You have to exaggerate your symptoms to get anywhere in the NHS. Say that it has ruined your self worth, you are stressed and constantly uncomfortable, have gained weight due to not being able to exercise etc... It is what I had to do to get through the system faster sadly.
The NHS is overstretched but pretty reasonable --it will not deny you treatment that is necessary. It is more a question of how soon it can fit you in. We have up to a 25% non-attendance rate for some appointments. Sometimes the problem does not lie with the service...
Oh I agree, I love the NHS and I can understand that it must be so frustrating watching people abuse the best free healthcare system in the world. That is where I was coming from, GP's and consultants must be so stretched that they try to prioritise the procedures towards the more extreme and urgent cases.
Well, I think circumcision is a disgraceful practice and I certainly wouldn't put my children through it, or would I for that matter want to see any children in Britain go through it for ridiculous religious tradition. However, the problem is it very much is a part of Jewish and Muslim culture, so you have to ask: a) will banning it really reduce the practice or send it underground? b) can you really stop a community from practising its tradition? c) are there alternatives to outright 'banning' it which could reduce the practise without sending it underground? d) does it contravene a parents right to choose? Right, my personal opinion is that it should be banned until they can give consent at adulthood only if it is likely that it will reduce the practice greatly. My guess is that, in all likelihood, banning it until adulthood will reduce the practice, although some devout parents will either have it done illegally or travel to a country where it is practised legally. However, if banning it does not reduce circumcisions and instead we have the practice continue underground or in a different country, then there is zero point in banning it and it would be safer to keep it legal. We don't want children being circumcised in unsafe conditions (or less safe than it already is now), which could happen if a ban is carried out. See how determining social policy isn't always easy? You just can't say whether or not this policy will be beneficial to children until we have evidence of the consequences it will reap, which we do not yet have. What you really need, however, is change in the religious culture which moves away from stupid practices which unnecessarily mutilates a child's genitalia, because after all that's what it is. We have this thing called progress which religion doesn't seem to understand. Also, just for the sake of argument, yes it does violate a parents right to choose, but the child's right to decide whether to have a fully functioning penis supersedes this concern (just like a mother who wanted a 'tanned' child wouldn't be able to take them to a sunbed shop to bake them under UV rays).
Would you be in favour of charging for non-attendance which isn't reported beforehand? As in, the NHS gives you an appointment which is free so long as you use it, but if you don't use it, you pay, not the government? Seems like it wouldn't take many times not turning up to a consultant at £200 a pop before people would get the message.
Influence at Work have done some good stuff on DNAs with Bedfordshire NHS. I think it was BDO that partnered them in. Do a google for it and you'll find they managed to reduce DNA by over 30% just by making informed adjustments to the process to be more influential on the appointee. Nexxo, your post suggests you work in NHS, I do some work with influence at work - PM me if you have an interest. Sent from my HTC Desire HD using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2
and that behaviour should be treated as we should any other form of child abuse, though an effective social services policy. The fact it has been done will come out to the medical profession at some point - quite promptly if it is not done with appropriate equipment, sterilisation, etc. I disagree, for example, domestic abuse is not legal and is an 'underground' / hidden activity, but we do not give up attempts to punish those doing wrong or falsely legitimise it through acceptance. Rather than articulating the difficulty, your comments only highlight that the policy requires attention to secondary impact and unintended consequences. But we have a full suite of public services that can provide all the required services, through all the social, regulatory, investigatory, and punitive implications. Difficult or far reaching is not a sufficient reason for inaction. "The triumph of evil requires only that good men do nothing" Until religion matures (unlikely as it is a highly immature group mentality typically perpetuated by fear) it is up to society and by implication government to directly oppose destructive behaviours which are not in. The interests of the greater good. The parents have no right to choose in either example. Morally, ethically, and legally; No guardianship, power of attorney, vested authority (excepting the courts), or parental right can supercede the rights of the individual to live free from pain unless they choose otherwise. Ps this reads a bit challenging but I'm not attacking you, just seeking to move the debate forward Sent from my HTC Desire HD using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2
To be fair, from what I've seen the problem IS with the service. Nothing to do with being overstretched or understaffed, just a baffling system of organisation. Seeing my GP is simple: book an appointment, turn up to the clinic, sign in, wait about 10 mins and then go and see her. Seeing my audiologist is even simpler: turn up anytime on a Wednesday afternoon, grab a ticket wait 30 mins and go and see them. That's all pretty dandy. My problem is when I go see my optometrist/geneticist. Turn up at the hospital 15 mins early and sign in (it'd be nice if they could bump up your appointment depending on when you arrive but I'm not really going to complain about that), wait 40 mins, get called for eyedrops which takes about 30 seconds, get told you have to wait another 30 mins for the pupils to dilate, wait 30 mins, wait another 10 minutes, go to get a photograph of retinas taken (takes about 2 mins), wait another 20 mins, finally get called to see the doctor. It's not just this but other things such as the way appointments are handled; you can't book an appointment for a particular day, nor are you able to give any indication as to when you are unable to attend; you book it and then the time and date get mailed to you two weeks later which you then have to change if you then can't make it. Why can't all this take place at the hospital? I'm not expecting everything to be slick as an otter in an oil slick but it just reeks of a lack of proper time management. I'm not saying that non-attendance and a tight budget aren't issues but I suspect that a lot of problems are simply down to administration (or, I suspect, a lack of in terms of trying to manage these things efficiently, I suspect things are run in terms of a just-get-it-done basis). Overall the NHS is actually a very good service, at least in my opinion, but the way it does so many things are quite simply bizarre.
