Simon Collins' series of articles about sole parents and the DPB published in today's NZ Herald take me back to David McLoughlin's substantial article for the North and South, "The DPB Disaster". McLoughlin also visited suburbs and towns where sole parents proliferated - Glen Innes, Flaxmere and Tokoroa. Collins went to Kawerau.
McLoughlin's investigation was in 1995. 15 years ago and essentially nothing has changed. That is the year Maraia Enoka was born. Now she is 15, pregnant and describes herself as a "breeder". Just tragic.
Economic conditions in 1995 weren't dissimilar to right now. But between then and now we have seen good economic times. Yet the DPB disaster persists. And it always will if it continues to be laid at the feet of the economy.
Saturday, August 07, 2010
Friday, August 06, 2010
Garth George - apologist for Harawira
Garth George says Hone Harawira is absolutely entitled to his views and desires and those of us who don't like it are victims of 'multiculturalism'. Please.
32 years ago I was 'going out with' a German/Cook Island boy. I brought him home one night when he missed the last train to Porirua. He slept on the couch. My mum and dad treated him the same as any other boyfriend - if not better. My mother used to predict that I would "fall for" (northern vernacular for 'marry') a Maori because I was attracted to polynesians. That probably had everything to do with my closest friend being polynesian. (In fact, in later years the same friend admits she steadfastly avoided Maori boys because she didn't want to end up living the same lifestyle as an adult that she had as a child - overcrowding and lack of privacy. We both had our own prejudices. Perhaps mine could be described as positive and her's negative.) Anyway, my parents never gave any suggestion, not an inkling that they were against my partnering with someone of another race. Unsurprisingly my attitudes mirror their's.
And this was back in the 1970s. Long before political correctness had started strangling freedom of speech and thought.
But George fails to notice that this has everything to do with the growth of government. Groups will always try to harness resources and influence as long as there are large governments capable of apportioning it.
Then he quotes at length passages about the political process known as multiculturalism and the emergence of thought control. I agree, that is a real phenomenon. But again it has been created by state institutions. From the vast bureaucracy that patrols bogus human rights through to the education system. Ironically it was a representative of one of these, the Race Relations Conciliator, who appeared most reluctant to haul Harawira over the coals. Probably because he believes nonsensical edicts like Maori cannot be racist because they are an oppressed minority.
Political correctness or thought control has nothing to do with my revulsion at Harawira's sentiments. I find his views abhorrent because they allow no room for the freedom of individuals, which must surpass race and gender. Mr Harawira wants to practice oppression of his own children's freedom by restricting their choice of partner. Or he wants to instil in them his own enmity to Pakeha so they won't choose one as a partner. I can't find any excuse for it at all. On any grounds. And certainly not on Garth George's grounds.
Why don't we simply acknowledge Hone Harawira is a Maori who takes great pride in his race and wants to keep his bloodline pure?
We don't because most of us, from the Prime Minister down, have become unthinking victims of the doctrine of multiculturalism, in all its politically correct dissimulation and deception.
32 years ago I was 'going out with' a German/Cook Island boy. I brought him home one night when he missed the last train to Porirua. He slept on the couch. My mum and dad treated him the same as any other boyfriend - if not better. My mother used to predict that I would "fall for" (northern vernacular for 'marry') a Maori because I was attracted to polynesians. That probably had everything to do with my closest friend being polynesian. (In fact, in later years the same friend admits she steadfastly avoided Maori boys because she didn't want to end up living the same lifestyle as an adult that she had as a child - overcrowding and lack of privacy. We both had our own prejudices. Perhaps mine could be described as positive and her's negative.) Anyway, my parents never gave any suggestion, not an inkling that they were against my partnering with someone of another race. Unsurprisingly my attitudes mirror their's.
And this was back in the 1970s. Long before political correctness had started strangling freedom of speech and thought.
As Britain's Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, says in his book The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, multiculturalism is a threat to liberal democracy, stifles free speech and has "led not to integration but to segregation". Lord Sacks defines multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more respected. But, he says, the movement has run its course.
"Liberal democracy is in danger. The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear," Lord Sacks says.
Britain's politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment.
The process, he says, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. The effect had been inexorably divisive.
But George fails to notice that this has everything to do with the growth of government. Groups will always try to harness resources and influence as long as there are large governments capable of apportioning it.
