Health Nazis to quiz patients

[CompleteIdiot]

Doctors, nurses and dentists across Scotland will be trained to quiz thousands of patients about their drinking habits and offer counselling to those breaching safe levels.

 

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/Patients-face-quiz-over-drink.4118481.jp

 

I will personally refuse to answer any questions. The state should not be Big Brother interfering in every aspect of our lives.

[Darren]

Already get it in the Doctor's all the time. Well the last two times I have been anyway. One was to join a practice and the other was after I got concussion while bladdered right enough...

[Chester™]

This isnt a new thing. They have been doing it for years. Hell my mum had to this when she was a nurse and she stopped practising over 15 years ago. My dentist has been asking me that for 10 years so I fail to see the shock over it now.

[CompleteIdiot]

Already get it in the Doctor's all the time. Well the last two times I have been anyway. One was to join a practice and the other was after I got concussion while bladdered right enough...

 

The doctor I had in Glasgow got all shirty about my smoking habits. Years later i saw him on TV being put in prison for being a sex pest that touched up female patients.

 

I do wonder if the information is going to end up on yet another government database.

[ToadKiller Dog]

Seems sensible questions to ask a patient as both smoking/drinking are relevant to your state of health in which doctors are there to look after.

 

They give you advice and its up to you to decide if you know better.

[CompleteIdiot]

This isnt a new thing. They have been doing it for years. Hell my mum had to this when she was a nurse and she stopped practising over 15 years ago. My dentist has been asking me that for 10 years so I fail to see the shock over it now.

 

It depends if it is relevant to the healthcare. If I went in saying that my sleeping was a problem or that I was having blackouts, it would be fair enough to ask about drinking.

 

This is a stage on from that. It is irrelevant government spying and Nazi style 're-education'.

[Chester™]

I do wonder if the information is going to end up on yet another government database.

 

Which your medical records already are! If you get injured on say a business trip in Southampton, they can look up the NHS database to see your past history. Anything that gets added to your medical records even if its a trip to the GP goes onto the computer. As I said, this is nothing new and I fail to see the difficulty with it.

 

Now I understand the point your are trying to make but this stuff already happens. The media are well behind the times in reporting this stuff and only do as its a "buzz" subject of the day.

[Chester™]

It depends if it is relevant to the healthcare. If I went in saying that my sleeping was a problem or that I was having blackouts, it would be fair enough to ask about drinking.

 

This is a stage on from that. It is irrelevant government spying and Nazi style 're-education'.

 

Doctors and nurses could relate anything you come into the surgery with as being related to drinking and smoking. Ask the right and questions and justify the stance and its pretty hard to avoid.

 

I understand where you are coming from but I do think this is paranoia at its finest.

[Therapist]

I will personally refuse to answer any questions. The state should not be Big Brother interfering in every aspect of our lives.

 

Sounds like you have something to hide. Why not own up and accept some help?

[CompleteIdiot]

Seems sensible questions to ask a patient as both smoking/drinking are relevant to your state of health in which doctors are there to look after.

 

They give you advice and its up to you to decide if you know better.

 

So if you go in for a verruca, you expect to be quizzed about your drinking habits?

[Chester™]

So if you go in for a verruca, you expect to be quizzed about your drinking habits?

 

But they could ask how you got it and why you were walking barefeet to contract them. Were you ****ed by chance could be the next question?

[CompleteIdiot]

Sounds like you have something to hide. Why not own up and accept some help?

 

 

The BNP obviously want to protect us from fascism. Not.

 

I am against the concept of this. Not what the questions are about.

[Therapist]

I am against the concept of this.

 

You are against the concept of health professionals trying to help you?

[70's Throwback]

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/Patients-face-quiz-over-drink.4118481.jp

 

I will personally refuse to answer any questions. The state should not be Big Brother interfering in every aspect of our lives.

 

Smacks of a poor attempt at generating a discussion

[CompleteIdiot]

Which your medical records already are! If you get injured on say a business trip in Southampton, they can look up the NHS database to see your past history. Anything that gets added to your medical records even if its a trip to the GP goes onto the computer. As I said, this is nothing new and I fail to see the difficulty with it.

 

Now I understand the point your are trying to make but this stuff already happens. The media are well behind the times in reporting this stuff and only do as its a "buzz" subject of the day.

