In Case Smoke Gets In Your Eyes

Doctors are an increasingly totalitarian bunch these days. Not content with the idea that our bodies belong to the state for the pickings of our bits when we die, they want to tell us how to live our lives while we are alive. And, because like naughty children, we don’t follow their advice, they want the state to force us to their will.

Tougher legislation is needed to curb unhealthy behaviour, doctors say.

Delegates at the British Medical Association’s annual conference called for a ban on smoking in cars, and more action on alcohol pricing and promotion, such as an advertising ban.

Oh, my, where to start? What about this for a thought; doctors are paid to heal the sick. When presented with a patient whose lifestyle is exacerbating their condition, then the medic would be perfectly correct to offer advice in accordance with that patient’s medical needs. If the patient decides to ignore that advice, well, they take the consequences.

It is not the place of medics or the state to use the blunt instrument of legislation to force us all into a state or BMA approved lifestyle –  and why is it, that on each occasion that this one crops up, I have mental images of nubile Aryan youngsters all doing their stretches?

I routinely ignore such advice. While I neither drink alcohol or smoke tobacco, I do like salt on my food and use it extensively in cooking and will happily eat cholesterol loaded fats and butters (can’t believe it’s not Butter? I can). I’ll cheerfully engage in a heart attack laden fry up when the mood takes me. Mrs L likes her rollups and I am therefore subjected to the poisonous second-hand smoke, so expect me to keel over anytime soon. Not least because this is apparently more dangerous than smoking the things directly. By this logic, when we are out for a drive and Mrs L sparks up one of her rollies, I should have a drag or two to reduce the risk to my health. Yes, my head is in danger of exploding, too.

And it’s that thing about cars that is currently gripping the control freaks at the BMA. That the private motor car is just that; a private space is not something to concern these people. They have decided that it is unhealthy so it must be banned –  they are the ones they feel who should decided what we may or may not do in our own private spaces. It may well be unhealthy. However, as adults it is up to us to decide what risks we take. Naturally, though, any calls for legislation will be couched in arguments for protecting children. Children are always the Trojan horse for illiberal totalitarians when they cry out for more infringements on our liberty because it is always difficult to rebut the charge that their safety or health should be considered above that of consenting adults.

However, that siren voice should be resisted as the false enchantresses that they are. The raising and care of children is the concern of parents, not the state and not the BMA.

That said, there are some dissenting voices and one cannot gainsay the voice in the wilderness that is medical student Charlie Bell:

We are the BMA not the BNA – the British Nannying Association.

Quite right. However, the BMA appears determined upon its course and such dissenting voices will be drowned out in the demands for ever more encroachments into our personal liberties. Doctors, it seems are no longer merely concerned with healing the sick.

11 comments for “In Case Smoke Gets In Your Eyes

  1. Russ Williams
    July 2, 2011 at 8:35 am

    Yeah, a strong medical lobby was big in Nazi Germany, too. As was state indoctrination of the children. Of course, this debate will always get back to whether the people are chattels of the state or whether the state only exists (of, by, and) for the people.

    That ‘passive smoking is worse’ link is easily the most retarded thing I’ve seen today, though. Cheers! It’s like someone has seen an argument, but never actually worked out how to form one…

    • July 2, 2011 at 8:51 am

      It made me smile in a weird “this shouldn’t be funny” sort of way. There was a brief moment when I wondered if it was a spoof, but it would appear not – it ain’t that clever.

      • July 3, 2011 at 7:39 am

        I feel for the creators of the ‘Daily Mash’, sometimes. They must feel like giving it all up, when they can no longer trump real ‘news’… 😆

  2. Obrien
    July 2, 2011 at 9:14 am

    THe problem is the NHS. When the state pays for healthcare then the way to reduce costs is by using other arms of the state.

  3. July 2, 2011 at 9:55 am

    Longrider, thank goodness, your view is becoming more widely held!

    The menace is huge, and dangerous in the extreme, the crushing of the junior doctors by the previous lot being a clear demonstration to the whole medical profession, that the STATE was in charge. Interestingly on “Ironies” on 5th August 2003, I blogged beginning as follows:

    State employed doctors

    My opposition to the NHS has always been principally based on the premise it will eventually be shown that having your doctor employed by the state will inevitably turn out to be a very bad idea indeed. The fact that it also never did appear the most cost-effective means of providing patients with treatment becomes more obvious by the year.

    We must keep making the point, eight years along I am still doing my best!!

  4. PT
    July 2, 2011 at 10:12 am

    Well I’m sorry, but I think the BMA is rather lacking in ambition in its drive to prohibit unhealthy behaviour. Of course we all know that smoking, drinking alcohol, taking unnecessary drugs, eating salty, fatty and sugary foods are all unhealthy. But look at all the other risks they’ve been ignoring, to our peril! There are many dangerous sports that should be banned, or at least restricted. People are still permitted to walk and play in, on or around water, in spite of the well-documented risk of drowning. What of physical contact, such as rugby football, shaking hands, kissing, hugging and especially sex, that spreads disease? None of these sorts of activity should be permitted, for our own good, except between people who have passed thorough, recent and frequent laboratory testing for disease. I offer just these few examples of behaviours potentially harmful to our health. There is much scope out there for doctors-turned-bureaucrats to forbid or restrict in our everyday lives, and it’s all for our own good, had we but the wisdom of a doctor to see it.

  5. 6079SmithW
    July 2, 2011 at 10:20 am

    British Meddling Association, surely?

    Winston

    • July 3, 2011 at 7:39 am

      Spot on!

  6. July 2, 2011 at 11:02 am

    “By this logic, when we are out for a drive and Mrs L sparks up one of her rollies, I should have a drag or two to reduce the risk to my health.”

    I’d always wondered why this particular feat of logic never occurs to the bansturbators.

  7. David
    July 2, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    Unfortunately a car ISN’T a private space if you’ve registered it. The act of registering anything renders it the property of the organisation it is registered to; in this instance the state. Registering your childs birth also effectively hands over jurisdiction of your child to the state, which is why they can take children from loving parents under the flimsiest of pretexts:

    http://www.tpuc.org/content/interesting-freedom-information-questions-

  8. LJ Hills
    July 2, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    For as long as we assent to a nationalised health service funded from general taxation, they own us.

Comments are closed.