Then he quotes at length passages about the political process known as multiculturalism and the emergence of thought control. I agree, that is a real phenomenon. But again it has been created by state institutions. From the vast bureaucracy that patrols bogus human rights through to the education system. Ironically it was a representative of one of these, the Race Relations Conciliator, who appeared most reluctant to haul Harawira over the coals. Probably because he believes nonsensical edicts like Maori cannot be racist because they are an oppressed minority.
Political correctness or thought control has nothing to do with my revulsion at Harawira's sentiments. I find his views abhorrent because they allow no room for the freedom of individuals, which must surpass race and gender. Mr Harawira wants to practice oppression of his own children's freedom by restricting their choice of partner. Or he wants to instil in them his own enmity to Pakeha so they won't choose one as a partner. I can't find any excuse for it at all. On any grounds. And certainly not on Garth George's grounds.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Forget illegal. What about immoral?
This case caught my eye only because the judge sent the defrauding mother to jail rather than the defrauding father. Both had been illegally receiving benefits from Work and Income. It appears the decision is based on the degree of fraud. He stole less.
I can no longer get very worked up about the illegal use of the benefit system for the simple reason that the much bigger story is the immoral use. Thousands of people enter the system every year due to avoidable circumstances. They cause their own incapacity or inability to be independent. That is, as they say, the elephant in the room.
Focussing on benefit fraud only allows supporters of the status quo the opportunity to say there is relatively little of it (that which is uncovered and prosecuted) and it is a price worth paying for the preservation of the safety net as it stands.
That's a bad enough cop-out but government's collective failure to confront to widespread misuse of welfare is a much bigger one.
I can no longer get very worked up about the illegal use of the benefit system for the simple reason that the much bigger story is the immoral use. Thousands of people enter the system every year due to avoidable circumstances. They cause their own incapacity or inability to be independent. That is, as they say, the elephant in the room.
Focussing on benefit fraud only allows supporters of the status quo the opportunity to say there is relatively little of it (that which is uncovered and prosecuted) and it is a price worth paying for the preservation of the safety net as it stands.
That's a bad enough cop-out but government's collective failure to confront to widespread misuse of welfare is a much bigger one.
MacDoctor writes to Pita Sharples
Pita Sharples is a likeable man. Politically he is the saving grace of the Maori Party. So it disappoints me enormously that he has gone to bat for Hone the Hater by claiming he is not a racist. MacDoctor is obviously more than just disappointed by this development.
Dear Mr. Sharples
I judge from your recent remarks that you are not aware of the definition of the word racist. In the interests of helping you understand your colleague Hone Harawira, I thought I might help you out:
racism
“Pronunciation:/ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/
noun [mass noun]
“the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race , especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
* prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief:
In case you are still puzzled, let me spell it out for you.
Hone Harawira is a racist.
If you think what he said was…
* Amusing
* Normal
* “Just a view point”
* Justifiable
…then that makes you a racist as well. Trust me on this. I’m ex-South African. I can spot a racist remark from 10,000 paces.
Now that I have appraised you of the reality, I trust that you will roundly condemn your racist colleague, Mr Harawira. Failure to do so will lead me to the inescapable conclusion that the Maori party is not merely ethnic in nature, but ardently racist. Should this be the case, I will be actively campaigning for you to be voted out of parliament in the next election. The last thing the Maori people need are representatives who are blinkered bigots. Racism has a nasty habit of spreading.
Your views would probably be welcome in Zimbabwe. Go there.
Yours Sincerely
MacDoctor
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Where is ACT on the Foreshore and Seabed replacement legislation?
Further to yesterday's post. I was bemused over David Garrett's question - one so antithetical to what ACT previously stood for.
5. DAVID GARRETT to the Attorney-General: Will he commit to prohibiting Māori owners from charging other New Zealanders for access to beaches; if not, will he at least limit the amount they can charge to $5, the fee currently charged by the Māori owners of Takou Bay in Northland?
There is no doubt in my mind that this question was primarily intended to scaremonger. It is exactly the question Winston Peters would have put.
Let's not forget that last time the Foreshore and Seabed issue was a hot potato ACT voted against Labour, putting the view that Maori had every right to test their customary ownership through the High Court.
Richard Prebble, May 2004;
Now it would appear that David Garrett is going down the opposite track and will attempt to stir up fear and resentment amongst Pakeha over the implications of the legislation due to pass late this year whereby Maori will once more have the right to test their title.
But in my efforts to establish what the party's view is I came across this from ACT's Maori Affairs spokesman Peter Tashkoff.
So what is ACT's position? Will they be doing some sort of double act, supporting the National government while also trying to frighten the horses? Or will they vote against the legislation? Against the right for Maori to test their property rights in the relevant court?
5. DAVID GARRETT to the Attorney-General: Will he commit to prohibiting Māori owners from charging other New Zealanders for access to beaches; if not, will he at least limit the amount they can charge to $5, the fee currently charged by the Māori owners of Takou Bay in Northland?
There is no doubt in my mind that this question was primarily intended to scaremonger. It is exactly the question Winston Peters would have put.
Let's not forget that last time the Foreshore and Seabed issue was a hot potato ACT voted against Labour, putting the view that Maori had every right to test their customary ownership through the High Court.
Richard Prebble, May 2004;
I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose the foreshore and seabed legislation.
ACT is a party that believes in private property rights, the rule of law, the citizens’ right to go to court for justice, and one law for all...
The bill discriminates against Maori, by removing the right that the Court of Appeal has found, that Maori have to seek a declaration from the courts that the seabed and foreshore is Maori land....
Let me make it clear that in upholding the rights of all citizens to go to court I am not lending support to claims that Maori under the Treaty own all the foreshore and seabed around New Zealand. As a lawyer it is very clear that in law, whether it be legislation or British common law or Maori customary law, it is very clear that Maori do not own the vast majority of the foreshore or seabed of New Zealand....
Both Maori and British common law require continuous occupation and control for common law ownership. If Maori controlled and occupied Takapuna beach I am sure we would have noticed.
But it does not follow that it is not possible there are some parts of the foreshore and the seabed that is still owned by Maori, and indeed I think it is likely that Maori do own some parts of the foreshore and seabed.....
Any claim by anyone to the foreshore and seabed should be brought in a proper court, and the appropriate court is the High Court...
I realise that the position the ACT party takes is not a populist one. In this country we have no written constitution. Our Bill of Rights is a totally inadequate piece of legislation that contains no property protections.
It is this parliament, and we 120 MPs, who are the guardians of citizens’ rights. A society that doesn't uphold the right of citizens to own property and the right of all citizens to go to court cannot be described as being free...
Now it would appear that David Garrett is going down the opposite track and will attempt to stir up fear and resentment amongst Pakeha over the implications of the legislation due to pass late this year whereby Maori will once more have the right to test their title.
But in my efforts to establish what the party's view is I came across this from ACT's Maori Affairs spokesman Peter Tashkoff.
“As ACT stated in our minority report on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill in 2004, it was never fair for Maori to have their right to their day in court legislated away. Recognition of that, now from all sides, is long overdue," Mr Tashkoff said.
“New Zealand has a long and established history of ownership issues being resolved by the courts, and the matter should now be left with them. There is no need for any further political involvement beyond the repeal of this pernicious legislation.
So what is ACT's position? Will they be doing some sort of double act, supporting the National government while also trying to frighten the horses? Or will they vote against the legislation? Against the right for Maori to test their property rights in the relevant court?
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Parliamentary questions worth a decko
Couple of interesting questions being asked back to back in parliament this afternoon;
4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her June 2009 statement that stopping “the heinous and incomprehensible abuse of New Zealand’s children” is a priority?
Where will Annette King take this? Naturally the Minister will stand by it. What would Labour do that National hasn't? There must have been around 70 or so child murders while they governed.
5. DAVID GARRETT to the Attorney-General: Will he commit to prohibiting Māori owners from charging other New Zealanders for access to beaches; if not, will he at least limit the amount they can charge to $5, the fee currently charged by the Māori owners of Takou Bay in Northland?
Well this is really a mischief-making question. Of course Chris Finlayson could play with it at ACT's expense. The free market party advocating price-fixing, and by the state to boot?
4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her June 2009 statement that stopping “the heinous and incomprehensible abuse of New Zealand’s children” is a priority?
Where will Annette King take this? Naturally the Minister will stand by it. What would Labour do that National hasn't? There must have been around 70 or so child murders while they governed.
5. DAVID GARRETT to the Attorney-General: Will he commit to prohibiting Māori owners from charging other New Zealanders for access to beaches; if not, will he at least limit the amount they can charge to $5, the fee currently charged by the Māori owners of Takou Bay in Northland?
Well this is really a mischief-making question. Of course Chris Finlayson could play with it at ACT's expense. The free market party advocating price-fixing, and by the state to boot?
Stupid. stupid. stupid.
I know there are a number of ACT-On-Campus people who are dead set against the war on drugs and I hope that one day their influence may count for something. A 'tough on crime' stance should attempt to sort out and campaign on what properly constitutes a crime, instead of just widening the net. 10 percent of prisoners are committed for drug offences (primarily). When I read stories like Craig McColl's I just shake my head. As taxpayers we will probably spend around $200,000 temporarily (one would hope) ruining this guy's life. If the state was consistent it would have taken the profit from Mr McColl (which was his plan anyway), just as it does with alcohol and tobacco producers, and left Mr McColl to his own devices (which included being a supporting member/business of his small community school).
Monday, August 02, 2010
New research affirms National's DPB policy
The NZ Herald reports new research that finds it's "OK for mums to go back to work" within a few months of their child's birth.
This is important not least because the author of the new research has changed her mind.
An earlier study provided the following abstract;
That is a departure from the 2010 study then. The new conclusion is further explained in the Guardian:
The study is called FIRST-YEAR MATERNAL EMPLOYMENT AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIRST 7 YEARS by JEANNE BROOKS-GUNN, WEN-JUI HAN, AND JANE WALDFOGEL and published here (no abstract available).
Whether women want to return to employment or stay at home is their choice. It is none of my business until that decision relies on somebody else to fund it. Then it becomes a matter of public policy and public opinion unfortunately. If an individual wants to live off the taxpayer, the taxpayer's opinion becomes pivotal.
National should be taking heed of this research and using it to not only counter the considerable opposition to work-testing the DPB, but to push for much tighter time- limits in line with most other countries. I see the Greens once again labelling the requirement for single mothers to find part-time work after their youngest turns 6 as "draconian". Do they even know what draconian means? Harsh and cruel.
Yet thousands of single and partnered mothers take it upon themselves to pay for their own life choices and subject themselves to what is, by the Green's standards, harsh and cruel, everyday.
This is important not least because the author of the new research has changed her mind.
An earlier study provided the following abstract;
We investigated the effects of early maternal employment on children's cognitive outcomes, using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth on 1,872 children who can be followed from birth to age 7 or 8. We found some persistent adverse effects of first-year maternal employment and some positive effects of second- and third-year maternal employment on cognitive outcomes for non-Hispanic white children, but not for African American or Hispanic children. These effects are present even after we controlled for a range of individual and family characteristics that affect child development, including those that are likely to be correlated with maternal employment, such as breast-feeding and the use of nonmaternal child care. Controlling for family fixed effects reduces the effects of early maternal employment on some cognitive outcomes but not on others.
That is a departure from the 2010 study then. The new conclusion is further explained in the Guardian:
The new study, led by New York's Columbia University School of Social Work, was published last week by the Society for Research in Child Development. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care followed more than 1,000 children from 10 geographic areas aged up to seven, tracking their development and family characteristics.
It found that, while there are downsides to mothers taking work during their child's first year, there were also significant advantages – an increase in mothers' income and wellbeing, and a greater likelihood that children receive high-quality childcare. Taking everything into account, the researchers said, the net effect was neutral.
"The effect of the parenting itself is the key factor," said Waldfogel. "It is hugely important how sensitive you are to your child's needs. Even for women who have to work more than 30 hours a week, they can make things better for themselves, they just need to take a deep breath on the doorstep, dump all the office worries behind them and go in the door prepared to pay attention to all their children's cues. This is good news for all mothers.
The study is called FIRST-YEAR MATERNAL EMPLOYMENT AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIRST 7 YEARS by JEANNE BROOKS-GUNN, WEN-JUI HAN, AND JANE WALDFOGEL and published here (no abstract available).
Whether women want to return to employment or stay at home is their choice. It is none of my business until that decision relies on somebody else to fund it. Then it becomes a matter of public policy and public opinion unfortunately. If an individual wants to live off the taxpayer, the taxpayer's opinion becomes pivotal.
National should be taking heed of this research and using it to not only counter the considerable opposition to work-testing the DPB, but to push for much tighter time- limits in line with most other countries. I see the Greens once again labelling the requirement for single mothers to find part-time work after their youngest turns 6 as "draconian". Do they even know what draconian means? Harsh and cruel.
Yet thousands of single and partnered mothers take it upon themselves to pay for their own life choices and subject themselves to what is, by the Green's standards, harsh and cruel, everyday.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Deborah Coddington on ACT - right and wrong
Deborah Coddington writes that ACT has assisted the resurgence of Winston First by keeping alive his Law and Order policies. Like Deborah I believe ACT went too far down (and put too much focus on) this particular policy pathway but there was always conservative support within the party to do so. I cannot agree specifically however with her take on certain matters;
Act went populist instead of remaining principled. Take its opposition to the repeal of S59 of the Crimes Act, giving children equal status before the law if assaulted.
A liberal party, which opposes the initiation of force, should have supported this. How can hitting children, or using unreasonable force, be defined as self-defence?
If one wants to argue this from the libertarian/classical liberal perspective the removal of section 59 provides for the state to iniatiate force against adults in a way it previously could not. I would argue we now have more initiation of force; more uneccessary intrusion and intervention. Using unreasonable force against children was illegal. That seems to be forgotten. I supported the status quo although I can sympathise with the idea that smacking children isn't productive.
Act's "Laura Norder" policies are now taken straight from NZ First's pages, so we end up with a (three strikes) legislation that sees an elderly man suffering from dementia caught by this statute and sent to jail.
That's incorrect. It wasn't the three strikes legislation that sent the man to jail. He was sent to (and remains in) jail because nobody else will take him. That could have happened before three strikes. My concern is that indecent assault is on the three strikes list and what that will mean for this type of offender (and possibly many others) further down the track.
It would be ironically perverse if ACT has played a hand in keeping NZ First's election hopes alive and they end up fighting over the same authoritarian and nationalistic vote next year.
(Prediction; NZ First will promise to revive the Death With Dignity bill. That'll garner them a great deal of vote. Voluntray euthanasia is a top priorty at any Grey Power election meeting. That is one policy I wouldn't have minded ACT nicking.)
Act went populist instead of remaining principled. Take its opposition to the repeal of S59 of the Crimes Act, giving children equal status before the law if assaulted.
A liberal party, which opposes the initiation of force, should have supported this. How can hitting children, or using unreasonable force, be defined as self-defence?
If one wants to argue this from the libertarian/classical liberal perspective the removal of section 59 provides for the state to iniatiate force against adults in a way it previously could not. I would argue we now have more initiation of force; more uneccessary intrusion and intervention. Using unreasonable force against children was illegal. That seems to be forgotten. I supported the status quo although I can sympathise with the idea that smacking children isn't productive.
Act's "Laura Norder" policies are now taken straight from NZ First's pages, so we end up with a (three strikes) legislation that sees an elderly man suffering from dementia caught by this statute and sent to jail.
That's incorrect. It wasn't the three strikes legislation that sent the man to jail. He was sent to (and remains in) jail because nobody else will take him. That could have happened before three strikes. My concern is that indecent assault is on the three strikes list and what that will mean for this type of offender (and possibly many others) further down the track.
It would be ironically perverse if ACT has played a hand in keeping NZ First's election hopes alive and they end up fighting over the same authoritarian and nationalistic vote next year.
(Prediction; NZ First will promise to revive the Death With Dignity bill. That'll garner them a great deal of vote. Voluntray euthanasia is a top priorty at any Grey Power election meeting. That is one policy I wouldn't have minded ACT nicking.)
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Harawira - confirmed racist
Blair Mulholland hits the nail on the head. Hone Harawira is an utter creep and crank. If Maori and Pakeha are so repulsive to each other why has there been widespread inter-marriage? Like Blair I would be more than happy to have Maori (or Asian or Indian) grandchildren if one of my children found someone who was good for them. Yes there can be problems when cultures meet but people can and do work through those differences. Good Lord. This is the clearest evidence yet of how racist Harawira is. Let's hope there is greater enlightenment and tolerance amongst the rest of his party. Because Harawira represents the sort of bigotry that ultimately fuels wars.
No-one will be normal
From today's NCPA news digest (highly recommended for subscription)
An updated edition of a mental health reference for doctors may include diagnoses for "disorders" such as toddler tantrums and binge eating, and could mean that soon no one will be classed as normal, says Reuters.
Leading mental health experts warn that the new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which is being revised now for publication in 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), could devalue the seriousness of mental illness and label almost everyone as having some kind of disorder. Citing examples of new additions like "mild anxiety depression," "psychosis risk syndrome," and "temper dysregulation disorder," they said many people previously seen as perfectly healthy could be told they are ill.
According to Wykes and colleagues Felicity Callard, also of Kings' Institute of Psychiatry, and Nick Craddock of Cardiff University's department of psychological medicine and neurology, many in the psychiatric community are worried that the further the guidelines are expanded, the more likely it will become that nobody will be classed as normal anymore:
* Technically, with the classification of so many new disorders, we will all have disorders.
* This may lead to the belief that many more of us "need" drugs to treat our "conditions," and many of these drugs will have unpleasant or dangerous side effects.
* The "psychosis risk syndrome" diagnosis is particularly worrying, since it could falsely label young people who may only have a small risk of developing an illness.
I suspect that this development is, in fact, further widening and is part of an ongoing process.
This may lead to the belief that many more of us "need" drugs...
...or benefits.
Which is exactly what is happening. With psychiatric and psychological conditions the fastest growing category for qualification for disability benefits in this country. A trend which is probably mirrored internationally.
Stopping work many be the worst course of action for someone suffering a mild disorder. At least (and at last) there seems to be a growing concern about this amongst health professionals.
An updated edition of a mental health reference for doctors may include diagnoses for "disorders" such as toddler tantrums and binge eating, and could mean that soon no one will be classed as normal, says Reuters.
Leading mental health experts warn that the new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which is being revised now for publication in 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), could devalue the seriousness of mental illness and label almost everyone as having some kind of disorder. Citing examples of new additions like "mild anxiety depression," "psychosis risk syndrome," and "temper dysregulation disorder," they said many people previously seen as perfectly healthy could be told they are ill.
According to Wykes and colleagues Felicity Callard, also of Kings' Institute of Psychiatry, and Nick Craddock of Cardiff University's department of psychological medicine and neurology, many in the psychiatric community are worried that the further the guidelines are expanded, the more likely it will become that nobody will be classed as normal anymore:
* Technically, with the classification of so many new disorders, we will all have disorders.
* This may lead to the belief that many more of us "need" drugs to treat our "conditions," and many of these drugs will have unpleasant or dangerous side effects.
* The "psychosis risk syndrome" diagnosis is particularly worrying, since it could falsely label young people who may only have a small risk of developing an illness.
I suspect that this development is, in fact, further widening and is part of an ongoing process.
This may lead to the belief that many more of us "need" drugs...
...or benefits.
Which is exactly what is happening. With psychiatric and psychological conditions the fastest growing category for qualification for disability benefits in this country. A trend which is probably mirrored internationally.
Stopping work many be the worst course of action for someone suffering a mild disorder. At least (and at last) there seems to be a growing concern about this amongst health professionals.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Bits and bobs and bulbs
And the Lord said "Let there be light," and the energy-saving lightbulb manufacturer said, " All in good time". God I hate these bloody things. I rise early and in the dark. This morning I slipped in a pile of chunder left by one or other of my obliging animals. Cursing I reach for the light switch to inspect the damage and begin the clean-up and I can barely see what I am doing. This is not progress. It is literally a step back to the dark ages.
And spell-checkers aren't much better. Why doesn't it recognise "chunder"? And have they been programmed by near-illiterates? Their offerings when I hit the wrong keys rarely include the word I actually want. And on that subject I frequently hit the wrong keys because the white letters on my black keyboard have nearly all disappeared with use. So perhaps some solace after all. When the lights won't come on it doesn't really matter because the letters are invisible anyway.
Why is it that it often takes an insane person to say the sanest thing? Labour can't win the next election under Phi Goff. Phil Goff is nice. But John Key does 'nice' better. Now if ACT had stayed out of government, someone like Rodney Hide would have been a much better foil for the Prime Mr Nice. ACT could have been ripping shreds off National instead of contributing to the economic malaise the government is prolonging.