 

You don't get it. When you have a database that can be used against patients by government, that is nirvana for fascists. If you were Gordon Brown say, do you think you should be allowed to see David Cameron's health records?

 

This is the kind of world we are moving in to.

 

Don't believe me?

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article3965033.ece

[CompleteIdiot]

You are against the concept of health professionals trying to help you?

 

They are there to serve me. I pay their wages through my tax. Government and their minions are there to serve me, not vice versa. That's the way it should be for law abiding citizens.

 

You obviously want a system where you serve government and become a slave to a dictatorship - not surprising given your political leanings.

[CompleteIdiot]

Smacks of a poor attempt at generating a discussion

 

Sheep go bah.

[Chester™]

I believe a lot of what you say. But you have posted on this subject like it something new and to be shocked about. Im telling you it isnt new and this is not an alien concept. My dad used to get letters all the time from the doctor asking for a check up because his records stated he was a heavy smoker.

 

Whilst I agree that the Big Brother state is upon us and should be reined in, sometimes its as black and white as it looks without having to look deeper than it is.

[Chester™]

They are there to serve me. I pay their wages through my tax. Government and their minions are there to serve me, not vice versa. That's the way it should be for law abiding citizens.

 

Then you could look at the flipside of that and say that you take responsibility for your actions but there are some who dont. Your tax doesnt go to paying for services you use but those who abuse their right to do want they want when they want. Is it fair you pay for someone because they dont know their limits?

[RobM]

Sounds like you have something to hide. Why not own up and accept some help?

 

Do you have curtains in your house?

[Therapist]

Do you have curtains in your house?

 

Yes. And blinds too. Why do you ask?

[Chester™]

Yes. And blinds too. Why do you ask?

 

Dont play innocent. You know fine well.

[70's Throwback]

Sheep go bah.

 

 

Pretty ridiculous comment

[ToadKiller Dog]

So if you go in for a verruca, you expect to be quizzed about your drinking habits?

 

I doubt the doctor will shine a light in my face and state "vee have vays of making you talk" .

I wouldnt expect my doctor to preach to me ,just offer advice that if i had a serious problem i would be a fool to ignore but it would be my choice.

I think a doctor should generally inquire about your general health every time you visit.

 

Heavy smoking or Drinking could be relevant on any treatment i had if while discussing my health with the doctor (while he treated the verruca ,) I mentioned a occasional pain in my side /or some lump which turned out to be something more serious.

Often people are scared to mention relevant things to there doctor this could help.

[CompleteIdiot]

Then you could look at the flipside of that and say that you take responsibility for your actions but there are some who dont. Your tax doesnt go to paying for services you use but those who abuse their right to do want they want when they want. Is it fair you pay for someone because they dont know their limits?

 

I'd agree with you if the government were not charging huge amounts in tax on alcohol and cigarettes and if I did not say 'law abiding'.

 

Honest question. Why shouldn't someone be able to smoke or drink themselves silly and be left alone if they pay their taxes and don't break the law?

 

The truth is that if someone does want to stop smoking or is problem drinking, it is only going to be because the person decides they want to stop. They are not going to stop because the nanny state asks them questions to be put on a database.

[CompleteIdiot]

Pretty ridiculous comment

 

Not really. Sheep get herded. They don't think for themselves.

[Therapist]

You know fine well.

 

I don't. You'll have to enlighten me.

[CompleteIdiot]

I doubt the doctor will shine a light in my face and state "vee have vays of making you talk" .

I wouldnt expect my doctor to preach to me ,just offer advice that if i had a serious problem i would be a fool to ignore but it would be my choice.

I think a doctor should generally inquire about your general health every time you visit.

 

Heavy smoking or Drinking could be relevant on any treatment i had if while discussing my health with the doctor (while he treated the verruca ,) I mentioned a occasional pain in my side /or some lump which turned out to be something more serious.

Often people are scared to mention relevant things to there doctor this could help.

 

Often because they are scared the GP will judge them (as they often do). How is the judging and interfering system going to help that?

[CompleteIdiot]

I don't. You'll have to enlighten me.

 

Would you be happy with a CCTV camera in your bedroom or bathroom linked to a government database?

