The release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, is now a decision surrounded in controversy. The scenes upon his return home were disappointing as they were unsurprising. The political wranglings that led up to this decision are not yet fully known. These issues threaten to taint what was a brave and righteous decision.
al-Megrahi was and is an evil man who now represents no threat to anybody. He has returned home to die, and while these things can never be predicted exactly it is likely that this will happen in the next month. Many justice systems around the world don't have the ability to make mercy decisions, the Scottish system does however. And, the decision taken by the Justice Secretary, backed by Nelson Mandela, to free this man on compasionate grounds was the right one.
Common humanity dictates that a dying man should be allowed to die with his family. This is not a curtosy that al-Megrahi showed to his victims, but why should this be a reason for us to lower our standards? The western world should seek where possible to be just, forgiving and not vengeful. We should seek to set the moral compass.
Those who say that he should have been released only in a coffin, are most likely the same people who support the death penalty. Those who say that this will give comfort to terrorists, are the same as those that believe the death penalty is a deterrent to murder.
This man was given a fair trial, served a just sentence for an awful crime and now has been shown great compassion by the Scottish justice system. Let this be an example to the vengeful world.
Monday 31 August 2009
Friday 28 August 2009
Drugs, money, deception and gambling ..... and this time not in the banks!
Sport is in trouble. We've known it for a long time. As with many such things we have chosen to ignore it. If action isn't taken soon on, many fronts, we risk losing the true sporting contest for good.
The list of sporting controversies in recent times is long and undistinguished. Ranging from drug cheats to match fixing; from feigning injuries to possible gender deception. And, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Corruption and cheating is rife in almost every sport across the globe, and at every level. When sitting down to watch a sports event these days we get the sense that we are watching a piece of theatre, rather than a competition. The acts have been decided well in advance, and the actors on the pitch run through the script.
And, why is this allowed to happen? Why does what often amounts to criminal behaviour go unpunished? Simply: because there's a good buck to be made and interests won't let go of a profitable situation.
However, there are things that can be done to tackle this problem: 1) Wage caps, 2) a two-strike policy on drug use and doping, 3) routine involvement of the police in acts that might be deemed criminal behaviour, 4) the use of protectionism control foreign ownership of domestic teams and 5) most importantly a well structured youth education systems within academies.
These proposals aren't new, many have said, and wrote, and thought the same things before. I say it now because for the first time in a long time the interested parties may benefit from supporting these ideas. Sponsorship money is drying up. Viewing figures are down, as the reality TV generation can get their entertainment elsewhere. Many sports are looking at reducing their financial load. Sport is on the front page rather than the back. If governing organisations can act to morally renew their sport, they may also financially renew there bank balances.
The list of sporting controversies in recent times is long and undistinguished. Ranging from drug cheats to match fixing; from feigning injuries to possible gender deception. And, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Corruption and cheating is rife in almost every sport across the globe, and at every level. When sitting down to watch a sports event these days we get the sense that we are watching a piece of theatre, rather than a competition. The acts have been decided well in advance, and the actors on the pitch run through the script.
And, why is this allowed to happen? Why does what often amounts to criminal behaviour go unpunished? Simply: because there's a good buck to be made and interests won't let go of a profitable situation.
However, there are things that can be done to tackle this problem: 1) Wage caps, 2) a two-strike policy on drug use and doping, 3) routine involvement of the police in acts that might be deemed criminal behaviour, 4) the use of protectionism control foreign ownership of domestic teams and 5) most importantly a well structured youth education systems within academies.
These proposals aren't new, many have said, and wrote, and thought the same things before. I say it now because for the first time in a long time the interested parties may benefit from supporting these ideas. Sponsorship money is drying up. Viewing figures are down, as the reality TV generation can get their entertainment elsewhere. Many sports are looking at reducing their financial load. Sport is on the front page rather than the back. If governing organisations can act to morally renew their sport, they may also financially renew there bank balances.
Tuesday 18 August 2009
The NHS
"I wouldn't wish it on anyone", "death panels", "6 month waiting lists", " denied the test that would have saved her life" are just some of the choice phrases used to describe the NHS in a week when U.S. politics overflowed into British domestic issues. Unsurprisingly the left has leapt enthusiastically to the defence of the NHS and used it as an opportunity to bash any Tory who was unwise enough to comment on the issue. However, in the middle of this (largely online) hysteria it is worth looking at truth behind the sound bites.
Firstly, as a percentage of GDP us Brits spend roughly half as much as our American counterparts on Health Care and we are expected, at birth, to live for a year longer. GREAT, role out the red carpet and step forward the National Heal......No, not quite. The percentage of GDP statistic in the US is pushed up for two reasons: yes, private health care with for profit organisations in the driving seat is more expense, but Americans, as a population, live unhealthier lives and therefore need more health care. Similarly the life expectancy is pushed down in America due to poor lifestyle choices, a higher murder rate and differential life expectancies in their large Hispanic and Black populations.
The idea that "death panels" exist in the NHS is obviously ridiculous. What was being alluded to here was the role of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence that decides what treatments are available on the Health Service. NICE makes judgements about the capacity of a treatment to lengthen the life of a sick person and the quality of life they will experience during that time. And, yes they do have to set a maximal limit per six months of life per person that can be spent on any treatment. This is in part the reason why the very expensive breast cancer drug Anastrozole wasn't for a long period of time available to British sufferers, while being available to many Americans. Similarly, PAP tests or cervical smears are offered when a woman turns 21 to many Americans, while oddly for a Cancer that often strikes in the late teens and early 20's no until a British woman is 25. However, in any public sector organisation distribution of limited resources is vital and in the large part NICE to a very good job.
6 month waiting lists are a thing of the distant and wasteful past for the NHS. In the new era of choice and efficiency patients are seen much quicker and in the main by more specialised doctors. The newly competitive trust status that is offered to well performing health care regions is greatly speeding up and improving the quality of service, with patients increasingly being seen as stake-holders rather than statistics. For example, a person diagnosed with Cancer will see a specialist consultant within 14 days - no fail.
While there have been huge improvements, a huge amount of time and money is still wasted. Ask any NHS doctor, manager or consultant and they will all tell you that the NHS could and should do better. The junior doctors scandal 12 months ago is a prime example of a monolithic organisation trying poorly to adapt to changing times.
This blog is not arguing against the NHS. My professional and personal experience has allowed me to see that while there are limitations, these are small compared to many of the huge and life threatening issues experienced by users of many private health care systems. This coupled with my belief that the health of an individual should not be used for profit, leads me comfortably into the warm embrace of the NHS. But, outlined above are just some brief and limited issues that come hand in hand with a country using public health service. Issues that need to be discussed by all, including the British left who at the moment only seem willing to discuss how many different ways the NHS could walk on water.
Firstly, as a percentage of GDP us Brits spend roughly half as much as our American counterparts on Health Care and we are expected, at birth, to live for a year longer. GREAT, role out the red carpet and step forward the National Heal......No, not quite. The percentage of GDP statistic in the US is pushed up for two reasons: yes, private health care with for profit organisations in the driving seat is more expense, but Americans, as a population, live unhealthier lives and therefore need more health care. Similarly the life expectancy is pushed down in America due to poor lifestyle choices, a higher murder rate and differential life expectancies in their large Hispanic and Black populations.
The idea that "death panels" exist in the NHS is obviously ridiculous. What was being alluded to here was the role of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence that decides what treatments are available on the Health Service. NICE makes judgements about the capacity of a treatment to lengthen the life of a sick person and the quality of life they will experience during that time. And, yes they do have to set a maximal limit per six months of life per person that can be spent on any treatment. This is in part the reason why the very expensive breast cancer drug Anastrozole wasn't for a long period of time available to British sufferers, while being available to many Americans. Similarly, PAP tests or cervical smears are offered when a woman turns 21 to many Americans, while oddly for a Cancer that often strikes in the late teens and early 20's no until a British woman is 25. However, in any public sector organisation distribution of limited resources is vital and in the large part NICE to a very good job.
6 month waiting lists are a thing of the distant and wasteful past for the NHS. In the new era of choice and efficiency patients are seen much quicker and in the main by more specialised doctors. The newly competitive trust status that is offered to well performing health care regions is greatly speeding up and improving the quality of service, with patients increasingly being seen as stake-holders rather than statistics. For example, a person diagnosed with Cancer will see a specialist consultant within 14 days - no fail.
While there have been huge improvements, a huge amount of time and money is still wasted. Ask any NHS doctor, manager or consultant and they will all tell you that the NHS could and should do better. The junior doctors scandal 12 months ago is a prime example of a monolithic organisation trying poorly to adapt to changing times.
This blog is not arguing against the NHS. My professional and personal experience has allowed me to see that while there are limitations, these are small compared to many of the huge and life threatening issues experienced by users of many private health care systems. This coupled with my belief that the health of an individual should not be used for profit, leads me comfortably into the warm embrace of the NHS. But, outlined above are just some brief and limited issues that come hand in hand with a country using public health service. Issues that need to be discussed by all, including the British left who at the moment only seem willing to discuss how many different ways the NHS could walk on water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
