Smoking kills

It has long been known that smoking causes lung cancer and lung cancer can cause death (death normally being classed as a bad thing). Apart from premature death, there are a number of other things that happen as a result of smoking (the following information available on the website for ASH - Action on Smoking & Health):

Increased risk for smokers

• Cataract
• Hearing loss
• Impotence
• Depression
• Tooth loss
• Rheumatoid arthritis

Symptoms made worse by smoking

• Asthma
• Multiple Sclerosis
• Optic Neuritis

Diseases more severe or persistent

• Pneumonia
• Tuberculosis
• Crohn's disease

Do you want any of that list or have it made worse? I don't. Well, that's the sort of thing smokers look forward to.

A guy who goes by the name of fibrodenial has this to say:

"It has finally happened… smoking cigarettes now threatens your livelihood, making smokers an officially oppressed people. Wikipedia describes oppression as "the negative outcome experienced by people targeted by the cruel exercise of power in a society or social group." A government at war with tobacco companies over the right to obtain revenue through product regulation and taxation has created enough propaganda to convince society that anyone using the uncooperative industry’s nasty little products must be erradicated."

I like the bit about "smoking cigarettes now threatens your livelihood". I would have thought the obvious health problems it causes meant it threatened your livelihood already. Apparently, banning smoking is a "cruel exercise of power". How is it cruel if it will improve your health and the health of people around you (remember the effects of passive smoking)?

The ban of smoking in public places starts on July 1st. Note the word 'public'. It means you can still smoke in private places if you want to and that means it doesn't affect your human rights.

What about the hospitals in the UK? I found this quote in an article in the British Medical Journal:

"Each year in the United Kingdom smoking causes more than 120,000 deaths. It remains the largest single preventable cause of death and disability in the country and costs the NHS in England about £1500m a year."

Think about that figure - £1500m. If everyone was to stop smoking, just think of the other areas in healthcare that could benefit.

Anyway, I've mentioned the benefits of the smoking ban, but what about the negatives? To have a balanced argument I have to mention that the sale of cigarettes and tobacco generates millions for the UK economy and if the country never smoked, we wouldn't have the revenue from the sale of nicotine patches et al either.

That is a fairly weak argument though - when the smoking ban happens there will be a short term increase in the sales of patches generating revenue. Also, the money that would have been spent on cigarettes and tobacco would either spent on other things or saved - the latter reducing the ridiculous average personal debt level in this country.

Ok, so I've stated my opinion about the benefits of the smoking ban. What do you think?

Technorati tags: Smoking Ban, Health

The ambulance IT system

I read this article and was shocked.

"Urgent talks are underway to save a computerised capacity and activity monitoring system (CAMS) used to direct ambulances to hospitals best placed to deal with patients after PCTs in the East of England SHA withdrew their funding.

The East Anglian Ambulance Trust and acute trusts across Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire are in last minute talks with East of England (EoE) SHA to prevent the screens going blank on 7 March 2007."

Instead of just withdrawing the funding (£175,000 per year), why can't the PCTs actively find ways to make it financially worthwhile. There are clear technical and productivity benefits - so it would definitely be worth saving.

Apparently there has been a massive overspend of £175m. What happened to proper financial planning and project management? I learned that sort of thing at A-Level and this is a government project - so they should know this stuff. It's just plain ridiculous.

Nurses update the system's information on a two-hourly basis and it contains details of the number of empty beds and waiting times. That sort of thing can be essential as there are many cases where patients need to get to hospitals as soon as possible and if they arrive at one that's full, they could die.

Recent evaluations of the system show that it can save a lot of money and it tends to divert around 5% of patients. That might not seem much, but when you consider the number of busy A&Es across the country, it can add up to quite a few people.

The reporter for E-Health Insider mentioned:

"Losing CAMS is unlikely to endanger patients, sources told EHI, as hospitals have a duty to treat patients in an emergency. But it will mean the ambulances and trusts revert to pen and paper."

Considering that the NHS is implementing the National Programme for IT, which supposedly revolutionises the way hospitals work, this goes against the objectives of the government project.