Yes, definitely. I can see how most people attending clinics find it a less than smooth experience. The problem really is that they are all overbooked. We know it, the patients know it, management know it. But they cannot afford to hire more staff so people get crammed into the clinics that are available.
But where do you draw the line? Some would argue that teaching religion as a way of life to children is a form of child abuse anyway, yet we wouldn't ban the outright teaching of religion until the child can 'decide for itself' (or would you?). So do we ban religious schools which teach man made hocus pocus religious scripture as fact? Now I know you will say something like 'well teaching children religious beliefs is different from permanently restructuring a part of their body', and I would agree with that, but others would suggest they are both undesirable and should be banned. But banning something doesn't always have the intended effects you want to achieve, which is why you should be cautious before you make drastic actions like 'banning' something. I'm inclined to agree, but millions of Jews and Muslims, and a minority of doctors and specialists, would probably not describe it as a form of abuse. I don't quite follow you here. My point is this: let's pretend a ban is put in place, but it only results in 20% less circumcisions in Jewish/Muslim children, because their parents either pursue it underground or travel abroad to have it done. Now because of this, there are tenfold more medical complications in children having circumcisions, because the places where they have it done illegally lack proper medical oversight. Even though we both agree it harms the child having it done, the intended consequences of the social policy are not realised when it's actually put in place (i.e it sends the practice underground which harms children more). Only if the 'destructive behaviours' can definitely be determined to be destructive and if the consequences of the social policy can really help the issue for children. Legally prohibiting the action of something is different from actually reducing the action - i.e. if it's still a feature of the religious community it will be whether it is legalised or prohibited. As I said before, I believe you really need to engage with them and ask them to change to a more moderate stance - such as encouraging religious parents to wait until the child can decide to have it done. This is a less radical than banning something in law without the religious communities consent. So would you have them (the parents) banned from leaving the country to pursue the operation for their child also?
I think there is a semantic difference here. Teaching about religion is a good idea. It advances critical thought, and provides a vehicle for considering and discussing morality, ethics, and the bearing of context in such matters. This is however different to teaching religion, which I believe strongly should be the preserve of the organized religions with people who make an informed choice to join and study. By doing the former you prepare people to make an informed choice on the latter. I suppose in essence i'm in favour of teaching the child to be able to make the decision. Copy pasta is a PITA on a tablet but you also mentioned banning things having unintended consequences and I agree. I actually don't see it as banning, I see it more in terms of applying our existing laws to something which is perverse and barbaric but has somehow managed to gain some form of exemption from prevailing legislation up till now. Its really no different to when the lights came on around the clergy and the choirboys in the public consciousness. People sometimes take a long time to really think about something that isn't a big issue for them personally. Probably not, but volume of believers does not equate to the veracity of the belief. Also the kid gloves around religion have to come off sometime. I don't profess to knowing the relevant passages of holy scripture, but I would be surprised to find such that says circumcision is necessary for the faith. And even if that is stated, I would expect the statement to reference this applicable to 'man, not baby. Both mulsims and jews have rites of passage to adulthood I think, surely then this would be the time for such a procedure? As stated, I am working on supposition here as far as the religions are concerned. The underlying facts stand regardless that the practice is unnecessary and inappropriate in an evolved rational society. Most religious practices would fall into the same category but this one does physical harm which crosses the line. But this is an unpleasant likelihood,. Rationally it would be a short term impact for long term gain, however uncomfortable that might be it remains the most ethical choice, or the highest quality for those fans of ZAMM, and requires other supporting practices to enforce the ban on our shores. If done elsewhere then you are right, cannot be enforced by local laws, but the cost alone would serve to make the practice less accessible to many. I don't know that I have an effective and realistic solution for this. I agree with you that engagement is appropriate but there remains the fact that the authority figures of religious organizations are inherently intransigent and indoctrinated. For this reason alone I would pursue the ban to force a period of engagement to seek an alternate and still allow for the implementation of a ban in the event of intransigence. In truth this might also identify in advance the likely underground avenues in advance and allow more focussed planning for mitigation of the associated risks. Sent from my MZ604 using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2
Summed up my opinion rather nicely. However, I do understand that certain religions have their customs and traditions. Doesn't this boil down to which has more power, a persons human rights who can't speak for themselves vs traditions? Seems like the opposite of the euthanasia argument. With circumcision, a parent can decide they want this and that done to their child, when the child is unable to protest to it, yet it is legal. With euthanasia, its wanted by the party who cannot communicate, but it is not legal. I admit they are drastically different, the snip isn't as serious as ending a life, but legally speaking, they can't be that different, as its someone putting their opinion on somes human rights, except with euthanasia there is the added weight of the actual person wanting to die.
I'd be curious to know how many of the people arguing that parents should not be allowed to mutilate their children are fine with abortion. Seems there's a lot of similarity in the general principle behind the two things (except abortion is more destructive).
That is an interesting point. I would say it always comes down to what is in the best interest of the child (born or unborn).
In an apparent contradiction I agree with abortion prior to formation of neural structures. I believe it is worse to permit continuation if the child is not wanted and will not or can not be provided for properly. Sent from my HTC Desire HD using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2
To be honest I don't think the general principle between the two issues is similar at all. The consequences of a botched circumsicion affect an individual for their entire lives, abortion is a life that ceases to be; one issue is about the ethics of causing suffering, the other is about the ethics of ending life (without any apparent suffering). For me the issue of abortion is much closer to that of vegetarianism.
I'm a chronic fence sitter on many things, but do enjoy exploring ideas even if I don't reach firm conclusions. There are definitely parallels that can be drawn between the two, in that they both entail a permanent alteration to the individual, and that in both instances they are performed for a variety of reasons, some medical and some down to personal preference (imho, abortion as a form of contraception is most definitely a matter of personal preference and not a medical basis).
Same argument could be used to make female version legal, but that it will just continue in a different place cannot be an argument for endorsing this kind of activity, should pride murders also be allowed because it is a cultural thing? When something like this is legal it sends the image that it is an accepted activity in our society, not something I can get behind under any circumstances. Interesting point, when do other people get to enforce changes or actions on other people. The relations between the two things are quite clear and as you state it really is just the two different sides of the same coin. Personally for a very controlled version of euthanasia simply because I have seen one too many people living in nothing but a world of agonizing pain it simply cannot be right that such a miserable existence must be maintained by all means necessary just because of the feelings of other people. Sorry but you equate this with this, needless to say I have a hard time relating a non developed fetus with a living baby. You can argue when we are talking about a child and when we are talking about a fetus, a difficult subject to be sure but not related to the subject here.
All I was saying was that I'm sceptical you can reap social change just through changes in the law when the majority of Jews and Muslims (or at least their leaders) are against this change, and it could possibly make the situation worse for children (the ones you're trying to protect) even if in principle I'm in agreement with the majority here that the practice is wrong. That wasn't just my opinion, by the way, it was the opinion of medical professionals like the head of the German Medical Association, Frank Ulrich Montgomery, who said the ban will mean an increased risk of this task being performed by lay people which, because of poor hygiene conditions, could lead to serious complications. Obviously, that's just his opinion and he could be wrong, but religious people are notoriously uncompromising when it comes to issues about their faith, and I wouldn't be surprised if a great majority of them continued the practice underground or caught a plane to do it in a different country. Now then, we have had social change through law before, like when we banned smoking in enclosed public places in 2007, but I would argue that the conditions were there within society (i.e. it had support both from non-smokers and smokers, with approx 78% of the public in favour) before it was put through. On this issue, although I'm no expert of course, I would suggest there is much less support for a ban within Jewish/Muslim communities, who are of course the main groups which will be effected by the ban, than there was support for a smoking ban in 07. British support for a circumcision ban will likely be high, and that's certainly the case in the various polls I'v seen tonight, but they're not going to be effected by the social policy - unless of course British Jews and Muslims do in fact support a ban.
