Your health, your responsibility

A report issued today by Cancer Research has highlighted that 40% of cancers are directly attributed to our lifestyles.  Smoking, drinking, being overweight, lack of fruit and veg are just some of the factors that can directly be linked to cancer. 

So in fact if you turn those figures around, if you don’t do those things, you are 40% less likely to be diagnosed with cancer in the future.  Obviously though there are some factors such as smoking that are much higher contributors than others, but the facts remain.

Now there are calls for the government to do more to tackle this issue.  But my question is, why should it be down to the government?  I’m all for the government taking responsibility for things that they actually have some control over, and in terms of treatment of cancers I believe that of course the health service has a huge part to play.  But equally do we not have some personal responsibility here? 

The risks of smoking for instance are well documented, and over the years a number of laws have come into force to highlight those risks and to make cigarettes less appealing.  But ultimately if someone chooses to continue smoking, even knowing the risks that is down to their personal choice and not something the government is in a position to tackle? 

Similarly alcohol is already controversial due to the binge drinking culture that exists in the UK.  And while there have been calls for no more happy hours in pubs/offers in supermarkets etc, the choice to drink still comes down to the individual.

And we all know that you should eat “five a day,” there are enough labels on products in the supermarket to indicate that this or that product is one of your “five a day,” but even so there is plenty of information out there, so most people should know that eating fruit and veg is healthy, while not doing so is not. 

The government can surely only be expected to do more in terms of education/provision of health services.  But when it comes to actually taking responsibility for our lifestyles that responsibility has to lie with the individuals. 

If you smoke 30 a day for twenty years and develop cancer as a result, the only person responsible for that is you. 

Equally if you drink to excess for twenty years and develop cancer as a result (or any of the other diseases linked to alcohol for that matter) the only person responsible for that is you.

And the same applies for people who are overweight/who live unhealthy lifestyles due to lack of fruit/veg/other healthy foods. 

We are ultimately responsible for our own wellbeing.  For many reasons we abdicate that responsibility and instead live our lives for today and let tomorrow take care of itself.  But at the end of the day if we live an unhealthy lifestyle and have to face the consequences of that lifestyle further down the line, no-one else was responsible for that.  No-one makes anyone else start smoking or drinking or sit out in the sun for hours – we all have free will, and free choice. 

If by some unfortunate circumstance we end up becoming ill as a result of our lifestyles then of course the government, or in actual fact the health service, should provide the treatment and care needed.  But it is time we started taking responsibility for our own lives and health and acknowledging that some of the factors that lead to the health problems we suffer are a direct result of the choices we personally make.

Have you got the fix X- factor?

So as we approach the X-factor final there is once again controversy and allegations of a fix. 

Today HMV launched a pre-order page for the single recorded by finalist Amelia Lily.  The page was for the “winning single,”

Obviously as soon as people realized what was going on the HMV bosses were quick to explain that this was a mere technicality and that pages should actually have been posted for all three of the finalists. 

But this isn’t the first time that Amelia has been at the centre of fix allegations.  After Frankie Coccoza was thrown off the show earlier in the series, Amelia and three other acts who had been iliminated by their mentors in the first round came back for a sing-off in which the public voted for one of them to come back into the show. 

However, an hour before the result was revealed, Scottish TV had announced that Amelia had won the public vote and was back in the show.  They also reported on mentor Kelly Rowland’s reaction.  As it turned out, Amelia was declared the act to go back into the show and Kelly Rowland’s reaction was exactly as had been described.  The justification?  Releases are prepared for all acts in advance and it was sheer coincidence that this one had been reported.  Really?  So we are led to believe that not only do the press pre-prepare a release beforehand (a concept which is actually quite feasible), but we are seemingly also to believe that the judges and contestants have pre-agreed and rehearsed their reactions?  After all, only by knowing the reaction could it surely have been known how Kelly Rowland was going to react. 

And all these technical glitches that just happen to happen to the show – are we really supposed to believe that they’re just technical glitches and that it is purely a coincidence that things really turn out exactly as they were accidentally pre-published?  I think there are just too many coincidences for the explanations to be credible.

One thing is for certain, if Amelia Lily is named the winner on Sunday night, there will almost certainly be questions and doubts among the public as to whether her win was genuine or pre-determined.

no "honour" in violence and murder

A study published today has revealed the extent of so-called honour crimes in the UK. 

I have serious issue with this term.  Because while the people committing these crimes obviously do so in the name of some warped sense of family honour, any normal-thinking individual knows that there is nothing honourable about these crimes. 

While we continue to refer to these as "honour" crimes, we are in fact reinforcing the belief that violence and murder committed in the name of family honour is different to other forms of violence and murder, when in fact, it isn't. 

We all know that violence and murder is wrong.  When reported, individuals who commit such crimes in the name of so-called family honour are often prosecuted.  But they are still prosecuted under the label of "honour" which sends the message back to their family as to why the crime was committed, and continues to normalise this belief amongst some that murder and violence done in the name of "honour" is still ok. 

We need to get past this.  We need to take away the "honour" label from these crimes and make it abundantly clear that murder is murder, that violence is violence, and that there is nothing "honourable" about either.

And we need to stand up against this acceptance by some that murder and violence committed in the name of family honour is somehow different to murder and violence committed in any other setting.  It isn't.

The consumer's night before Christmas

Twas the night before Christmas, all the presents were bought
Where we couldn’t afford them the credit we sought

An xbox for Johnny, An iPhone for Dad,
Mum will be thrilled with her brand new iPad.

The kids all have laptops, so they’ll stop using mine
And they’ll use them for school work so really it’s fine. 

I picked up some bargains, all designer labels,
And the older kids really would love a pool table.

A wii fit to help us all battle the bulge,
But not just yet, there’s still time to indulge.

The younger ones all need new bikes, well that’s healthy,
And who said Christmas was just for the wealthy.

When I wrapped up the presents the piles seemed so small
So I bought just a few more small things for them all. 

A kindle for each of them, but there’s justification
After all, reading is good education.

To add to the piles just a few DVD’s
And it’s time that the kids had their own TV’s.

I’m almost done now, A DS each and some games,
And without some chocolate Christmas wouldn’t be the same. 

Now to the kitchen where there’s food aplenty,
We have ten round for dinner but the turkey serves twenty!

A giant ham and some stuffing and veggies galore,
And if you’re still hungry I’ve got puddings and more.

Six kilos of chocolate, well it had to be done,
They were on three for two, so I couldn’t buy just one.

With boxes of biscuits and crackers and nuts,
And so much party food the fridge door barely shuts.

I’ve got soft drinks and plenty of wine and some beer,
After all Christmas is a time full of cheer.

And after we’ve eaten and drank and feel ill,
We still have to pick up the credit card bill.

That we don’t have the money is inconsequential,
Because spending at Christmas is seen as essential.

As long as there’s plastic there’s money to spend,
We just forget that you have to pay it back in the end.

And now I’m left wondering if it would be better,
If I’d simply not bothered and just spent a tenner.

But instead we spend money on stuff we don’t need,
Just so we can indulge that thing... greed.

As I turn out the lights and head up to bed,
I think of what I could have done with that money instead.

But instead I am faced with a year of regret,
Of how one day got me so far into debt. 

As the clock strikes midnight, and Christmas is here,
I decide that things will be different next year.

For now we will all have an enjoyable day,
But before I sign off there’s just one thing to say.

If you haven’t spent much then just sing hallelujah
And merry Christmas to all, yours, the consumer.

Jeremy Clarkson, Littlewoods and the professional complainer

"they should all be taken out and executed."

Was the comment that was made by Jeremy Clarkson on the BBC last night in reference to the public sector workers who had gone out on strike.  A comment which has until now attracted over 4769 complaints to the BBC on the basis that people were offended by it. 

There can surely be no doubt that Clarkson made the comment tongue in cheek, and that no-one surely believes that someone would advocate people actually being executed on prime time television. 

It seems that complaining about things on television has become a bit of a trend, and the feeling I get is that often people will complain about something they’ve never actually seen, but that they feel they wish to complain about anyway. 

I can’t help wondering how many people actually herd Clarkson’s comment first hand and complained based on what they’d heard at the time, and how many complained after they heard that people were complaining about the fuss that had been caused and decided to just add their name to the list of complaints. 

Another prime example of this has beenthe Littlewoods Christmas advert, which shows a group of children singing on stage about all the presents under the tree and how they have all been provided by "my lovely mother," with no reference anywhere to Santa.

This advert has generated several hundred complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority on the basis that it ruins the magic of Christmas for children.

If something is genuinely offensive and you have witnessed it first hand then of course I can see the motivation to complain – that’s what the regulatory bodies are there for after all.  But complaining simply because you wish to become a part of a trend/want to jump on the particular bandwagon just seems like madness to me.  After all if you really don’t like someone that much (and I have no doubt that many people will have complained purely on the basis they don’t like Jeremy Clarkson as an individual), then you always have the option to switch off the television or watch something else. 

As for the Littlewoods advert, while it is, in my opinion, a pretty awful advert which clearly depicts the level of consumerism that appears to be the expectation these days, complaining that it essentially ruins the magic of Christmas for our children because it shows the presents as having been brought by mother instead of delivered by Santa is just completely irrational. 

After all a child could just as easily find out in the playground that Santa isn’t real – would a parent see fit to go into the school and complain then? 

It’s fairly simple really – if you don’t want your children watching adverts (and I can see why people don’t want children watching adverts) then turn off the television during the ad breaks or invest in a recordable sky or freeview box. 

But you can’t realistically expect a regulator to take you seriously when you complain about an advert which is actually truthful i.e. which shows that the presents under the tree aren’t really delivered by Santa. 

the right to die - in the name of disability?

A man who was paralyzed from the neck down following a stroke is to go to court to request that doctors be allowed to help him to die. 