 

It's only around the corner.

 

How about a daughter being filmed while in the toilets by the government while some sleazy CCTV operator gets his cheap thrills?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/sep/17/schools.politics

 

It's happening. Wake up.

[ToadKiller Dog]

Often because they are scared the GP will judge them (as they often do). How is the judging and interfering system going to help that?

 

Dont accept that argument Doctors may judge to some extent but they are not going to sentence you ,i would say its more to do with people being scared what might be found.

Again they offer the advice its your choice to ignore it

[Chester™]

Honest question. Why shouldn't someone be able to smoke or drink themselves silly and be left alone if they pay their taxes and don't break the law?

 

 

Honest Answer: As someone who has studied the NHS for nearly 15 years, I can tell you that the money raised from taxation does not cover how much money is needed in treating people's ailments from excessive drinking and smoking, whether that be through prescriptions, beds, GP appointments, counselling, the list goes on. Whilst I agree it is their choice to do such and only they can "ask" for help, there must be some kind of social responsibility on people who take the freedoms and go beyond excess. Because of such, the taxes we all pay that go to the NHS, do not cover what we alone would use, whether these people are law abiding or not. Is it wrong for doctors etc to ask them about a lifestyle which can impact on others and not only their own? Doctors have taken a hippocratic oath to help people and make sure they live for as long as possible. Surely ignoring a problem such as excessive drinking would be breaking such an oath? If they then turn round and say "I dont want help" well at least they tried and its now back to said person to live such a life and deal with the consequences.

 

Far too many refuse to understand their role with regard to their social rights and responsibilities. Too many fail to understand that their actions may have a direct consequence on others, for example ,they may go into A and E ****ed so take a doctor away from treating someone who comes in after who has been seriously injured in a car crash through no fault of their own (ok sensationalist but im sure you get the idea.)

 

I agree that people should be free to choose but with that freedom there comes distinct responsibilities.

[70's Throwback]

Not really. Sheep get herded. They don't think for themselves.

 

Perhaps you can explain why you think that relates to me? Given that you don't know the first thing about me obviously. Are you really making such an assumption based on me saying that your post smacked of someone desperate to generate a discussion? i.e. I made no comment on the content of the article whatsoever.

 

You seem somewhat defensive...are people not allowed to have a different opinion to you?

[CompleteIdiot]

Honest Answer: As someone who has studied the NHS for nearly 15 years, I can tell you that the money raised from taxation does not cover how much money is needed in treating people's ailments from excessive drinking and smoking, whether that be through prescriptions, beds, GP appointments, counselling, the list goes on. Whilst I agree it is their choice to do such and only they can "ask" for help, there must be some kind of social responsibility on people who take the freedoms and go beyond excess. Because of such, the taxes we all pay that go to the NHS, do not cover what we alone would use, whether these people are law abiding or not. Is it wrong for doctors etc to ask them about a lifestyle which can impact on others and not only their own? Doctors have taken a hippocratic oath to help people and make sure they live for as long as possible. Surely ignoring a problem such as excessive drinking would be breaking such an oath? If they then turn round and say "I dont want help" well at least they tried and its now back to said person to live such a life and deal with the consequences.

 

Far too many refuse to understand their role with regard to their social rights and responsibilities. Too many fail to understand that their actions may have a direct consequence on others, for example ,they may go into A and E ****ed so take a doctor away from treating someone who comes in after who has been seriously injured in a car crash through no fault of their own (ok sensationalist but im sure you get the idea.)

 

I agree that people should be free to choose but with that freedom there comes distinct responsibilities.

 

Smokers pay around 7 times more than what it costs to treat them in cigarette taxes alone (this using the skewed interpretation of what smoking causes). Your argument doesn't stand up.

 

Furthermore, going wild on alcohol is a cultural thing. It isn't automatically how people act if they get intoxicated. In some South American tribes they way to act on alcohol has been to lay down and say nothing. Even in continental Europe, drinking isn't associated with the same social problems - even when done to excess.

 

The problems in our society come from the destruction of the family unit and continual erosion of moral and ethical values. More CCTV, spying, databases and control isn't going to solve the underlying problems.

[CompleteIdiot]

Perhaps you can explain why you think that relates to me? Given that you don't know the first thing about me obviously. Are you really making such an assumption based on me saying that your post smacked of someone desperate to generate a discussion? i.e. I made no comment on the content of the article whatsoever.

 

You seem somewhat defensive...are people not allowed to have a different opinion to you?

 

Join the discussion then and stop being a ninnying blowhard.

[neobis]

I do think this is paranoia at its finest.

 

100% agree.

[coppercrutch]

I do agree with the point that this seems a little 'paranoid'. On its own of course it is.

 

However it is just another small thing to be added to the list. Day after day our freedom is being eroded. The recent revelation that all of our mobile calls and emails may be recorded in future was just another to add to the list....

 

You can't do anything in this country without 'someone' knowing about it. Whilst that can help reduce certain crimes to a degree - overall it is a very bad place we are heading to. IMO.

 

I have read 1984. We are actually living in a time that is scarily close to what was predicted in that book. That book was a warning. Now it is happening for real most people dont seem to give a flying ****.

 

Worrying.

[70's Throwback]

Join the discussion then and stop being a ninnying blowhard.

 

I'm man enough to handle most insults, but 'ninnying blowhard' is a tough one to take!

 

Now, given my original post, why would I want to add to your laboured 'discussion'?

[ToadKiller Dog]

I see nothing in this report that it is about goverment spying ,doctors and other health workers are being asked to ask you about your drinking/smoking habits and offer advice if needed where does it say that your answer will be stored and used against you or that it will even be noted down. I dont think doctors would accept the idea which the seem to do if they were being forced to break there patients confidence .

 

There are plenty thinks going on that are leading maybe more to a big brother state ,this is not one ,this is a good idea.

[Deek]

 

Took this picture from http://www.uk-fags.co.uk/.

 

Is that you Complete Idiot on the front page?

 

The website is very entertaining.

[Rick Grimes]

IF... there was a risk of you being refused treatment for not wanting to discuss your drinking habits, or for lying about them, then there might be a point to this thread. as this isn't the case, filling the thread with overly-emotive language & hand-wringing seems to be more than a bit ridiculous.

[Ulysses]

Government and their minions are there to serve me

 

No they aren't.

[CompleteIdiot]

No they aren't.

 

So how does government work (or how is it meant to work) then?

[Chester™]

Smokers pay around 7 times more than what it costs to treat them in cigarette taxes alone (this using the skewed interpretation of what smoking causes). Your argument doesn't stand up.

Depends on where you look and what stats you look at. As I said ive studied the NHS for nearly 15 years and ive seen all sides of the argument.

 

For someone who is anti-establishment you dont half believe what you read.

 

But im glad you agree that people need to take more responsibility for their actions.

[CompleteIdiot]

Depends on where you look and what stats you look at. As I said ive studied the NHS for nearly 15 years and ive seen all sides of the argument.

 

For someone who is anti-establishment you dont half believe what you read.

 

But im glad you agree that people need to take more responsibility for their actions.

 

No it doesn't depend on what stats you look at. Vast amounts of money go into the Exchequer from cigarette and alcohol duty. It is nothing more than eugenics to refuse people, that have paid huge amounts of tax, medical care.

 

I am beginning to think the NHS should be scrapped. Too many in the NHS and BMA are eugenicists that have forgotten that they are public servants funded by taxpayers.

[Ulysses]

So how does government work (or how is it meant to work) then?

 

If you don't mind, I'll focus on how government isn't meant to work first, and we'll see does that suffice. If not, I'll pursue some lines of thought about the complexities involved in the relationships between public services, government institutions and citizens.

 

Government isn't there to serve CompleteIdiot - nor is it meant to be there to do so. If it was, we wouldn't have elections; CompleteIdiot would pick the government, it would be accountable to him for its performance, and (to make a long story short and less painful) we wouldn't have or need this thread.

 

Government isn't there to serve Ulysses either; nor Chester, nor 70's Throwback, nor Deek, nor........... you get the picture, I'm sure.

 

What government is meant to do is to serve the interests of society collectively. That isn't a simple task, because society isn't a simple thing. Different individuals and groups have different wants, needs and expectations of themselves, each other and government. So the best that government institutions can do is reflect the centre or mainstream of the values and beliefs of society. At the same time, the best that public services can do is to build a core model of service around the mainstream, and add customisation to suit individual, local or regional circumstances where appropriate.

 

The success of this model - especially where government institutions are concerned - depends to a great extent on two things. One is democratic accountability, the other is the principle of "loser's consent". For the first to work, government has to be accountable to society and has to be in a position where society can sack it. For the second to work, people who do not vote for the winners have to be able to accept the right of the winners to govern. This leads to another key principle of democratic governance: governments are elected to serve both those who voted for them and those who did not.

 

Anyway, that's a long way around saying that in a democracy, government is about compromising and finding a path through a myriad of personal, collective and vested interests. But it is not about a transactional relationship between government and each individual.

[Chester™]

No it doesn't depend on what stats you look at. Vast amounts of money go into the Exchequer from cigarette and alcohol duty. It is nothing more than eugenics to refuse people, that have paid huge amounts of tax, medical care.

 

I am beginning to think the NHS should be scrapped. Too many in the NHS and BMA are eugenicists that have forgotten that they are public servants funded by taxpayers.

 

I never said to refuse them care at any point. Thats a point raised by yourself and is irrlevant to this discussion. The stats are there. Believe me or not.

[70's Throwback]

If you don't mind, I'll focus on how government isn't meant to work first, and we'll see does that suffice. If not, I'll pursue some lines of thought about the complexities involved in the relationships between public services, government institutions and citizens.

 

Government isn't there to serve CompleteIdiot - nor is it meant to be there to do so. If it was, we wouldn't have elections; CompleteIdiot would pick the government, it would be accountable to him for its performance, and (to make a long story short and less painful) we wouldn't have or need this thread.

 

Government isn't there to serve Ulysses either; nor Chester, nor 70's Throwback, nor Deek, nor........... you get the picture, I'm sure.

 

What government is meant to do is to serve the interests of society collectively. That isn't a simple task, because society isn't a simple thing. Different individuals and groups have different wants, needs and expectations of themselves, each other and government. So the best that government institutions can do is reflect the centre or mainstream of the values and beliefs of society. At the same time, the best that public services can do is to build a core model of service around the mainstream, and add customisation to suit individual, local or regional circumstances where appropriate.

 

The success of this model - especially where government institutions are concerned - depends to a great extent on two things. One is democratic accountability, the other is the principle of "loser's consent". For the first to work, government has to be accountable to society and has to be in a position where society can sack it. For the second to work, people who do not vote for the winners have to be able to accept the right of the winners to govern. This leads to another key principle of democratic governance: governments are elected to serve both those who voted for them and those who did not.

 

Anyway, that's a long way around saying that in a democracy, government is about compromising and finding a path through a myriad of personal, collective and vested interests. But it is not about a transactional relationship between government and each individual.

 

[CompleteIdiot]

If you don't mind, I'll focus on how government isn't meant to work first, and we'll see does that suffice. If not, I'll pursue some lines of thought about the complexities involved in the relationships between public services, government institutions and citizens.

 

Government isn't there to serve CompleteIdiot - nor is it meant to be there to do so. If it was, we wouldn't have elections; CompleteIdiot would pick the government, it would be accountable to him for its performance, and (to make a long story short and less painful) we wouldn't have or need this thread.

 

Government isn't there to serve Ulysses either; nor Chester, nor 70's Throwback, nor Deek, nor........... you get the picture, I'm sure.

 

What government is meant to do is to serve the interests of society collectively. That isn't a simple task, because society isn't a simple thing. Different individuals and groups have different wants, needs and expectations of themselves, each other and government. So the best that government institutions can do is reflect the centre or mainstream of the values and beliefs of society. At the same time, the best that public services can do is to build a core model of service around the mainstream, and add customisation to suit individual, local or regional circumstances where appropriate.

 

The success of this model - especially where government institutions are concerned - depends to a great extent on two things. One is democratic accountability, the other is the principle of "loser's consent". For the first to work, government has to be accountable to society and has to be in a position where society can sack it. For the second to work, people who do not vote for the winners have to be able to accept the right of the winners to govern. This leads to another key principle of democratic governance: governments are elected to serve both those who voted for them and those who did not.

 

Anyway, that's a long way around saying that in a democracy, government is about compromising and finding a path through a myriad of personal, collective and vested interests. But it is not about a transactional relationship between government and each individual.

 

Socialists are everywhere!

 

Government is there to serve the people that elected it. Of course there are compromises but the term 'public servant' isn't an accident.

 

I am a Libertarian. I believe that consenting adults can do what they want providing that they are not interfering with the liberty of others. That principle of liberty should only be breached if there is a pressing need to do so.

 

Your view is that of socialists and corporate fascists. It is the ethos that government is there to stop people from doing things the majority (mainstream) don't like. This is why we are faced with a plethora of bans, restrictions and general interference in our daily lives.

 

This is where you showed your socialist leanings:

 

So the best that government institutions can do is reflect the centre or mainstream of the values and beliefs of society.

 

Most people are idiots. Likewise, most politicians are idiots. Idiots seeking to reflect the will of idiots creates a poor political system. This is why minimal government is preferable.

 

It is this system that has created the mess we are in. The Elite use the media to make idiots believe things and simultaneously lobby government. Consequently, the idiots request intervention in their lives from the manipulated idiot politicians.

 

How exactly do I escape from this form of government under your system? If I want to worship a new God called Chewbacca or something, the mainstream might not like that. I would have to submit to your government and not worship Chewbacca because that's what the mainstream wants.

 

This isn't a weird hypothetical. Baptists and Amish fled to the US to escape this kind of interference.

 

Libertarians don't have this problem because of the afore mentioned principle of not interfering unless it is absolutely necessary. Your 'mainstream' view is the opposite. It says that interfering is fine as long as enough people believe it.

[Ulysses]

Socialists...................................................................... it.

 

I'm disappointed that you missed the point of what I was saying; not surprised, but disappointed nonetheless.

 

I'll try again.

 

Government isn't there to serve you. It's there to serve us. The balance of what "we" want and expect from government changes over time. Your viewpoint is valid, but so are the viewpoints of others. Right now, the viewpoints of others are in the ascendancy in political terms. That will change, because the balance always changes. But until it changes, you'll just have to put up with it. You can argue to change opinions, you can use your vote, or you can go live elsewhere. But otherwise you're stuck with it, just like the rest of us.

 

That's not an opinion of mine, it's a fact. And if the body politic changes its mind tomorrow and wants a completely different set of things from government, it will still be a fact. Noting the fact doesn't make me a socialist, or a corporate fascist, or anything in particular on the political spectrum. It makes me a realist.

[CompleteIdiot]

I am not expecting the government to serve only me personally. When I say the government is there to serve 'me', I mean all taxpayers and, yes, 'us'.

 

You are trying to explain democracy - an idealised version that doesn't exist. If your view is correct Brown shouldn't have sneaked off to Portugal to sign over our rights to the EU. This is something people in the UK disagree with. That is the 'mainstream'.

 

That is the 'mainstream' not being observed and the government doing what it wants. It is an observable point of when the Elite can't influence us and do what they want anyway.

 

If you understand liberty, you understand that signing away liberty has to be done only when it is necessary.

 

Imagine government as a local council. It is easier that way with your conditioning.

 

Our council is there to repair the roads, pavements, provide schools etc. We pay the council money in order that it can do that. Now imagine that your council takes your money and says it will not repair the roads as much and create edicts on how you live.

 

The council says it will now reflect the mainstream views on the amount of road maintenance and its new socialist edicts. Instead of electing people that are going to repair our roads best, we are electing people that interfere the way we want them to interfere.

 

I just want a nice road to drive on, a pavement to walk on or a school to send my children to. If I want to use these services that I have paid for via tax, no one should be able to interfere unless I am causing trouble to other people. That is liberty.

 

Now in your complex system, people can vote on me walking down the street even if I am not doing them harm. Their democratic dominance is more important. This is why your socialist top down view of democracy makes no sense. We need basic rights in writing that guarantee freedoms despite democracy.

 

I don't think you understand Elite theory so you don't get why the truly democratic paradigm doesn't exist. You are looking up. I am looking down from the position of the Elite knowing what they think about you, how they manipulate your beliefs and how the politicians can't really do anything about it.

 

Read Tragedy and Hope and try to understand the reality. I own a rare copy.