Can anyone say this development was unexpected in respect to current Health Care initiatives?
We go downward from here.
Perfectly executed expansion of the agenda. As expected.
This is just the start of that slippery slope we all talk about Dr. Siegel. In Ontario they have made the requirements so expensive that about only 36 old age homes out of the more then 620 elderly homes have a place for the people who rent there to smoke. Can you imagine sitting out in -36 or +35 celcius weather to have a cigarette. Now you also must remember these people who have paid taxes since the 70's are now forced to not smoke if they can't manage without help (yes if they need any help they must then quit). How many of these people are fearful every day because they may one day have this ability taken away.
Some of the approved smoking section are through the parking lot (at the back lawn), around the outside of the building. When asked why the people can't be accommodated with a reasonable (less then $170,000)-since none will get gov't funded smoking rooms they say: "In reference to your citation about the costs related to Controlled Smoking Area (CSA) regulations in long-term care facilities, studies have shown that there is no risk-free level of second-hand smoke exposure.
Even brief exposure adversely affects the cardiovascular and respiratory
systems. Only smoke-free environments effectively protect people from
second-hand smoke exposure in indoor spaces. For these reasons, the
government has an obligation to protect the health of workers and all of the residents in long-term care homes, including those who do not smoke. It is understandable that the implementation of the Act may require adjustments in residential care facilities in order to create smoke-free environments. We also recognize the difficulties faced by residents who have been smoking for many years. That is why the Act allows for the creation of controlled smoking areas (CSAs) in designated residential care facilities, including long-term care homes, albeit with stringent regulatory requirements to ensure the protection of workers and non-smokers inside such facilities."
They keep up with the dogma, no matter what; and BTW it is spreading. They now justify the elimination of all low income old age homes in Edmonton through this as well.
Largest Provider of Seniors Subsidized Housing Going Smoke Free -AB
http://www.housingforseniors.org...rs.org/
news.cfm
OT, a continuation of Thursday’s blog entries, and with absolutely no apologies!
Sam M. writes: “And you claim to be eager for a system that would allow you to advocate for something other than a ban. Yet you seem singularly incurious as to the systems that are available.” Sam, you know as well as all the other posters here that the doctor isn’t about to admit there might be a ventilation/filtration system adequate to the task; he’s ALWAYS going to find something wrong. Why? Because 1. he’s fundamentally dishonest (as the July 5th blog so clearly proved), and 2. if he were to admit such a system exists then he’d have to begin advocating for such a system – how could he get out of it, having already put his opinion on the line? And here’s more of his fundamental dishonesty:
Dr. Siegel: “OK, so if the data don't exist to document that filtration/ventilation systems are available which will reduce the levels of smoke constituents in a room by 95-99%, then why are you arguing that filtration/ventilation is an adequate solution to the secondhand smoke problem? You're basically agreeing with me that there is no evidence to support the use of ventilation/filtration to solve this problem.”
Cute. When suddenly are we supposed to go along with the figure of 95-99%, doctor? How about 50% or 25% – in other words, adequacy? This has nothing to do with arbitrary percentage figures, but with what is required to bring the level of pollutants down to a level where ‘risk’, even it’s not zero, is at a level where only a zero-tolerance fanatic would find fault with it. And as for the ‘evidence’ to solve this ‘problem,’ I’ve already given you Mr. Kjono’s testimony that with his equipment running the air indoors is healthier to breath than outdoor air. And must we mention ONCE AGAIN that according to Dr. Whelan’s reading of the epidemiological evidence, no damn ventilation equipment need even be used in the first place, because any long-term risk to bartenders is 'a real stretch'? You don't get from 'a real stretch,' doctor, to a 90-95% requirement without getting a hernia.
Cute 2: “Once again, I didn't make an assumption that all bartenders work for 40 years. I was simply estimating the working lifetime mortality risk for bar workers. Obviously, workers who don't work for a full 40 years will have proportionately lower mortality risk.”
You pulled this once before, doctor, when you talked of bartenders inhaling the equivalent in secondhand smoke of ½ to 2-1/2 packs of cigarettes per 8-hour shift for 2 or 3 chemicals. OK, no one can say you lied, but as several here have already pointed out, what gets across is that a bartender is exposed to ½ to 2-1/2 packages of cigarettes per 8-hour shift and that 220 bartenders in Massachusetts are going to die because of exposure in their line of work.
Let’s get this straight. Isn’t COMMUNICATION one of your specialities? Are you really trying to tell us that you can put out statements like those two without knowing that they’ll be misunderstood? Well, doctor, another doctor would understand all this perfectly: Dr. Joseph Goebbels.
Now tell us about specs for the ventilation/filtration equipment that you'd require on patios. I'd like to hear that one.
.
Obese patients denied operations
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...olk/
4462310.stm
Give up or we won't operate, smokers told
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages..._a_source=&
ct=5
Obese patients denied hip replacements
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1798
Deny Surgery to Obese and Smokers, Says UK Health Minister
http://www.cnsnews.com/
ViewCultu...L20070216c.html
Doc-"Here, the good of the patient is being sacrificed in order to save the government money."
How is this saving HMG money?
1 an increased chance of complications is no guarantee of additional costs.
2 As he is, he can't work therefore no Tax or National insurance payments to the Gov
3 He will be collecting welfare benefits instead of working.
4 The ongoing cost of painkilling treatment.
Not to mention the risk and cost thereof of painkiller addiction.
GreatScot
Here's, I hope, a constructive idea:
Someone in England should get in touch with Forest. Forrest, in turn, should set up a fund to pay for Mr Nutall's operation in private practice. (I think there's still a private practice in England ?, and if not, then elsewhere.) And then make a huge media deal about it, too.
Maybe by showing that smokers are united in defending their interests (and ultimately, the interests of the next victims in line-- clearly the obese) and by publicizing our outrage and helping this poor sod, we'll accomplish something solid. And, if nothing else, help him.
If you Brits can start this, I'm in for 50 bucks.
How bout you, Doc? Money and mouth?
:
Harry, the disconnect here is going to drive me mad! If you call SmokeEaters and ask them if they can clear a bar of smoke, you soon feel as if you had called the German navy to ask if the battleship Bismarck could sink a destroyer. The guy I talked to said he could clear 99.99 percent of the smoke from any bar if a customer were willing to pay for redundant systems. At $2500 or so per machine, many bars stricken with a smoking ban would gladly pay for the technology. And once the smoke has been filtrated, many smoke adverse patrons would begin to show up.
THIS IS BLACKMAIL,AND THAT IS ILLEGAL .
If smokers are going to be refused treatment,then why should we be forced into paying for our health care ? This is one sick society that the antis have been fighting and arguing for, for years.The blame lies squarely at their door,and Dr Siegel ,you are a major part of it,due to your insistence that SHS is such a major Public Health hazzard.You spout the proof is available,but decline to disclose your double dealings in promoting your studies.Your integrity on this issue has been questioned numerous times now and you still hide behind your smokescreen.Presumably with your 220 cadavers,who knows ?
I'm with Walt. An excellent idea. It had crossed my mind too that if I had the money to cover it all I'd do it.
See what you've done, Dr. Siegel?
Promoting the idea doctors are working to save the system money is laughable at best. Consider how much was wasted creating research to promote the anti smoking campaign or the cost of the huge international propaganda campaign to help smokers and the so called obese mend their ways. All at the command of the World Health Organization an organization who's only claim to notoriety rests in it's consistency in massive failures.
The amounts of over billing by those same doctors and unprecedented waste throughout the Health Care system is reprehensible. To torture and punish patients under the guise of saving money demands jail time for the perpetrators. This campaign focuses and adds hardship to two major groups in society almost exclusively. There is no way to justify or moralize such actions targeting both the poor and the elderly. Both of which have little in the way of resources to "mend their ways", nor for the most part will the effort afford them any significant benefit as far as mortality or morbidity because you are not eliminating the major risk factor they can not avoid, that being poverty which is significant in both groups.
Obesity and smoking are a reflection of society and the environments we are forced to live in. To expand punishment indicating all smoking and obesity is "self imposed and unacceptable" is inhumane and should be singled out naming every doctor involved and punished with the taking of medical licenses and civil liability to compensate their victims.
This is no small controversial media matter any longer, this is criminal activity which mirrors the acts seen in the death camps during the second world war.
Has the ethical perspective of the entire medical community sunk to such depths they can no longer understand the systemic cruelty they are toying with here?
Why is there an appearance of silence among a group so large, on a topic, in defense of their patients? Is the money really that important? or are the practitioners now, so controlled they are allowed no individual opinion?
This may not stop with just smokers and the obese. I paid attention to a commercial last night for asthma sufferers and the product being pushed was asmanex. At the very end of the commercial, they added some possible side effects and it said to be careful when switching to this drug as it could effect the healing process from other surgeries. So, to my way of thinking, it is not only smoking or being obese that could lead to slower surgical recovery, but the pharmacutical drugs pumped into you during surgery that effects it instead. Then there is also the opinionated Doctors who are unqualified to perform any type of surgeries, yet use smoking and obesity as a way to cover up their ignorance and inability to perform a flaw free operation. Maybe Doctor's really need to be tested better and more frequently, so to determine their qualifications to diagnose, treat or perform any type of surgeries!
An so it continues. Many have said these "nuts" would not stop with tobacco. Just remember, you are too stupid to know what is good for you and your family. You need these people to guide you to a more healthy and productive life.
"The City Council will be asked this fall to consider an up to two-year moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in South L.A., a part of the city where fast food is at least as much a practicality as a preference."
"The people don't want them, but when they don't have any other options, they may gravitate to what's there," said Councilwoman Jan Perry, who proposed the ordinance in June, and whose district includes portions of South L.A. that would be affected by the plan."
Notice that the target is South LA. That is where the most ignorant people live.
They don't say it directly, but we all know that if you are poor you are ignorant and cannot make a personal decision.
"In South Los Angeles, 28% of people live in poverty, compared with 16.2% of the county, according to county figures."
http://www.latimes.com/news/loca...=la-home-
center
Remeber the smug obnoxious ortho guy I walked out on in January when I broke my wrist?
"I guarantee you that you won't heal if you don't quit smoking."
Buzzzzzzz - you lose.
I'm healed up nicely - TYVM.
How does one translate an increased "risk" of delayed healing into a guarantee and lack of treatment?
If you've got that much of a pea brain - then I don't want you to treat me.
Doctor,
For years, critics of your position have pointed to these developments as inevitable consequences of your tobacco control agenda. At every step along the way, you have resisted that notion. Who was right? Who was wrong?
It's not like nobody pointed these things out. It was there for you to see. And you missed it. Or ignored it. I guess it's good for you to occassionally criticize your colleagues for not playing nice. But it might also be useful for you to reassess your own positions. Not to assign blame retroactively, but to think about the consequences of your actions in the future.
You can say that smoking bans are all about worker safety. But you have proven yourself to be a horrible, horrible political prognosticator. You missed trends and developments that were obvious to other people. These things that shock you now?bHate to say it, but told you so.
Should your tin ear in this regard have any influence on the measures you support moving forward?
I suppose they won't.
An official who predicts--insists--that Policy X will have Impact Y should be taken to task when Impact Y does not happen. Particularly when vocal critics pointed out to him that Policy X would have hugely negative consequences, he ignored their warnings, and was proven horribly wrong.
You were wrong. You insisted that you could control the forces you were unleashing. You slandered people who warned of a slippery slope. You tarred them as dishonest hacks who advocated their position in order to garner dirty money from the tobacco industry.
You were wrong. Despite all your peer reviewed studies and your commitment to science and your deep, deep concern for worker safety, you dropped the bal. And some guy in England is experiencing excruciating pain because of your error. And he's not the only one.
It's good that you are beginning to see that. But it's not good enough. It won't be good enough until you and yours temper your stance with a degree of humility. And a good place to start would be to back away from public policies that demand 100 percent compliance. Like smoking bans in 100 percent of bars and restaurants.
Nobody has raised the obvious question. Why should smokers not be able to opt out of any national health care system and keep their own money in their wallets to seek and pay for the health care that they need themselves?
Why is the government crippling smokers in their ability to provide their own health care?
Why are smokers asked to bear the cost of non-smokers health care?
Michelle
What wonders the do-gooders have accomplished!!!
You should be so very proud!! Your parents must be busting with pride.
BTW I'm in for 50 w/Walt & JTF
.
I'm in for $50 also.
In response to Michelle -- seems to me that issues like this might make some smokers might thnk again about the taxes they're paying.
it's early... delete the second "might".
Walt-
Yes, I would contribute to such a fund if it is established. I think it is a good idea - it would make a statement and hopefully, catch worldwide media attention.
Sam and Callous Cowbell-
I am not going to argue with you on this one. I actually do admit that I failed to see this coming, despite warning signs. Do understand, however, that I had been brainwashed to believe certain dogma, and thus it became far more difficult to see the true nature of the anti-smoking groups and where they were going with all of this.
I feel like I was running a marathon and I reached the 26.2 mile mark and stopped running, and everyone else around me just kept on going. Albeit you feel that the 26.2 mile mark was too far, but at least I was willing to stop at SOME point.
Should I have seen earlier that this was not a marathon with a defined endpoint at protecting nonsmokers? Probably. And I do admit fault in that.
Part of the reason for this blog, and for my willingness to take the daily hits from my colleagues that I am taking, and the ostracization from the movement, is that I feel it is important enough for me to publicize this and try to stop this kind of thing in the future.
The wake-up call for me was that episode with ANR, when they refused to change or remove the article I wrote when I wanted to simply make some clarifications; when they wrote to me to tell me that their political credibility was more important than my scientific integrity.
That was 1999, and it began about 5 years of trying to change things from within. That failed miserably, hence the initiation of this blog in 2005.
I do stand before you with some humility. But to me, the most important thing I can do is to try to change things. I've tried from within. You can't do it. Believe me. I just became ostracized, that's all it accomplished. So now I try to change it from the outside - through the blog, op-eds, etc.
Do understand that I've given up my career in the anti-smoking movement for this. I've paid a price (it's not really a small one, giving up one's career like that).
Because of the McCarthyistic elements of the anti-smoking movement, I've learned that once you criticize the established wisdom of the movement, you have sacrificed your career in the movement. You are essentially blacklisted. You might just as well be working for the tobacco companies (as Cathy seems to think I am).
Me too ($50).
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel
6. James Austin
Me too ($50).
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
Me too ($50).
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
8. Gilster
Doc said:
"Because of the McCarthyistic elements of the anti-smoking movement, I've learned that once you criticize the established wisdom of the movement, you have sacrificed your career in the movement. You are essentially blacklisted. You might just as well be working for the tobacco companies (as Cathy seems to think I am)."
Doc, I think all here appreciate the courage you have shown. Yes, you probably gave up millions from the RWJF. However, I believe that more and more Americans are opening their eyes to this danger. When those in the mainstream finally have the courage to expose this "Duping of America", the ones on the other side will be punished.
Lastly Doc, please acknowledge that the 200 is a guess-ti-mate or SWAG using data from the anti movement. The 200 is like the 53k like the 450k.
Hang in their Doc, we are!
Me too ($50).
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
8. Gilster
9. Judy
Michelle;
"Nobody has raised the obvious question. Why should smokers not be able to opt out of any national health care system and keep their own money in their wallets to seek and pay for the health care that they need themselves?"
It seems to me the refusal of services would enable a smoker the right to opt out of a system which targets their lifestyle for refusal of services. They are being forced to pay for a service they will not be allowed to receive when they need it the most.
The death knell to universal health care.
It would only be common sense to pay those funds into a plan which offers them the services advertised, funds being taken now under false pretenses.
I do stand before you with some humility. But to me, the most important thing I can do is to try to change things. I've tried from within. You can't do it. Believe me. I just became ostracized, that's all it accomplished. So now I try to change it from the outside - through the blog, op-eds, etc. SO HOW ABOUT REVISITING YOUR FIXED POSITION ON SHS ?IF YOU REALISE YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED BEFORE,HOW ARE YOU SO CERTAIN ON THIS ISSUE ? HOW ABOUT AN OPEN DEBATE WITH A SPOKESPERSON FROM FORCES ?
Who will contact Forest about this? Once this fund is set up, I think we should all spread the word to other sites with readers who may wish to contribute as well. This story was talked about in lots of sites on the Internet which have nothing to do with the smoking issue. There was much sympathy (from non-smokers) for this man's plight.
BTW;
Refusal of services would also take away any justification for adults paying cigarette taxes, if costs to the health care system could no longer be claimed. This would improve the standard of living for smokers and allow them to direct their money as they wish outside of the system.
I believe the wording in the Canadian constitution reads something along the line of; any law which is not reflective of personal rights and freedoms guaranteed in the constitution is no law.
The taking of funds to pay for the benefit of everyone else's medical costs excluding the payee, would obviously reflect a breach, and likely nullify the universal healthcare act.
Lets make it an even 500 and I am sure we can do a lot more.
Me too ($50).
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
8. Gilster
9. Judy
10.Kevin
Stick me down for £50 as well.
The doc is right, a career is a big thing to flush away, but I for one am glad that he chose to keep his own integrity.
However, the sheer volume of screaming that things like leaving smokers with broken bones untreated was the direction that things were heading in, whether or not they were members of a "tobacco front group or ally" could hardly have been missed.
The current situation where Mr Nuttall is, because of his smoking, left virtually crippled and in enough pain to require opiates isn't politically correct or financially expedient, it's obscene.
Doctor,
Fair enough. And well said. Although am anxious for you to take that next step...
Seems to me there is no guarantee a smoker WILL have complications, but it's also no guarantee a non-smoker won't have complications. If this was truly a matter of cost and not just bigotry, then all lifestyle behaviors would be taken into account and non-smokers who do any kind of risky behavior would also be refused. I wait for the day that someone is refused surgery for having a bad attitude, as outlook has more to do with recovery than smoking/drinking/weight all combined.
11. Andrew $50US
I remember my own experience with an emergency room a few months ago. It was a weird stomach thing. They asked if I smoked cigarettes and I said, truthfully, no.
They were very friendly. However, I got the list of what to do and part of the form had DO NOT SMOKE at the top. Not even "smoking may particularly cause risk of recurrence of ____."
Ironically, they also had "avoid caffeinated beverages" written in, and they'd even asked if I drank caffeine heavily when I'd got there, but my last meal they gave before leaving contained, as a beverage, ...
...coffee!
I haven't had the guts to address this sort of thing to them(in fact they didn't mention if it was decaffeinated...probably should have,) but I know that there are people less questioning than I who would never start to untangle bigger contradictions like what Mr Nutall faces.
Being lucky enough to have good insurance, $50 is the least I can do.
Michael you're right. A career is a huge price. I just wanted to acknowledge that statement and well, I guess, sympathize.
But please understand (I'm trying to figure out how to say this without sounding mean) that there are a number of folks who previously owned small hospitality businesses who might not be as sympathetic about your loss of a career in TC.
rrgabe23: Doc, I think all here appreciate the courage you have shown. ... and still show. Thumbs up.
...so Michael, maybe you could find some ways to help others maintain their careers, as well as their life savings... and at the same time be a voice for offering reasonable "protection" for workers and not ostracizing smokers from social life... like maybe... you could seriously look into this ventilation issue?
You could do a lot of good, and undo a lot of social damage that way.
Please accept my $50
1) Walt
2)JTF
3)Sunz
4)GDF
5)Michael Siegel
6)James Austin
7)rrgabe23
Gilster
9)Judy
10)Kevin
11)Diane
GDF said; "Michael you're right. A career is a huge price. I just wanted to acknowledge that statement and well, I guess, sympathize.
But please understand (I'm trying to figure out how to say this without sounding mean) that there are a number of folks who previously owned small hospitality businesses who might not be as sympathetic about your loss of a career in TC."
Doc, I'll be honest here; I have no sympathy for you or your plight, just as you clearly have none for mine. I'm one of those hospitality business owners that you have decided needs your attention because I obviously don't get it.
You are wrong of course. I do get it.
I appreciate the concern you have expressed for your fellow man, but I don't need, didn't ask for, and don't want your brand of help. Not at the expense of my personal choice, my civil liberties, my property rights, my freedom to decide if I want to follow your recommendations or not.
Frankly, I don't.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Why is that not acceptable to you and yours?
A "Career" in Tobacco Control is not a career at all. It's a crusade to rescind the civil liberties of a group you simply dislike because they don't agree with your position, disregard your warnings, and could care less what you think about their personal decision making processes.
A career in telling other people how they should live their lives?
Didn't that used to be called something else?
Umm. lets se, ..oh yeah, ...
Busybody, Nosey neighbor, Hall monitor, grandma,.....how 'bout NANNY?
You really want to
"fight from outside" to stop the juggernaut you helped to set into motion?
Start with publicly challenging, and more specifically DENOUNCING the "No Safe Level" BS, and it's all good from there.
Otherwise it's just more lip service.
In regard to Smokers helping Smokers,....
count on me here too
$50).
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
8. Gilster
9. Judy
10.Kevin
11.LightningBoy!
1) Walt
2)JTF
3)Sunz
4)GDF
5)Michael Siegel
6)James Austin
7)rrgabe23
Gilster
9)Judy
10)Kevin
11)Diane
12)Dawn (aka) Backtalk ($20)
I would go $50 with the rest of you, but my husband was laid off last month. Fortunately, he began working again last week, but we are now playing catch-up for the 3 weeks lost income. Hope it helps.
Doc, while I empathize with your belief that you have lost your TC career over this, I do have to agree with others that there are a lot of folks that will have no sympathy for you. You and the TC monster you helped create have destroyed jobs, businesses, families, and lives in general as evinced by the gentleman in this article. Look at the attacks made on anyone who ever in their life received even a dime of tobacco money. Look at what happened to Engstrom and Kabat because of TC's refusal to face the facts that SHS is NOT a major problem.
Through your long career in TC the taint of the damage done to others by it will remain with you forever in the minds of many.
SHS doesn't kill anyone, the jihad of the anti-smoker cartel does.....welcome to our world, Dr. Siegel.
Back on topic...........be prepared for this scenario to be played outin the US if Hillary or Huckabee is elected president in '08.
Updated list:
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
8. Gilster
9. Judy
10. Kevin
11. Rufus Trotman (£50 ($100 US))
12. Andrew
13. Diane
14. LightningBoy!
15. Dawn (aka) Backtalk ($20)
Although this is against my principles and I would much rather see the Doctor's and policy makers being dragged through the courts, fined, struck off and jailed. Count me in for £50 if a fund is set up.
No one deserves to suffer chronic physical and emotional pain due to the obscene denormalisation tactic instructed by the WHO, embraced with glee by the TC zealots and adopted by incompetent public serpents.
Off to Spain for a Holiday tomorrow, "see" you all when I return.
Be well.
GreatScot
But THAT could never happen...
Smoking ban at home could come in future
Sep 17 2007
by Rhodri Clark, Western Mail
PARENTS could be banned from smoking in their homes to protect their children’s health, following the success of the smoking ban in public places, legal experts have claimed....
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0...-
name_page.html
Although it is also against my principles to fix the damage that TC leaves behind, you can count me in (personally) for 50 $ US.
If one of you knows when and how let me know through yourvoice@cagecanada.ca and I will publish it in the C.A.G.E. site.
Dr. Siegel, thank you for at least trying to make a difference to repair some of the damage. To make mistakes is human,to try to fix them at the detriment of your own career, shows integrity.
Updated list:
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
8. Gilster
9. Judy
10. Kevin
11. Rufus Trotman (£50 ($100 US))
12. Andrew
13. Diane
14. LightningBoy!
15. Dawn (aka) Backtalk ($20)
16. Iro 50 $
Updated list:
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
8. Gilster
9. Judy
10. Kevin
11. Rufus Trotman (£50 ($100 US))
12. Andrew
13. Diane
14. LightningBoy!
15. Dawn (aka) Backtalk ($20)
16. Iro 50 $
17. Harry $50 (and more)
.
Iro,
I pledged £50 a couple of posts back. Sorry it must have been lost in the text of a paragraph.
Updated list
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
8. Gilster
9. Judy
10. Kevin
11. Rufus Trotman (£50 ($100 US))
12. Andrew
13. Diane
14. LightningBoy!
15. Dawn (aka) Backtalk ($20)
16. Iro 50 $
17. GreatScot (£50 ($100 USD))
GreatScot
Doc,
Iro writes: "Dr. Siegel, thank you for at least trying to make a difference to repair some of the damage. To make mistakes is human,to try to fix them at the detriment of your own career, shows integrity."
I agree wholeheartedly. I was rather zealous about my religious beliefs back when I was a bible-toting, born-again fundamentalist Christian, and I hurt alot of people in my quest to "save their souls from eternal hell". It was very difficult to admit to myself that my methods, and much of my ideology was dead-wrong and actually harmful to those I sought to help. Upon my realization and open admission of my guilt, I lost friends in the church, as well as respect from some of my own family members. In a sense I had to re-invent myself; take inventory, question everything I had believed, and sort it all out..
This was a long and difficult process for me, but in the end I stood up for what was right and accepted the consequences for taking my stand. I pray (yes, I still believe in God) that you can do the same, Doc. And I am proud of how far you have come.
with love,
Dawn
"I do stand before you with some humility."
Doctor, why not use some of that humility on this?:
"Glasgow pub proves ventilation works
Published 19th-May-2004
"A pub in Glasgow has demonstrated that the atmosphere in a small smoky pub can be cut by using effective ventilation, says the Scottish Licensed Trade Association (SLTA).
"The research conducted by the University of Glamorgan at the Doublet Bar in Glasgow’s West End in April found ventilation cut carbon monoxide particles in the air by 90 per cent.
"Dr Andrew Greens of the Centre for Consultancy and Professional Development at the University of Glamorgan said: "It is quite clear from these results that A SIMPLE VENTILATION SYSTEM like this can work effectively to improve a smoky atmosphere.
"'In fact, measurements showed that levels of carbon dioxide in the air at the Doublet are comparable with readings in a similarly sized, but entirely non-smoking venue.'
"Paul Waterson, chief executive of the SLTA, said: “The University of Glamorgan tests are independent and provide a robust answer to those who believe ventilation to be purely a cosmetic exercise. We want to keep our staff comfortable and our customers coming back and ventilation is an excellent way to do this.”
("A simple ventilation system": my emphasis. We're not even talking high-tech here.)
Bill H.,
Talking about unintended consequences, Dr. Siegel has done wonders for my low blood pressure.
.
It's now (we stepped on each other's toes, GS):
Updated list
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
8. Gilster
9. Judy
10. Kevin
11. Rufus Trotman (£50 ($100 US))
12. Andrew
13. Diane
14. LightningBoy!
15. Dawn (aka) Backtalk ($20)
16. Iro 50 $
17. Harry $50 (or more)
18. GreatScot (£50 ($100 USD))
Today, the New Hampshire smoking ban takes effect. Last Tuesday an AP article had this:
"... State leaders called it a public health issue and said there's no risk to profits. 'In New York City alone, the revenues there increased almost 9 percent after the implementation of such a law in their state,' said Nick Toumpas, acting HHS (Department of Health and Human Services) commissioner."
.
Think New hampshire will change their state motto?
It used to be "Live Free or Die"
I'm guessing it will now have to be more like: "Live Free, But Not Here"
-OR-
"Live Smoke Free, or suffer the consequences of abusive government"
I pledge $100.00 US.
Rod Guilmette
I see over $1100 US dollars donated so far. So who is going to take it upon themselves to collect and get it to the press/media. I think this would be a good job for the good Doctor as it would be a step in the right direction while searching for redemption. How about it Doctor?
I agree that the Doc should collect & dispurse the money.. After all, he posted this story on his blog, making us aware & (perhaps not intentionally) inciting us to help this poor man. The Doc is right when he says that the media will not listen to us. But maybe they will listen to him.
How about it, Doctor?
Well, since I haven't seen anyone volunteer to contact Forest, I went ahead and sent them an email about what we're trying to do for Mr. Nuttall. Here's what I wrote under the subjectline: Please join us in helping John Nuttall (UK smoker).
Dear Forest,
Last week, several of us came across the sad story of Mr. John Nuttall of Cornwall, and the refusal by NHS to provide him surgery for a severely broken ankle because he can't quit smoking. Dr. Seigel, who publishes "The Rest of the Story" blog, wrote up an essay about this today and a bunch of his readers have begun to take up a collection to pay for Mr. Nuttall to receive his surgery through a private hospital. We have more than $1000.00 pledged already, and once we spread the word to the rest of the pro-smoker sites, we should be able to come up with the entire amount needed in a very short time.
It was suggested by one of our group that perhaps Forest could be persuaded to act as a clearinghouse for these donations; that is, to set up an account for Mr. Nuttall where we could paypal/credit card our contributions. Since most of us are in the US and Canada, it would also be helpful if you could assist us in contacting Mr. Nuttall to let him know of our interest in his problem.
Please visit Dr. Seigel's website to read his take on Mr. Nuttall's treatment by NHS, and view the comments for that article to see the fundraising effort that is taking shape there. If you are interested in what we're trying to accomplish and would be willing to join us, please leave us a comment there or respond back to me by email.
Thank you very kindly for your consideration. Should you have questions or require additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me.
--If I've missed anything (besides the link to Dr. Seigel's blog [whoops!] which I'll send along in just a second), here's the link to contact Forest.
http://www.forestonline.org/
Updated: Me too ($50).
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
8. Gilster
9. Judy
10. Kevin
11. Rufus Trotman (£50 ($100 US))
12. Andrew
13. Diane
14. LightningBoy!
15. Dawn (aka) Backtalk ($20)
16. GreatScot £50 (£50 ($100 USD)
17. Iro 50 $
18. Harry $50 (and more)
19. Lynda F ($20 guaranteed, $50 possible)
I agree 100% that people shouldn't be denied medical care because they smoke. I'd give $20 myself if it is determined that the operation is the best course of action.
But Dr. Siegel, have you seen this patient or his chart?
Does he suffer from any conditions such as circulatory conditions or others that would put him at risk for gangrene or other problems if has surgery?
If he has surgery and doesn't heal and they have to aputate his leg are we going to take a up a collection for that operation too, or just abandon him?
I understand the anger but it doesn't seem right making decisions about patient's care without full knowledge of the case. I think you should be careful before you make an operation possible for someone not knowing the conditions of that person's health.
Alan,
If Mr Nuttal has other conditions that would make surgery too risky, stopping smoking for 4 weeks prior to surgery would make no difference.
Unless you are suggesting that circulatory damage can be reversed in 4 weeks, this is a political decision pure and simple.
Denormalisation and persecution is unhealthy for all concerned. Victims and perpetrators alike.
This type of behaviour has no placed in a civilised society and is on a par with smokers in Africa being flogged and smokers in the middle east having their fingers amputated.
obscenity and depravity is being normalised.
GreatScot
OT, but sometimes you just hafta laugh... is there anything left?
Smoking gives women acne, scientists reveal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1774
Mr Piccun,
I dont think you are anywhere close to understanding the anger.
This man has paid his dues all his working life, and when he needs the services he paid for ON THE OFFCHANCE THAT HE MAY NEED THEM, they tell him to bugger off. That their services are now conditional.
The NHS was set up in 1948 and no conditions, other than paying your NIC's (National Insurance Contributions) were laid out. At no time has that rule changed.
"Do no harm" has lost all meaning with you people has it not?
Or has that secretly been changed to "Do no harm unless it is a smoker you are treating"?
Almost forgot....put me down for £50 as well.
And if he SHOULD need a wooden leg, I'll send money for that too.
50 bucks from NaptownKrabbi...
Update:
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
8. Gilster
9. Judy
10. Kevin
11. Rufus Trotman (£50 ($100 US))
12. Andrew
13. Diane
14. LightningBoy!
15. Dawn (aka) Backtalk ($20)
16. GreatScot £50 (£50 ($100 USD)
17. Iro 50 $
18. Harry $50 (and more)
19. Lynda F ($20 guaranteed, $50 possible)
20. Rod Guilmette $100
21. Colin Grainger £50 (£50 ($100 USD)
22. NaptownKrabbi $50
$50 to this worthwhile cause. i'm in.
I,m in for $50, Great idea!
Put me down for $50.
I'm in in spirit guys - unfortunately I can't afford 50 cents at the moment.
In fact - finances have forced me to cut down significantly on smoking and I just might have to quit, I can't afford cigarettes anymore and if it wasn't for the stress I'm under - I'd probably have already given them up entirely.
Alan-
I think you are wise to hesitate jumping to a judgment without the full medical information. However, I do have to say that if the patient is in such bad shape that there is a substantial risk of severe infection/gangrene, then that risk exists with or without the smoking, and it won't go away even if he quits smoking. These articles are making it clear that the only reason he is being denied surgery is that he refuses to, or is unable to quit smoking.
OT but government is spinning out of control everywhere. the uk seems to be leading the charge.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1770
The DNA of a seven-month-old baby girl has been added to the police's national database designed to identify criminals.
The disclosure reignited the row over the growth of Britain's DNA register, which is the biggest in the world.
Human rights groups accuse the Government of building a genetic record of the entire UK population by stealth.
It was revealed this year that more than 100,000 DNA samples had been taken from children, aged ten to 16, who have never been charged or convicted of any crime.
Now the news that a baby's genetic profile is stored on the system saw leading campaigners react with horror and disgust.
She is one of 47 children under ten whose DNA has been recorded and will be retained by the police until after their deaths.
Civil liberties organisation Liberty said the baby girl's case was "a chilling example of how out of control the DNA database has become".
Children can be added to the register only with their parents' agreement, but Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said: "This baby has not given her consent to be on this criminal database. Who knows the circumstances that led to her parent or guardian agreeing to put her profile on the system?"
She added: "DNA is the most intimate material. It can be used to identify who your parents are, and indicate your life expectancy.
"Should the police be able to keep this information about this little girl – and thousands like her – forever?"
Commons Home Affairs Committee chairman Keith Vaz said that the case was "unbelievable".
The former Europe Minister added: "This is not what this system was set up for and I will be demanding an explanation from Ministers."
The Mail on Sunday has learned that the baby's DNA sample was taken earlier this year by West Yorkshire Police.
According to the National Policing Improvement Agency, it was loaded on to the database "with parental/guardian consent as a volunteer victim".
A West Yorkshire Police spokesman confirmed they had taken the baby's DNA, but said it was at the request of West Midlands Police.
However, the Birmingham-based force refused to discuss the circumstances of the case.
Amazingly, a spokeswoman claimed they could not find any details without the child's name or date of birth.
The information about the baby girl's record came out after a Freedom of Information request by The Mail on Sunday which revealed that DNA samples of 47 children under ten were kept on the system.
Gavin McKinnon, of the NPIA, said profiles of 38 children were put on the register by police in England and Wales and nine by forces in Scotland.
Two of the English and Welsh samples were taken "following police contact", the others were "volunteered with written consent of a parent or guardian".
He added: "Separate written consent is also needed to load the sample on to the database."
In Scotland, where the age of criminal responsibility is eight, the nine samples were provided by children who had been arrested for an offence.
Mr McKinnon said that in England and Wales "officers cannot take samples from a child under ten without a parent or guardian's consent."
He added: "Volunteer samples for upload to the database can play an important role in an investigation."
They are normally taken to "eliminate an individual's profile" – for example, witnesses at a crime scene – and where there is a "need to establish a family link as part of an investigation".
A Home Office spokeswoman said samples from children under ten were only taken and retained on the database "with explicit written consent" of their parents.
She said: "Anyone can apply to the chief constable of the force that took the sample to ask for it to be removed."
But civil rights campaigners say that, in practice, it is very difficult to get your DNA wiped off the register.
Last week lawyers from Liberty finally won a six-month battle with Avon and Somerset Constabulary to have the DNA of an innocent 13-year-old boy removed from the national database. He had been falsely accused of writing graffiti.
The database permanently retains the DNA of approximately four million people.
This month Appeal Court judge Lord Justice Sedley called for it to be expanded to include everyone living in or visiting the UK.
It really doesn't matter what the risks are. How many people every day are given the choice between surgeries, one of which is riskier than the other, but has the best outcome IF it succeeds? It's up to ME to choose the risk I WANT to take, not up to the doctor to tell me which surgery is best for me. Well, he can tell all he wants, but it's not up to him to force me to choose the surgery he deems best. It's really simple, a doctor's job is to tell you what's wrong and how to make it better. Whether or not a patient chooses to do as the doctor advises has absolutely NOTHING to do with the doctor. It may be frustrating for you, but too bad. You take this job knowing people will make their own decisions and you can do nothing more than HELP them by informing them of their choices. Not by forcing them to undergo treatments they do not choose to.
It doesn't matter if it's gangrene or not, you do it anyhow. My grandfather just underwent an amputation. The doctors only informed him of the surgery procedure, not the amputation. He chose to ignore the surgery advice and requested amputation. He saved himself countless dollars and pain (in multiple surgeries) by just amputating above the knee. Now, funny enough, the doctors preferred the amputation, they just didn't put it forth.
Side note: I seen him getting around 2 weeks after surgery. He was already pretty much healed (we're talking a 3 pack a day smoker) and very cleanly.
It would probably be easiest to have an established organization like FOREST handle the money if they are willing. But if not, I will be willing to do this - the main limitation is I don't have any capacity to accept credit card payments - it would all have to be in checks. Let's wait to hear before we make a decision.
Someone should contact Rush Limbaugh's staff about this fund. Rush has made a big deal about this broken ankle story. If you were on his program, Dr. Siegel, you could express your new take on the antismoking movement to many millions of politically active Americans. And you could raise some real money too for this poor fellow! I'll bet Rush would kick in too as he smoked his cigar. Does anyone have Rush's e-mail address?
But if the articles weren't written by doctors, it seems that it isn't possible to tell what kind of shape the person is in. The authors did mention that the conern was amputation - so it seemed to me they were legitimatley trying to balance the risk of surgery against the benefits.
Just so I understand, are you saying that there are no cases where for the good of the patient smoking should be considered in performing surgery? Or just that in this particular case the person is healthy enough that smoking does not put him at risk for ampuation.
And, if you can't see his chart, can you really know from a newspaper article?
do i hear an anti actually questioning a media report? hmmmm. once again the antis want it both ways.
Quite frankly, I don't see how any of that information matters. If the man chooses to undergo the surgery it's his risk to take. I'm not sure, why it matters what the doctors want, it's not their foot. Which is why doctors can only advise, not force. When it's our bodies/lives in the cross hairs, it should be OUR decision.
One of the claims of smoking is it negatively affects the circulatory system. Most of the claims, as far as I can tell, of slower wound healing are supposedly because smoking hampers the circulatory system, thus making healing "take longer" or "not do as well". The worry on the circulatory system could be their medical terminology for "he's a smoker".
Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor that reduces nutritional blood flow to the skin, resulting in tissue ischemia and impaired healing of injured tissue.
http://tinyurl.com/2jyznv
Alan Piccun wrote:
"But if the articles weren't written by doctors, it seems that it isn't possible to tell what kind of shape the person is in."
They did offer quotes from the doctors. The only complication mentioned was smoking. Morphine addiction may be next...LOL
It was also mentioned that two years ago doctors would've been more than happy to have performed the surgery on this guy.
On another note: Time to take up a collection for Margaret-smoker. 
Hope things get better quickly.
rush@eibnet.com
This response is just terrific. Top of the head, I think we've got close to $1400. And that's just us.
I'll check back here tomorrow (Tuesday) night. If Judy's heard nothing by then, and if no one from the UK has phoned Forest- I figure it'd be easier for Brits to do-- I'll volunteer to do it. And I'll be sure to tell them of Dr. Siegel's support.
I started out suggesting Forest as clearing house because they're in the best position to publicize this (though we here should do it too) and also because it's seed money for a home grown British fund. And, at the moment, it's the Brits who need to make the point and to broadly embarrass their own government. They can also make it clear it's an international fund. And I'd bet through forces we can make it that, too,
So-- till tomorrow round midnite EST.
:
Is it too late to jump into the pledge drive? If the financing (funding) thing works out, I'll contribute $50.
Please let me know.
Some interesting links found following Jalestra's link:
Planning elective operations on patients who smoke: survey of North American plastic surgeons.
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas 75390-9132, USA.
Interestingly, 28.6 percent (p < 0.01) of the physicians responding admit to a smoking history, whereas only 1.5 percent (p < 0.01) continue to smoke, compared with the national smoking rate of almost 25 percent. Physicians who are previous smokers are less likely to offer smoking cessation aids than those who have never smoked, and the proportion not offering aids increases as the amount of previous smoking increases (p = 0.02).
Smoking--do vascular surgeons practise what they preach?
East Glamorgan General Hospital, Pontypridd, UK.
[L]ittle is known about the smoking habits of vascular surgeons and the advice given by them to their patients...The majority of responders would be prepared to offer revascularisation in patients who continue to smoke. Only 8 surgeons (3%) would not advise revascularisation in this group of patients. Only 10% of respondents were current smokers, 37% were ex-smokers and 53% had never smoked. Vascular surgeons, therefore, seem to practise what they preach.
Smoking habits among the hospital staff of a General Hospital in northern Greece: a long way for smoke-free hospitals.
First Department of Internal Medicine, Serres General Hospital, Serres, Greece.
RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty three (74%) of the 847 members of staff responded; 310 (50%) were current smokers and 313 (50%) were non-smokers of whom 101 (32%) were ex-smokers. The prevalence of current smokers was the highest among nurses (57%) and the lowest among doctors (31%)...The vast majority of smokers (94%) continued to smoke in hospital, of whom 62% smoke more than 5 cigarettes while at work.
CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of smokers among the health professionals...would probably have a negative influence...Increased efforts...should be the standard component of antismoking policy for the law to be effective.
While I was visiting forest just now to get their phone number, I also sent an email. So...time will tell.
Update stands: ($50 unless otherwise stated)
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
8. Gilster
9. Judy
10. Kevin
11. Rufus Trotman (£50 ($100 US))
12. Andrew
13. Diane
14. LightningBoy!
15. Dawn (aka) Backtalk ($20)
16. GreatScot £50 (£50 ($100 USD)
17. Iro 50 $
18. Harry $50 (and more)
19. Lynda F ($20 guaranteed, $50 possible)
20. Rod Guilmette $100
21. Colin Grainger £50 (£50 ($100 USD)
22. NaptownKrabbi $50
23. Brandz
24. smokenreader
25. Bill H.
26. smallbird
If there's more coming, it'd be good if you'd c/p The List and just add your name.
Cathy? Mr. Bill?
I e-mailed Rush. He would love this, but getting the attention of his staff might not be easy. Others should e-mail him too. What a great story! How many Americans listen to Rush? Dr. Siegel could really get his message out if he got on the show. A ton of money could be raised for all the poor smokers in England denied treatment.
You all know you probably have given Bill (not Hannegan) a heart attack by invoking Rush's name, don't you?
Carry on
All of this makes me think of an invasion from outer space; and how everyone on the planet would suddenly be pals working for the common defense while junking all the religious and political crap that separates us.
Sorry about that, but it's a rather nice feeling.
.
"Increased use of hospital beds and associated costs mean less opportunity to treat other patients. Based on these data, five non-smokers could be operated on for the cost and bed use of four smokers and the non-smokers' surgical outcomes would be better. A well informed smoker, unwilling or unable to quit, might assume an increased risk for himself, but the decision is not his alone when it can indirectly affect others. Then, the community must involve itself."
Based on this idea, anybody but those with the best prognosis could be excluded form 'universal' health care.
The implications are that 'public health' is in the process of dismantling itself. If it cannot handle the fact that different patients have different treatment costs, then the only ones eligable to 'universal' health care would be the fit, those with no need!
"Do understand that I've given up my career in the anti-smoking movement for this. I've paid a price (it's not really a small one, giving up one's career like that)."
Dr. Siegel, the great English philosopher John Ruskin in his finest work "Unto This Last" said that every calling in life had "its due occasion of death." A physician should die rather than desert his city in time of plague, a soldier should die rather than desert his post in battle, a priest should die rather than teach heresy. Doesn't an epidemiologist have his own "due occasion of death." Perhaps to die rather than lie to his nation about disease and public health, or to be silent in the midst of lies.
Dr. Siegel, I truly think that the work you have ahead of you is far more important than whatever career you have left behind.
Every good cause requires a name to reflect the compassion of those who support it.
I propose the "John Nuttall renormalization fund"
To demonstrate our opposition to social engineering and the irresponsible fear mongering of the World Health Organization and it's coercive stakeholder partners in the Health Scare community.
A show of support for just one of the survivors, a reflection of our mutual disdain for the pompous self important windbags who dispense the Denormalization of individuals, Promoting Hatred and Segregation in our communities.
As with McCarthy, Enough.
The name has its possibilities Kevin, but I'll have to vote no on that one. To call it REnormalization gives too much credit to the antis. Yes, the message is that it IS normal to treat Nuttall, thereby undermining their whole "denormalization" perception they're trying to make the norm. But yet it's too long a line of thought to get lost.
To strike directly at their heart, I'd go with something more like "The John Nuttal Humane Fund." Because the opposite of that is "inhumane" -- the picture immediately painted of the antis' actions.
Good points JTF. Keep it Simple works for me.
My thinking here would be a message of unity in compassion for our neighbors. People need to be encouraged, the world has not gone mad around them, they are witnessing a perceptual fraud which needs to be shunned.
Thus the word normal to promote the confidence we are normal and political correctness is the abnormal.
In encouragement we need to foster a community unity turning our backs on the hatred being promoted and replace it with compassion to embarrass the powers that be, and make them back peddle or face the consequences in the true power of communities who care for each other.
Sorry if that sounds a little weepy but I am really encouraged by what I have seen here today and we need to make it grow.
I am proud to be in such fine company.
I had another thought which may set an embarrasing tone, in a little comedic sarcasm.
How about
"The Jack Nuttall Jig dancing fan club"
Hopefully we could one day soon, see him on the news dancing an Irish jig in front of his doctor's office.
That would send a message.
LOL
Just 1 more obscenity amongst many. Depravity is normal. TC zealots are normal.
Thank God I have been denormalised. I could look myself in the eye otherwise.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/
...ue_to_smoke.php
Terminally-ill patients check out of hospice so they can continue to smoke.
Excerpt
St Leonard's Hospice, in Tadcaster Road, York, opted to enforce the blanket ban - prompting a number of patients to return home.
Doctors and campaigners said they were outraged by the decision and called for the hospice's trustees to rethink the policy.
GreatScot
Just to confirm: I have this morning written to Simon Clark of Forest to ask if his organisation will handle the donated funds for Mr Nuttall.
GS, I also posted that article on F2C. It is another outrage. Shame on the "caring" profession.
For them, I issue an old Scottish curse:
"May you live in interesting times".
Kevin,
I too am very pleased with all the donations promised on this blog today and for all the volunteering efforts by Walt and all the others. Makes me a believer once again! Contacting Rush is a great idea too. Let's not forget all the national news agencies either. Good Morning America and the Today show are good starting points. I believe we are on a roll, and now is the time to make it grow.
The Doctor also said that he would take this effort on and it might be a good idea to take him up on some help at least. Please keep us posted and especially let me know where to send my check.
Cheers Col,
Off to Spain now. See you all later.
GreatScot
I'm in for $50.00 as well (behind on my monitoring from yesteday!)
Alan asked: "Just so I understand, are you saying that there are no cases where for the good of the patient smoking should be considered in performing surgery? Or just that in this particular case the person is healthy enough that smoking does not put him at risk for ampuation."
There are definitely cases where a patient absolutely must quit smoking to avoid completely undue risks. But those are cases where we're talking about severe heart disease - things like bypass grafts or other open heart surgery, valve replacements, etc.
In all my experience related to the treatment of broken ankles in the United States, I've never once heard of surgeons denying surgery to a patient until they quit smoking for 4 weeks.
But most importantly, unless surgery is contraindicated, it should be the individual patient's decision as to the weighing of the risks and benefits of the various treatment options. The physician's job is to give the patient the risks and benefits of all the various options and to then allow the patient to make the decision. It is not the role of the physician to make these decisions for the patient (unless a procedure is contraindicated).
Frankly, it is perfectly rational that this man might feel that a small risk of amputation is a price worth paying for relieving himself of the chronic morphine-requiring pain he is in. Who are WE to make that decision for him?
OT
Sorry, Hugo baby, you're a little late getting on the Social Engineering bandwagon...
Venezuela's Chavez Warns Private Schools
Sep 17, 2007
By IAN JAMES
Associated Press Writer
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened on Monday to close or take over any private school that refuses to submit to the oversight of his socialist government as it develops a new curriculum and textbooks. "Society cannot allow the private sector to do whatever it wants," said Chavez, speaking on the first day of classes.
All schools, public and private, must admit state inspectors and submit to the government's new educational system, or be closed and nationalized, with the state taking responsibility for the education of their children, Chavez said.
A new curriculum will be ready by the end of this school year, and new textbooks are being developed to help educate "the new citizen," said Chavez's brother and education minister Adan Chavez, who joined him a televised ceremony at the opening of a public school in the eastern town of El Tigre.
The president's opponents accuse him of aiming to indoctrinate young Venezuelans with socialist ideology. But the education minister said the aim is to develop "critical thinking," not to impose a single way of thought.
"The physician's job is to give the patient the risks and benefits of all the various options and to then allow the patient to make the decision."
Even if the patient is a bartender? I thought bartenders couldn't really understand all that medical stuff?
If they can, shouldn't they also be able to understand a warning about workplace exposure to SHS?
Why allow a bartender to choose to smoke despite ankle surgery, if we aren't going to allow that same bartender to work around SHS, even if he wants to do so?
Sam M wrote:
"Even if the patient is a bartender? I thought bartenders couldn't really understand all that medical stuff?"
ROFLMAO
Sam M, its not just bartenders that don't understand health issues. It is now all of us. With the creation of "health courts"(specially trained deciders) because the general populace is not smart enough to understand the so called complications of malpractice claims. The average Joe or Jane can put a person to death but are just not smart enough to decide what the compensation should be when the wrong ankle is amputated.
All training for above to be provided by Big Medico/Big Pharma. Not to mention millions $$$$ provided by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to assist legislatures and higher education to study and provide technical assistence for advancement of policy.
So much for the 7th ammendment of the US Constitution. Any damage over $20 a citizen has a right by a jury of his peers.
Hi everyone. I received a reply back from Simon Clark of Forest saying that they are looking into Mr. Nuttall's case as a "matter of urgency." I'll ping him back today to ask if he has any objection to my posting the rest of his message here.
Nemo, ignorance works in their favor. How many people know that any damage over $20 a citizen has a right by a jury of his peers? It might be different if someone went up there who knew the Constitution. Unfortunately most of us have been public schooled. 
lol
Rod cites: "Society cannot allow the private sector to do whatever it wants," said Chavez
What's the difference between private sector and a socialist public sector in that respect?
The private sector is driven by market demand and restricted by laws and competition. Major decisions are taken by a small group of managers who can be dismissed if they take the wrong route. Employees who do not agree with their management can quit.
The public sector has the monopoly and is driven by the ego of those sitting at the top. If laws get in their way, they can change laws. If citizens do not agree with government, they cannot quit, but they might be forced to spend part of their life behind bars.
Great article in NY Times about the pitfalls of epidemiology that I think most people here will appreciate.
http://tinyurl.com/35zkrl
Who are WE to make that decision for him?
Apparently YOU all think you are GOD in that you take away the decisions of PRIVATE business owners as to whether or not they allow the use of a LEGAL product in THEIR establishment.
YOU have chosen to dictate that adults are not to be allowed to choose where they work or patronize.
This is just part of the same thing, and we've been telling you this all along.
Whose being delusional now? I know it's NOT us.
From Great Scott's citation:
Tony Collins, chief executive of St Michael's Hospice, said: "The smoking policy is a difficult call to make.
"We agreed to ban smoking inside the building while allowing patients and relatives to smoke in the grounds of the hospice.
"In what can be very difficult times for patients or their relatives we feel they should be able to do so outside where the risk to non smokers' health is minimised.
"We did consider allowing smoking in a patient's room but once a room has been smoked in it can remain unpleasant for a non smoker and we also had to consider staff and visitors."
A perfect example of the kind of absolute JACKASS the run-amok anti movement has produced. Now it's: a room becomes "unpleasant for a non smoker and we also had to consider staff and visitors."
The poison is in the dose, and, boy, this dose of idiocy is close to being lethal.
.
"The physician's job is to give the patient the risks and benefits of all the various options and to then allow the patient to make the decision."
I really think this deserves closer attention from the doctor. he said he would support a warning instead of a ban on SHS, but could not imagine a good enough warning because the issues are too complex.
So how in the world can we expect smokers with ankle injuries to understand the impact their habit has on post-surgery recovery?
Remember, the doctor pointed to a poll that showed 44 percent of people do not agree with him about the dangers of SHS. And he said poll proved, somehow, that people cannot be adequately warned.
I wonder what would happen if we took a poll of smokers with ankle injuries. What percentage of them would say that smoking posed a serious health risk with regards to their recovery? I bet the number would be way lower than 44 percent.
Would such a poll PROVE that smokers with ankle injuries cannot or have not been sufficiently warned about the dangers? The doctor's logic would seem to say so.
So. That would mean, using that same logic, that we ought to ban people from smoking after ankle surgery, right? Because like bartenders dumb enough to agree to work in a smoky bar, these people simply don;t have the training, the education or the intellectual werewithal to make such serious decisions.
Or you could think that people should work where they want. And smoke what they want.
Sam, I'm still trying wrap my mind around how people could understand the complex medical information that would help them decide what to do about the broken ankle to start with!!!
The poison is in the dose, and, boy, this dose of idiocy is close to being lethal.
Harry, I check my protection shield daily to be sure the stupidity that abounds today doesn't touch me. If I didn't, I'd be dead or insane by now.
Jalestra, Don't you just love how THEY pick and choose what we are and are not capable of understanding? Without knowing squat about us either?
With my luck, Goddess will let me live to be over 100 when what I want is to be gone ASAP because this is just getting too bizarre for me.
in the comments section on the hospice piece, one of the comments about SHS states 'it's not mustard gas' i thought that was pretty clever
lol
Forest's email to me (despite my subject line "$1400 fund for John Nuttall" ) seemed pretty tepid, but judge for yourselves. I'll post it below. Seems to me, first of all, they're missing the point, the one Dr. Siegel articulated well: it's up to Nuttall to decide. Nor can I understand their hesitance to label this a case of discrimination. Doesn't matter what other factors are involved, it's most certainly that.
To counter Forest's arguments: The news article does, in fact, gives the reason he initially refused surgery (hope that the ankle would set properly w/o it, and fear of yet another hospital-bred infection) and also gives the reason the doctors are refusing to operate now (the possible "risk" of his healing more slowly or getting an infection on account of his smoking-- both of which they see, not as "risks" for Mr. Nutter, but as costs to "the community.") Odd tho isn't it. They apparently were willing to operate before, at the time of the accident, at which time, clearly, the guy also smoked and the "risk" would've been the same.
My personal instinct is: we go ahead, though if Colin can talk to Clark about the upshot of Forest's "urgent" inquiries, that'd be fine too. Be good if they could also estimate the actual cost of the operation.
If we go ahead on our own, we'd also need one of us within the UK to get Nuttall's address. (Don't publish it here now; just assure us you've got it.)
Another pre-req: Deciding the best form in which to send the money. A brief discussion with a foreign exchange banker this morning showed that personal checks in US or Canadian $ can be very very expensive to cash. I'll inquire further but a possible answer is to either send travelers checks made out to Nuttall (separately or bundled) or each send money orders to some central person who could then buy a bank check already in pounds.
Once we've agreed on the specs and the logistics, we can think about widening our collection to other forums, and figure out ways we can get this to the press.
I trust all the sharp minds in this ether will come up with alternative opinions, ideas, and courses of action.
Here's Forrest's letter:
Dear Walt,
Thank you for your email. We did some media interviews on Mr Nuttall's situation last week so it is something we are taking a close interest in.
Some years ago we helped the widow of a smoker who had been refused heart surgery because he was unable to give up smoking completely (he later died waiting for his operation at another hospital). His widow subsequently won £40,000 in an out-of-court settlement so we have down a similar route before.
With that in mind, and before we can throw our weight behind Mr Nuttall (and encourage people to donate money), we have to ascertain ALL the facts. We note, for example, that press reports suggest that Mr Nuttall initially refused an operation, and we need to find out why. We also need to find out more about his exact medical condition. It would be easy to get cheap publicity at Mr Nuttall's expense without actually helping his medical condition.
There is a very serious principle at stake here (smokers being discriminated against by the medical profession) but we need to get the facts and then decide if Mr Nuttall's case is a good example of discrimination. If we throw our weight behind a case that falls apart if and when all the facts are known, we will damage our long-term campaign to help those who may have greater cause for somplaint.
I hope you understand our caution but rest assured we are looking into Mr Nuttall's case as a matter of urgency.
Kind regards,
Simon Clark
Director, Forest
:
Put me down for sending flowers AFTER the operation, just in case this is a scam.
Then we can start a fund for the
first smoking nurse that is NOT HIRED by the Cleveland Clinic, to help
pay for the discrimination lawsuit.~RN
I definitely understand FOREST's caution on this matter. I hope all the background stories check and are valid and we can go forward with this funding.
Walt;
I received a similar response from the smokers club. There is a feeling this may be a trial balloon to test the public response to outright intolerance.
The articles written, all seem to be boilerplate as we see in most of the anti news release articles, with little detail or names.
My thinking here is if we stand silent and say nothing in response, they will find confidence and proceed. Perhaps if this is a trial balloon it could well be the one they will regret having flown; The Ying to Heather Crow's Yang.
It allows us to tap into public concerns and demonstrate these intolerants for what they really are, embarrassing the lot of them.
I noticed the instigators have resurfaced to detour focus; Bill and Cathy in the same thread, indicates to me they sense a danger and are busy taking us off topic as usual.
good luck to Mr. Nuttall and wish him a speedy recovery
Update stands: ($50 unless otherwise stated)
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
8. Gilster
9. Judy
10. Kevin
11. Rufus Trotman (£50 ($100 US))
12. Andrew
13. Diane
14. LightningBoy!
15. Dawn (aka) Backtalk ($20)
16. GreatScot £50 (£50 ($100 USD)
17. Iro 50 $
18. Harry $50 (and more)
19. Lynda F ($20 guaranteed, $50 possible)
20. Rod Guilmette $100
21. Colin Grainger £50 (£50 ($100 USD)
22. NaptownKrabbi $50
23. Brandz
24. smokenreader
25. Bill H.
26. smallbird
27. Jemeyes ($25 guaranteed, $50 possible)
If there's more coming, it'd be good if you'd c/p The List and just add your name.
Walt wrote:
"Forest's email to me...seemed pretty tepid, but judge for yourselves."
I think it was a good response, Walt. They're interested, just cautious.
So far it seems to be:
1 cynic
2 wait and see
2 let's go
Do I hear another bid?
If we're waiting and seeing, perhaps a few more of us should write to forest and ask for their update (?). Let them know we're serious in our interest and our offer.
contact@forestonline.org
:
Walt,
While I understand your anxiousness to get this going, I also understand Forest's wanting to properly vet the situation and story first. It really does make sense for them to make sure this is legit.
You can't blame them for being cautious, especially these days. Especially IF they are to start a fund of sorts for this person.
$100. Tell me where to send the money. Paypal?
Leander and all
The consensus so far seems to be that we stay on hold till we find out what forest found out, tho I must say it beats me what they think they'll find out. I'll try to follow up with them, tho I hope more of you will too. contact@forestonline.org.
But if Forest isn't ultimately willing to act as a clearing house and unless they learn that Mr N is a pathological liar with two sturdy ankles, I'm personally in favor of proceding on our own
IF we can learn Mr. Nuttall's address. And I wonder again if someone already in the UK can try to track it down.
If we go it on our own, Paypal won't work, we'll either have to pool travelers checks made out to him, or pool money orders and buy a bank check made out in pounds.
Best I can do is to let you know what if anything I've learned and post it on any then-current thread.
I'd hate like hell to see this fizzle into just another melted mush of good intentions.
:
Thanks for the update Walt.
.
I have to ask ( I know I'm late realizing this fact but); why didn't they also tell him to stop eating pineapples, cereal, maize, rice, wheat flour, millet, potato, and milk and also cocoa, popcorn, tomato, carrot, kiwi, and apples?
Why did he have to quit just smoking, since it must be the nicotine? Nicotine is a tobacco specific alkolide called myosmine shouldn't that have an effect as well?
PS just because a statistical sample found a certain % of risk doesn't mean that this is the reality of the situation for everyone or even anyone. We've seen the nimble ability of statistical analysis recently in Scotland.
Just a note to let everyone know, and thank Dr. Siegel for bringing this to my attention, that the Board of Directors of FORCES Intl. has approved the "John Nuttall Fund Raiser".
We need to contact Mr. Nuttall, before we can proceed. So if anyone knows how to reach him by phone please contact me. I have sent inquiries to two Cornwall newspapers, but am still waiting a response.
Yours in FORCES,
Maryetta Ables
President
Thanks Maryetta.
Once the details are worked out and everything is confirmed, I will be glad to make an announcement regarding the logistics.
Maryetta and Forces---Thanks so much for taking this up.
I heard from Simon Clark of Forest this morning.
Simon tells me he is investigating costs, and has contacted the BMA for more details. They (the BMA) have suggested that Simon contact the Royal College of Surgeons. Simon is doing that and will let us know what he discovers.
There are a couple of grey areas that need to be checked out before we all send money for the fund. John Nuttall has still not been reached, and that really is the first priority.
I will update you all as soon as I have new information.
I posted Simon's e mail to me on the first (241-long) thread. Not as informative of Colin's (above) but gerally the same:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com...r_broken_ankle/
Update (Steve Verdon): I have to say I find this story rather amusing in a grim fashion since it is often a story we’d hear from the advocates of universal health care; that a person is denied care because of the inability to pay.
In a country where there is supposedly universal health care, care is denied to a patient who obviously needs it.
When FORCES was made aware of the John Nuttall case of surgery being denied by the British National Health Service, a decision was made to contact Mister Nuttall and ask for his permission to do a "John Nuttall Fund Raiser" on his behalf to pay for his ankle surgery privately.
We contacted Mr. Nuttall last week and he requested a week to consider our offer.
Upon communication with Mister Nuttall on October 2nd, he has told us he has decided to decline the offer made by FORCES International at this time. Mister Nuttall did indicate that he is not done fighting with the National Health Service.
Mister Nuttall graciously explained that, "I have decided not to take up your offer yet. I want to make the NHS pay for it. After all, I've paid my taxes and should be covered."
He went on to say, "It's just not right, that they should get away with denying care after collecting the taxes."
Mister Nuttall stated that, "It is my conscientious position that NHS should be paying and no one else." Mister Nuttall also expressed his feelings of humility and gratefulness in reaction to advocacy on his behalf and the public's offers to donate the money needed to pay for his surgery.
Mister Nuttall also indicated that last evening there was a program on British television with Trevor McDonald which reported on the NHS's ducking out on smokers and obese persons. He felt that, "The show should have opened a few people's eyes to the situation." He is hoping for more public support towards changing NHS policies.
"I just don't see why they should get away with it," he said. "They are not supplying a service I've paid for all my life." The NHS will not even consider the surgery: "They just say no. They just won't talk to you."
The offer from FORCES was prompted by public outrage, and at the specific suggestion of Boston University Professor Michael Siegel, MD. Doctor Siegel recommended at his web site that a major organization in defense of smokers should take up a fund collection.
FORCES answered unhesitatingly, viewing the circumstances as clearly egregious, and the need urgent. Purely from a standpoint of compassion and human decency Mister Nuttall most certainly requires and deserves prompt and proper medical attention. There are besides several elements of his story that come under the specific guidance of our organization's Constitution.
Firstly, this is an issue of human rights. No person should be denied medical care, especially when he is legitimately covered by insurance, in the UK an essentially mandated form of insurance.
Secondly, this is an issue of medical and scientific ethics and practice. Our organization closely examines and openly exposes the flawed methodology of "scientific studies" which commonly and fraudulently exaggerate risks of smoking in service of an anti-smoking movement which some time ago became fanatically prohibitionist.
Specifically regarding Mister Nuttall's case, it simply beggars belief that a man should not receive corrective treatment for a painfully injured ankle, because he smokes. Common sense tells anyone: what of all our smoking soldiers in our wars, did not many survive greater injuries, and likewise survive the treatments for their injuries? Did they not deserve treatment because they smoked?
Which brings us back to basic compassion. FORCES advocates for human dignity. This is a humanitarian issue. The treatment Mister Nuttall has received deserves the name of contempt; as Doctor Siegel has pointed out it may also be called a breach of fundamental medical ethics which reach back to the Hippocratic Oath. We sometimes take great issue with Michael Siegel but who could here?
Mister Nuttall repeatedly expressed his gratitude for the gestures and offers of support he has received from strangers around the world. He is amazed that so many would care about him and support him in his indignation at the National Health Service. That support still holds and will continue to hold as we watch his further battles with the NHS.
We admire his principle. John says accepting the offered donations would be "the easy way out," that if he accepted, "they (the NHS) walk away without spending a penny of what I paid into the system, and that's what annoys me." Well-wishes from the internet were relayed to Mister Nuttall since he has no computer. He in turn asked us to relate his thanks to the people "out there" who cared enough to want to help a stranger.
We wish to impress that Mister Nuttall's experience is by no means unique or even unusual; in fact it is well within the "norm" for the NHS as is reflected in two pieces recently appearing about patients in hospice care and regarding cancer patients. Many are being adversely affected by the NHS system, finding recourse quite as difficult, as has John Nuttall.
We will keep our readers updated as information becomes available.
Maryetta Ables
President, FORCES
304-765-5394
Commenting by HaloScan