Tony Micklinson is paralyzed from the neck down and is only able to communicate by blinking.  But mentally he is still entirely competent.  He has expressed the wish to be allowed to end his own life with the help of doctors on the basis that his death may be a long drawn out affair which will be hard on his family. 

I think this raises some serious questions.  In the past there have been numerous attempts from individuals suffering from terminal illnesses requesting permission to be assisted to die, and for those who assist them be granted immunity from prosecution.  So far, all these requests have been unsuccessful. 

But Tony Micklinson is not terminally ill.  Tony Micklinson is severely disabled, and while it is perfectly understandable that he might feel he does not wish to live that way, his condition is not degenerative and is not one which will ultimately kill him. 

He has made the point that if he were able, then he would have the right to commit suicide.  However this isn’t actually the case.  It’s not having the right, it’s having the ability.  But even if Tony Micklinson were able-bodied, were it to be known that he was suicidal, it is likely he would be sectioned to prevent him from killing himself.  Or if he attempted and failed he would be admitted to hospital and given psychiatric help in order that he not attempt suicide again. 

Suicide is still actually illegal in the UK, so it is inaccurate to suggest that the able-bodied have the right to end their own lives while the terminally ill/severely disabled do not.  The able-bodied have the ability not the right – there is a difference. 

But there is another aspect of this case which leaves me somewhat uncomfortable. 

When someone commits suicide due to depression, the reaction expressed is always one of overwhelming sadness and regret that the person could not seek help in order to overcome their state of mind in order to have not felt the need to commit suicide.  This is of course right – after all it is desperately sad that anyone should ever feel that there is no way out for them but suicide. 

But when someone with a disability commits suicide due to their disability the reaction is often totally different, almost to the point where it is seen as acceptable to want to end your life due to disability. 

When Daniel James, a 23 year old rugby player, went to Dignitas in Switzerland to commit suicide in 2008 the reactions were varied.  But overwhelmingly many people seemed to believe that for him, ending his life rather than learning to come to terms with his disability was the right thing to do.  That disability is seen as this thing to fear and that wanting to kill yourself rather than face it is perfectly understandable and should not be judged. 

Yet we don’t have this view towards depression.  I don’t believe that anyone would sanction someone suffering from depression ending their own life – quite the opposite – people would want that person to seek help and support, and would tell them that nothing could be that bad. 

And yet there are people out there who are happy to fight for the right of someone with a disability to be able to end their life.  I think it is very sad that we still have such a two-tear way of thinking in terms of when it is ok to commit suicide and when it isn’t. 

We should no more express understanding for the disabled person’s wish to end their life than we would do of someone who is depressed.  One life does not equal more worthy of ending simply because that person has a disability.

And I am of course not referring to terminal illness in this way of thinking, since terminal illness is an entirely different thing, after all, if someone is going to die then it is perfectly understandable that they may wish to hasten this process while they are still able to do so.

media reporting - public interest vs what interests the public?

Yesterday Wales football manager Gary Speed died.  He was just 42 years old, and it is believed he took his own life. 

Within hours of reporting the news, the press had gone one further and reported the time he had been found, and the circumstances in which he had apparently taken his own life. 

This for me raises the question as to how much we really need to know when a story is reported.  I do actually think it absolutely right that it be reported that a man who was quite prominent in football, had a well-documented career, was well liked and well respected had chosen to commit suicide, at a time when people didn’t appear to know there was any indication he was planning to do so.  I think all too often that mental illness and depression goes unreported and that it’s much easier to sweep it under the carpet and to pretend that it doesn’t exist. 

However, there is surely a line between what is in the public interest here, and the issues that raises, and what it could be argued simply interests the public, in terms of the details that are provided. 

That a well-known public figure has chosen to end his own life is something I think we should be aware of.  After all, you can’t just report that someone has died, as often the circumstances surrounding their death may raise further awareness of particular issues, and in this case may bring the issue of depression to the fore and perhaps even bring help to others who are going through the same.  But the way in which that person chose to end their own life is and should remain personal to them and their family. 

This sort of reporting is fairly commonplace in the media.  It is not uncommon, for instance, when reading about a particular family’s tragedy, to also be told details which have no bearing on the particular issue, such as the value of their home, or their relationship status. 

How much someone’s house is worth or whether or not they are married or divorced, cohabiting or a single parent is generally not in the interest of the story being reported.  But the media would argue that in order to build a profile of the person they are reporting on, and to make that person more personable to the public, it is necessary to report on these details. 

I disagree.  The public may in some instances be interested to know how much someone’s house cost, or may form a judgement based on someone’s marital status, but it is not in their interests to know.  Just because something interests the public doesn’t make that in the public interest, and it is surely high time the press realized that and started reporting accordingly. 

Gary Speed’s family are no doubt going through their own personal hell at the moment.  It is bad enough that they know how he died, without that fact having been published in the national newspapers where presumably, his children will be able to read it, or even accidentally stumble across it in the future. 

And perhaps the press should question whether it is that the public wants to know, or whether they want to tell us.