In the FrontPoint Systems blog, they call it "short-termism" in this entry. It's certainly that. There have been many cases where businesses have initially made losses, but then gone on to make a profit. Why can't the PCTs see that the savings will eventually cancel out the epxense (ok, it might be a long time given the overspend, but it will happen eventually).

The key objectives in the strategic action plan for the Welsh version of this system are:

• Provide and coordinate an increasing range of mobile healthcare for patients who need urgent or unscheduled care
• Provide an increasing range of other services and alternative care pathways, e.g. in primary care, diagnostics and health promotion
• Improve the speed and quality of service provided to patients with emergency care needs
• Improve the speed and quality of call handling, provide significantly more clinical advice to callers, and work in a more integrated way with partner organisations to ensure consistent telephone services for patients who need urgent care
• Improve overall efficiency, effectiveness, consistency and quality of care provision
• Ensure Trust compliance with the Civil Contingencies Act 2004
• Provide strong leadership, both clinical and managerial, so that organisation structure, culture and style match new models of care

Those objectives will be the same as the English version, and they are worthwhile objectives. Why not do something to keep the system going?

So, what do you think?

Technorati tags: Ambulances, IT, Healthcare

The war on terror

Ever since September 11th, 2001, there's been one thing that's dominated the news - the war on terror. There's been so many sub-plots and it's near impossible to tell when it will end. Despite the fact that I find terrorism abhorrent, I disagree with the war.

It all started with an Al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center. For a while, the United States concentrated on trying to find Osama Bin Laden, but for some reason the objective suddenly changed from that to wrestling power from Saddam Hussein in Iraq. There are no proven links between the two people. There is no evidence to suggest Osama was hiding out in Iraq. There was no reason for the primary target to change.

Ok, so the focus switched to Iraq. Weapons inspectors were sent in to see if Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) existed in that country. The inspectors weren't able to complete the inspection and no proof was found - yet the war still took place. Sure, a guy responsible for the deaths of many innocent people was brought to justice, but was he brought to justice in the right way?

To figure out the answer to that, we need to sidestep for a second and look at the Charter of the United Nations. All member countries must obey the contents to stay as members of the organisation.

Article 2, point 3:

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

Article 2, point 4:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Article 24, point 1:

"In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations,its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf."

What the US did wasn't exactly peaceful, so that's the first of the above broken. The US were also using force against Iraq's territorial integrity - that's the second one broken. The third one is also broken because the United Nations Security Council never agreed to the US starting a war. It was also pre-emptive, yet we have a legal system which says innocent until proven guilty.

Anyway, enough about Iraq for now. Since Saddam was taken out of the equation the US switched to focus to Iran and the country's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He says that the US is "the great satan". Since that was said, people assume that he is going to launch an attack on the US. However, people have threatened others in normal life and it's just been words. There is nothing to prove (at the moment) that it's not the same thing with Ahmadinejad.

The following quote is from this article:

"The US and its Western allies suspect Iran of using its nuclear energy programme as a cover to produce atomic weapons. Tehran denies this claim."

The key word here is "suspect". There is no proof that Iran's nuclear programme has the objective of making weapons. It could just be something to power homes - like Britain's nuclear programme. Also, it's a bit hypocritical for the US and UK to say that a country should be prevented from creating nuclear weapons when they have a stockpile of their own already!

My next point is about all the soldiers that have been to the Middle East. They have done their job to the best of their ability - many sacrificing their lives in the process. For that, I have a massive amount of respect for them. It wasn't their fault that they were sent there.

To conclude, I would say that the United States broke the rules of the UN Charter and initiated a pre-emptive war against Iraq without any proof they had WMDs. They may have removed Saddam Hussein - which is a good thing - but they went about it in the wrong way. Too many soldiers have lost their lives and now the focus has been put on Iran, when there's no proof that they are producing WMDs either. On top of that, the original objective of finding Osama Bin Laden has not been achieved. Hopefully, you can see why I disagree with the war on terror.

So, what do you think?

Technorati tags: War, Terrorism, Politics, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan