Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Get tough' call on public health
bbc.co.uk ^ | Tuesday, 13 November 2007 | staff

Posted on 11/14/2007 3:38:48 PM PST by Leisler

The government has a duty to look after the health of everyone and sometimes that means guiding or restricting our choices Lord John Krebs, of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics

Government ministers should shrug off media accusations that they are running a nanny state and introduce tougher public health measures, experts say.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics said the time had come to consider a whole host of interventions in the UK after the introduction of a smoking ban.

Its proposes raising alcohol prices, restricting pub opening hours and better food labelling to fight obesity.

The government said it was taking steps to protect public health.

The report by the panel of experts, which include scientists, lawyers and philosophers, said there was a balance to be struck between individual freedom and wider public protection.

But they urged the government not to be afraid to act where there was evidence people were being put at risk by environmental factors.

It praised the action taken over the smoking bans, introduced across the UK countries in recent years, as an example of where the "greater good" outweighs an individual's right to make a personal choice.

The experts said the government and industry should not see such measures as tantamount to creating a nanny state.

Instead, public health interventions should be seen as a "stewardship" role where proportional intervention was only taken when other measures had failed.

The report called on ministers to reconsider the relaxation in pub opening hours and look into increasing the price of alcohol through taxation.

It also said industry should introduce the most effective food labelling methods once the Food Standards Agency review of the issue is completed.

Activity

And it called for town planners and architects to be trained to design buildings and public spaces that encourage physical activity.

There is also an argument for intervening where children with serious respiratory conditions are exposed to smoking at home, it added. But the report did stress that those measures should be determined by the courts.

Lord John Krebs, the chairman of the committee which produced the report, said: "People often reject the idea of a nanny state.

"But the government has a duty to look after the health of everyone and sometimes that means guiding or restricting our choices."

Lord Krebs said there had been a "huge cultural change over what is acceptable" with the introduction of the smoking bans and urged the government to "implement tougher measures".

Dr Tim Crayford, of the Association of Directors of Public Health, agreed the climate was changing.

He said: "We need the government to provide more leadership."

Professor Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians, added: "Their call to examine the impact of 24-hour licensing is particularly welcome as this is most likely to impact on the health of the nation in the long-term."

The government said it was taking steps to protect public health and defended its record on alcohol in particular.

Health Minister Dawn Primarolo said: "The government has introduced a comprehensive strategy to tackle the health and social affects of harmful drinking across the board."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: 1984; agenda21; bravenewworld; bravosierra; cool; healthcare; healthnazis; healthypeople2010; hillary; nanny; socializedmedicine

1 posted on 11/14/2007 3:38:51 PM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Good for the goose, good for the sheeple.

Pick your poison, the Republcrats vill helpz youse be un better citizen, Ya?


2 posted on 11/14/2007 3:45:35 PM PST by Leisler (RNC, RINO National Committee. Always was, always will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

Accused of rationing limited amounts of substandard health care, the government response is predictable and Orwellian: tell the people they’re responsible for their poor health and further limit personal freedom. Never admit that there’s only so much health care available, its substandard, or that its inefficiencies and delays are killing people. Long live Big Brother.


3 posted on 11/14/2007 3:46:25 PM PST by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

The more control they are given, the more they will seek.


4 posted on 11/14/2007 3:48:36 PM PST by EasySt (Life is precious. Live it well...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

“The government has a duty to look after the health of everyone....”

The error of that sentiment resolves itself to tyrannous “solutions”.


5 posted on 11/14/2007 3:49:27 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler; Gabz; SheLion

bump & a health nazi/nanny state ping

These control freaks would drive teetotalers to drinking.


6 posted on 11/14/2007 3:51:13 PM PST by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

How about shutting down the gay bathhouses, rousting folks out of the “special” bushes in the “special” parks, and prosecuting prostitution crimes?

Just a thought.


7 posted on 11/14/2007 3:51:19 PM PST by Marie2 (I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

Who’s going to do it? How many cities, towns are there in the US? Times the number in each town of these places. Times 24/7/365 ? The the staff, judges, jail I would imagine.

Naturally there will be requirements for funding.

Or we can just go after the easy people, you for instance. I am sure some standard can be devised such that you will fail, or a family member.


8 posted on 11/14/2007 3:59:05 PM PST by Leisler (RNC, RINO National Committee. Always was, always will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Democrats of a different time.

LaGuardia's Big Race - 1934

Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia (Center) Winning The "Fat Men's Race" Against City Officials.

9 posted on 11/14/2007 4:03:43 PM PST by Leisler (RNC, RINO National Committee. Always was, always will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Eric Blair 2084

Been pinged yet? ;^)

“But the government has a duty to look after the health of everyone and sometimes that means guiding or restricting our choices.”

Bull...Shit..
NO-it DOESN’T.
Another of the greatest lies ever foisted on the public.


10 posted on 11/14/2007 4:05:17 PM PST by The Ghost of Rudy McRomney ("To Live Outside The Law, You must Be Honest"-Robert Zimmerman song lyric)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

Your response seems slightly off-topic, or at least a broadening of the topic; however:

The key term in the error that the UK official has is to “look after” us, as in determining how to regulate our lives so that the government, not ourselves as individuals are responsible for INSURING we do not have a health issue and responsible for fixing it when we do - like human, infantile, ignorant, little children.

The people who go to a “gay bath house” take their own risks as does anyone who has unprotected sex with anonymous or casual partners - they are big people who make their own mistakes. It is a health issue only for those who make those choices. People who know that, the general public, who want to avoid the risks in those venues do so. The “public” is not living with its head in the ground. It might be stupid - at least that portion that take those risks, but those who don’t do not require any government assistance to avoid them.

Having sexual relations of any sort in a “public place” has been a morally frowned upon and sanctioned legally as a low-level crime of “public indecency” in most societies for a very long time. While current faddish politically correctness has weakened that sanction in some venues, it is generally not, now or in the past, been considered, generally, as a health issue.


11 posted on 11/14/2007 4:41:15 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

“Who’s going to do it?” I don’t know. Public health? Who’s policing the smokers and the overeaters and such? I don’t know how your system works. It seems if overeating can be outlawed, so can promiscuous sex.

“Naturally, there would be requirements for funding.” Yes. Just like the requirements you have for funding the current socialist health system. At the end of the day, you will save money. Because all those STDs are very expensive to treat.

“Or we can just go after the easy people, you, for instance.” No doubt you can. Once you have socialized medicine, you can justify going after anybody for anything. I am having pork for dinner tonight. Also, I stayed up too late last night. Bad for my health, no?


12 posted on 11/14/2007 5:12:05 PM PST by Marie2 (I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
And it called for town planners and architects to be trained to design buildings and public spaces that encourage physical activity.

No elevators, I presume?

13 posted on 11/14/2007 5:12:51 PM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner (“We must not forget that there is a war on and our troops are in the thick of it!” --Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

“The people who go to a “gay bath house” take their own risks as does anyone who has unprotected sex with anonymous or casual partners - they are big people who make their own mistakes. It is a health issue only for those who make those choices.”

Of course they take their own risks. However, in a socialized system, we all end up paying for those risks.


14 posted on 11/14/2007 5:13:03 PM PST by Marie2 (I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

“Of course they take their own risks. However, in a socialized system, we all end up paying for those risks.”

Do live in the U.K.???? I don’t.


15 posted on 11/14/2007 6:47:03 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks; socialismisinsidious

ping


16 posted on 11/14/2007 6:50:04 PM PST by darkangel82 (And the band played on....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler; Just another Joe; CSM; lockjaw02; Publius6961; elkfersupper; nopardons; metesky; Mears; ...

Late night Nanny State PING...........


17 posted on 11/14/2007 7:17:38 PM PST by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler; Gabz
Instead, public health interventions should be seen as a "stewardship" role

This thinking is from the U.K. but it is alive and well in our country too. I don't need a "steward" thank you, I just need for nanny government to stay out of my life.

18 posted on 11/14/2007 7:23:19 PM PST by Graybeard58 ( Remember and pray for SSgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of Rudy McRomney

They’re really pushing it, ain’t they?

Coming soon to a gulag near you, right here in the good ‘ol US(S)A(R).


19 posted on 11/14/2007 7:33:52 PM PST by 383rr (Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither- GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

And has Lord John Krebs declared the Final Solution yet?


20 posted on 11/14/2007 7:51:34 PM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

“Your body belongs to the state. Your body belongs to the Fuhrer. Food is not a private matter.”

-—Actual Nazi Socialist Party slogan


21 posted on 11/14/2007 7:54:51 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal agency...it should be a convenience store.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Hooray -- about damned time!

Oh, wait. You mean this isn't a story about quarantining tubercular Mexican invaders in the U.S.? Rats.

22 posted on 11/14/2007 8:25:40 PM PST by Tenniel2 ("After a glimpse of Democrats in power, Republicans don't look so bad" -- Jack Kelly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Hooray -- about damned time!

Oh, wait. You mean this isn't a story about quarantining tubercular Mexican invaders in the U.S.? Rats.

23 posted on 11/14/2007 8:31:49 PM PST by Tenniel2 ("After a glimpse of Democrats in power, Republicans don't look so bad" -- Jack Kelly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Thanks for the ping!


24 posted on 11/14/2007 10:04:15 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: darkangel82; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ...
"The government has a duty to look after the health of everyone and sometimes that means guiding or restricting our choices"



Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
25 posted on 11/14/2007 10:18:04 PM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

And to think they once had an empire. *sigh*


26 posted on 11/14/2007 10:30:03 PM PST by lesser_satan (READ MY LIPS: NO NEW RINOS | FRED THOMPSON/ DUNCAN HUNTER '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenniel2
Borders, literally, define a nation. No borders, no nation. So, as far as FedGov is concerned, illegals aren’t invaders because the Feds have given up on the idea of a border.

And no, it is easier for the Republicrats to go after sheeple Americans than illegals who have shown themselves contemptuous of Federal government, which is kind of fair, or equal in a way.

27 posted on 11/15/2007 1:52:19 AM PST by Leisler (RNC, RINO National Committee. Always was, always will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Personnally, I recoiled in horror from the article.


28 posted on 11/15/2007 1:53:02 AM PST by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of Rudy McRomney; 383rr
Instead, public health interventions should be seen as a "stewardship" role where proportional intervention was only taken when other measures had failed.

I just hope my "steward" has a great sense of humor... and huge nay-nays!

29 posted on 11/15/2007 3:30:48 AM PST by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Eric Blair 2084

“Your body belongs to the state. Your body belongs to the Fuhrer. Food is not a private matter.”

-—Actual Nazi Socialist Party slogan
******************
I had to look that one up...
WOW
http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artproctor.html

“”After reading The Nazi War on Cancer, the careful reader will be well positioned to understand why fascism requires strong public health policies. For the fascist State needs “valuable human material” — or, as we would say today, healthy “human resources”. Nazi slogans reported by Proctor are more explicit than what present-day crusaders would dare to employ: “Your body belongs to the nation!” “You have the duty to be healthy!” “Food is not a private matter!” “”

The above was written in 1999, now ‘present-day’ crusaders are using the phrase.


30 posted on 11/15/2007 4:29:25 AM PST by libertarian27 (Land of the Fee, Home of the Shamed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Step one-get rid of the FDA, that would improve public health immensely!
31 posted on 11/15/2007 5:26:44 AM PST by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Meet me in the bunker...


32 posted on 11/15/2007 5:46:09 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: long hard slogger; FormerACLUmember; Harrius Magnus; Lynne; hocndoc; parousia; Hydroshock; ...
"But the government has a duty to look after the health of everyone and sometimes that means guiding or restricting our choices."

Socialized Medicine aka Universal Health Care PING LIST

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or removed from this ping list.
33 posted on 11/15/2007 5:46:22 AM PST by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkangel82
Thanks for the ping.

"But the government has a duty to look after the health of everyone and sometimes that means guiding or restricting our choices."

To anyone who knows history this statement will strike fear but to anyone who has swallowed universal health care it makes perfect sense.

Check out the liberal linguistics: it's not a nanny state but rather greater good and stewardship...you know "for the children". This crap is right out of the Communist play book.
34 posted on 11/15/2007 5:56:36 AM PST by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson