Re-education Camps One Step Closer, Now
run waddle screaming
Chubby? Porky? Rotund? Portly? Sure.
Illegal? I don’t freakin’ think so.
But apparently I’m behind the times as, in Britain, it’s perfectly legal for the state to drag this man out of his home against his will and off to a mental institution for 28 days, or more—“for his own good.”
East Sussex County Council said “all proper procedures have been followed” — and such orders were “in the interests of that person’s health or safety...”
Shadow Health Minister Tim Loughton was outraged. He said: “It’s a taste of things to come if the Government’s draft Mental Health Act becomes law. It will subject people who are not strictly suffering from mental illness, to sectioning.”
Loverly.
And in a completely unrelated matter, heard any updates on Bush’s Mental Health Act?
UK Libbies are up in arms over this latest example of Nanny State activity.
Of course, he is clearly a Diminished Capacity case, living w/o proper care, with a life-threatening disease. And they really are saving his life. Bastards.
Posted by HelenW on 02/22/05 at 05:10 PMthis is an example of why national health care does not work very well. as the underwriter for the nation’s health insurance, the government has a legitimate interest in the potential cost of its insurees. just like BlueCross BlueShield has a legitimate interest in whether you are a member of a high risk group. (we will save the discussion of what is a high risk group for later) while they may not deny you coverage, they may adjust your rate to offset the potentially larger costs you are statistically likely to cause. in national health care, managing risk becomes much more difficult. how do you get citizens to help offset the costs they might incur because of their lifestyle, etc.? should that obese man be taxed more because he is very likely to create more medical expenses than a non obese person?
Posted by on 02/22/05 at 09:28 PMIOW, socialism promotes people getting up your sleeve… Yep.
Posted by Claire on 02/23/05 at 08:18 AMSo, since this fella would likely have died as a baby in pre-medical intervention days due to his PWS, wouldn’t the state have been better off to have simply allowed that to happen? Or p’rhaps, to have helped it along?
Because, if the State gets to decide what is “proper care,” and gets to force that on it’s possessions ...er, consumers who’s to say the diagnosis of “Diminished Capacity” won’t be extended to those crazy enough to jump out of a perfectly good airplane [even with a parachute]? Or fall down snow-covered mountains with sticks on their feet?
Or use a nail gun? Or ride large furry animals who jump in the air? Or drive too fast in unsafe conditions? Or walk rapidly when it’s icy outside? Or have ‘unusual’ sexual proclivities? Or run with scissors?
Posted by Claire on 02/23/05 at 08:52 AMVery funny, and yes, I know that I am extraordinarily persuasive.
However, these total capitulations are entirely unnecessary. We can still be friends if we don’t agree on *everything*.
Posted by HelenW on 02/23/05 at 04:10 PMNon sequiturial logic—extraordinarily ,um… persuasive. Indeed.
And indeed, Helly—we can still be friends. So long as you don’t attempt to force me to do what you think is ‘best.’ Out here in The Country™ we don’ take kindly to socialist nonsense...
Posted by Claire on 02/24/05 at 09:03 AMDang. You know what they say about jokes that need to be explained.
<font color=purple>
<font size=5>Non-sens socialiste de moi ? Mon Dieu—</font><font size=6>JAMAIS !
</font></font>Posted by HelenW on 02/24/05 at 02:39 PMhhmmm. Wucha see, tain’t wucha get.
Posted by HelenW on 02/24/05 at 02:41 PM...yeah—I’m workin on that technical problem.
Posted by Claire on 02/25/05 at 01:16 PM
Next entry: HMOs = Mrs Grundy with an AK-47
Previous entry: A sense of unease . . .
