Britain's alcohol-related death rate is soaring compared to other European countries, says a recent study. The death toll from cirrhosis of the liver among men in Scotland more than doubled between the periods of 1987-1991 and 1997-2001. In England and Wales, the mortality rate increased by more than two-thirds. The mortality rate among women increased by 46 per cent in Scotland and 44 per cent in England and Wales. Excessive drinking kills 22,000 Britons each year. "These relative increases are the steepest in western Europe, and contrast with the declines apparent in most other countries examined, particularly those of southern Europe," the researchers wrote in the Jan. 7 issue of the medical journal The Lancet. In November 2005, the British government eased laws allowing pubs and bars to stay open around the clock. "Current alcohol policies in Britain should be assessed by the extent to which they can successfully halt the adverse trends in liver cirrhosis mortality," the researchers concluded. So what do you figure is the answer? I say just drink more american beer, it's basically all water anyway! But seriously, have you, or somebody you know died from cirrhosis of the liver? If you died from it, I wan't to know how you're posting!
In defence of Scotland, if you weren't counting Glasgow things'd be a lot better. That city really is the poopshoot of Scotland. Anyway, overall the problem is nothing to do with opening times, its to do with the way we view alcohol in the UK. We have this massive problem with the way we view alcohol, in a way that the europeons don't. They seem to be able to consume it maturely, we don't.
Interestingly, specofdust and I were discussing such brainy matters in the Cannabis thread recently. The problem, and (sort of) answer, in our view, is as follows:
One of the fallacies in cause-of-death statistics is that everybody gets to die sooner or later. Nexxo's numbers in the cannabis thread nearly made me reach for my pen but I decided to have a *** instead. Cut down on one cause of death (eg, smoking-related) and another (eg, drink or obesity-related) will go up, death happens to everybody. Adds up to 100% every time. But nobody dies of old-age anymore, always got to be a medical reason. He smoked, therefore it killed him. Never mind he was 92, add it to the smoking-related list. When I go I want some cause on the certificate that hints to people I enjoyed the living bit. A clapped-out liver seems fair exchange for a good few gallons of Scotch.
Not so. Such data are compared using specific statistical methods ("survival analysis" e.g. Time-to-Event Regression Modelling and Proportional Hazard Modelling) that control for such factors. We are not talking about some elderly person gently slipping into the hereafter at 92 because their body gave out, but of people dying of quite messy and unnatural health complications in their mid to later life where their peers do not. Everybody dies, but not at age 40 with a busted liver, lung cancer or clogged up coronaries.
OK, examples of the lies, damn lies and statistics, kindly furnished by yourself. However, Here we seem to have a smidgeon of fact mixed in with the guesstimates. A non-smoker can expect to live, on average, 4 years 3 months longer than a smoker? See quote #2. Liver cirrhosis may be no fun way to die, but not many of the diseases of old age are. Perhaps when the time comes for 'gently slipping into the hereafter' society will have come round to helping me on my way, as we would for any loved family pet in suffering. It does seem you've got to be a heavy and consistent drinker to be seriously at risk, more the people who buy their booze in the supermarket rather than the pub. As far as British binge drinking is concerned, I think the anti-social results are the big problem. And if the booze don't get you, the Big Mac will, From http://www.medicinenet.com/cirrhosis/page3.htm#tocf
All statistics involving probabilities are guesstimates. The issue is really about when people die, and how. In the olden days we just accepted that people died "of old age". Now, with improved diagnostics we can more or less exactly pinpoint what gave out, and why, and what makes it more or less likely to happen sooner rather than later. In Holland they've been working on that. It's called "Euthanasia". Except that over there, they tend to be more liberal in its application and do not necessarily ask the patient... Yeah, but a lot of people are serious drinkers and don't think they are... remember, 14 units per week for a woman, 21 for a man. And that's a generous guesstimate. Moreover a unit of alcohol isn't that much: a half a pint of ordinary strength lager/ beer/cider (3.5-4%); a 25ml pub measure of a spirit (40%); a small glass of wine (8-9%) = 1 unit. Note that most wines clock at 12.5% and foreign beers at 5% or higher. Popular spirits such as Vodka clock at 60%. The people that merrily polish of half a bottle of wine every night may think that they are moderate drinkers, but they are not. Let's not even get going on the fats, or the sugars, or the salts. A cursory inspection of most processed foods in the supermarket may lift your eyebrows. People do not eat as healthily as they think they do...
