Pick your poison, the Republcrats vill helpz youse be un better citizen, Ya?
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."
Pick your poison, the Republcrats vill helpz youse be un better citizen, Ya?
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.
The more control they are given, the more they will seek.
“The government has a duty to look after the health of everyone....”
The error of that sentiment resolves itself to tyrannous “solutions”.
bump & a health nazi/nanny state ping
These control freaks would drive teetotalers to drinking.
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.
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.
LaGuardia's Big Race - 1934
Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia (Center) Winning The "Fat Men's Race" Against City Officials.
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.
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.
“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?
No elevators, I presume?
“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.
“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.
ping
Late night Nanny State PING...........
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.
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).
And has Lord John Krebs declared the Final Solution yet?
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.