conversation around the values which underpin both personal and
societal decisions in this country and indeed on a global level. Former
President Mary Robinson has also asked us to reflect on how our decisions in
relation to climate change can and will impact on future generations,
encouraging us to look beyond our own time on earth and to make efforts to
spare those who follow us from unnecessary suffering which we could have
prevented .