My liver knows who's boss. It is actually amazing the amount of people I know that consider themselves moderate to light drinkers, when they normally put a few beers or few glasses of wine each night, plus their weekend antics.
TBH most things are deemed bad for you these days, if everyone actually took notice of it all we would all live boring lives, hiding away in our houses too scared to go outside because of the pollution, too scared to eat as our diet isn't deemed balanced enough, too scared to drink as the water from the tap contains too many impurities and chemicals trying to combat them, too scared to scared to go to the pub as we'll get lung cancer from the smoke and liver damage from the beer, too scared to drink coffee as caffine isn't good for you etc... (could go on and on but you get the idea, nothing is good for you!) I for one would much rather live for the day and enjoy myself, if I die a few years earlier than I would have otherwise, who cares - at least I actually lived.
That's just the same old rationalisation... Life is about balancing risk. You cannot live without taking some risks, but they generally need to be sensible, calculated risks. There is no guarantee to life; we all could get killed tomorrow. But there is a difference between living with uncertainty and inviting it with open arms to f*** your life up for you. There is a difference between "having a life" and ending up dying of lung cancer, liver cirrhosis or coronary infarct by the time you're 45. Or getting your head kicked in, in an avoidable drunken bar brawl. Or wrapping your car around a tree because you were too pissed to make that turn. There is no glamour or heroism in senseless self-destructive behaviour. That's not having a life, that's wasting it. Just ask George Best. No, wait, he's dead...
That's all well and good, but its an all too British attitude that to "have a life" one needs to get drunk... Sam
Nobody really cares - Longer opening pub times are about politics - not about imrpoving anti-social behaviour or reducing drinking or anything of the sort. New fashion with NHS (certain trusts) seems to be banning smoking altogether - not even allowing staff to smoke at the pub/at home - which I think is total rubbish. At the end of the day - within a few years the NHS in its current form will be history - every treatment will involve some monetary contribution by the patient as well. Or NHS might just supply emergency treatment and not too much more. When that time comes and people start forking out for themselves and their loved ones without a government which pays for everything, people might actually take a few minutes out to think about such things and their consequences (but even that is quite unlikely).
Not aware of that in the three Trusts that my jobs cover (don't ask...). In any case with the murse recruitment difficulties that they are experiencing as it is, I think that they wouldn't get far with that policy. Apart from the fact that several unions would rip them to shreds and there is no way they can legally enforce it. Sounds like a dodgy story to me. I agree with you on where the NHS is heading however, and on how private contributions are the shortest path to health awareness...
thats exactly how i think life should be lived....afterall if im gonna die i might aswell enjoying doing it untill i do.
What sort of vodka are you drinking What makes you so sure? It hasn't worked in America. People don't like looking at the big picture they like looking small scale. e.g. People are aware that smoking will kill them earlier but they still do it. Everyone knows that they should probably do more exercise, but there is something good on telly tonight. It generally takes a big event to motivate someone into changing their behavior, . An uncle who recently died a nasty death from lung cancer, Your mate who had a heart attack because his arteries were so clogged with fat.
The good stuff. Stoly. But very much in moderation. True. Reinforcers need to be concrete and immediate. Even then people may need several of such events to converge because they are so good at rationalising everything. Then they need to have an easily accessible, not-too-difficult to do alternative behaviour to replace the undesired behaviour: knowledge, means and opportunity as well as motive...
And people say Freud was wrong about everything - More and more I think he was right about some of those defense mechanisms.
Freud wasn't wrong. He had some pretty spot-on notions but they were a product of his time, and needed a lot of refining (and he also got some things quite wrong). Think of it as Leonardo Da Vinci's aeroplane --obviously a product of what people knew and how they thought at the time, and it would never have flown --as it was. But it was definitely on the right track, and the hang gliders we have now are based on the same fundamental principles.
Having read a little by him, and learning a little about him, I'd have to say thats because he was a sex obsessed coke addict, who didn't seem to keen on applying his own theories to himself. But thats just a laymans view.