So what is there of cheer in the literal gloom. Yesterday, remedial reading with a school child, we came across the word 'ecstasy'. Needless to say the young lady could not pronounce said word. After supplying the sound for her I asked, Do you know what it means? A drug, she answered. Correct I replied. No, not really. I laughed and said if you were in 'ecstasy' you would be very happy, very excited. That's what it means but there is a drug called ecstasy too. I suppose I will not be asked back if she goes home and tells her parents that I said if you took ecstasy it would make you very happy and very excited. Geeez. Now I am worried again.
But I did provide some happiness and excitement to one very young child visiting the Academy Galleries on Wednesday. I was sketching and the picture caught his fancy big time "Cut! Cut! Cut!" he exclaimed repeatedly. Indeed it was a "cut".
And spell-checkers aren't much better. Why doesn't it recognise "chunder"? And have they been programmed by near-illiterates? Their offerings when I hit the wrong keys rarely include the word I actually want. And on that subject I frequently hit the wrong keys because the white letters on my black keyboard have nearly all disappeared with use. So perhaps some solace after all. When the lights won't come on it doesn't really matter because the letters are invisible anyway.
Why is it that it often takes an insane person to say the sanest thing? Labour can't win the next election under Phi Goff. Phil Goff is nice. But John Key does 'nice' better. Now if ACT had stayed out of government, someone like Rodney Hide would have been a much better foil for the Prime Mr Nice. ACT could have been ripping shreds off National instead of contributing to the economic malaise the government is prolonging.
So what is there of cheer in the literal gloom. Yesterday, remedial reading with a school child, we came across the word 'ecstasy'. Needless to say the young lady could not pronounce said word. After supplying the sound for her I asked, Do you know what it means? A drug, she answered. Correct I replied. No, not really. I laughed and said if you were in 'ecstasy' you would be very happy, very excited. That's what it means but there is a drug called ecstasy too. I suppose I will not be asked back if she goes home and tells her parents that I said if you took ecstasy it would make you very happy and very excited. Geeez. Now I am worried again.
But I did provide some happiness and excitement to one very young child visiting the Academy Galleries on Wednesday. I was sketching and the picture caught his fancy big time "Cut! Cut! Cut!" he exclaimed repeatedly. Indeed it was a "cut".
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Another infant death and another out-pouring
I was working yesterday and when eventually got free to call, couldn't get through. Danny Watson, NewstalkZB, was putting two and two together and calling for an end to the "free money" that has created the dysfunction culminating in what was then another child assault.
Dear Danny
Yesterday you called for an end to "free money". People rang in and said "enough is enough". Now the assaulted baby is another infant death statistic. The outpouring yesterday was a replay of the outrage we heard after the death of Lillybing and too many others. After that particular case I got mobilised and started up a petition calling for a parliamentary review into the DPB. I wrote to every newspaper , advertised, called talkback, knocked on doors, as did many others. What happened? We collected 1400 signatures. A hugely disappointing result. Time and time again people wrote to me that they were having difficulty getting others to sign because everybody knew somebody - a friend or family member - on the benefit. Or that they supported the DPB system. Personally it was a very difficult time with a good deal of the opposition to my petition getting nasty via threats and public ridicule. I have continued to do what I can through articles, submissions to select committee, standing for parliament twice and working in the community with needy families. My point is this Dan;
There is not enough political support to stop the "free money" and all of the devastation it visits on children. You will find no support for ending or substantially reforming the DPB from the Maori Party , Labour, the Greens or even National. In fact, the formation of the unofficial Welfare Working Group comprising Sue Bradford, the Child Poverty Action Group, academics and the mainstream churches is gearing up to fight for the status quo, or even higher benefit levels. Your listeners seem to want the sort of change you were advocating yesterday yet at election time they vote for parties that refuse to form policies that would see an end to the cash for babies programme.
It doesn't have to be the way it is in NZ. The only other countries that have DPB-like benefits are England, Ireland and Australia. Elsewhere support is temporary and conditional. In the US teenage mothers must stay at school to be eligible for financial assistance and they must live at home or in an adult supervised setting. Their teenage birthrate, which is high like New Zealand's, has been falling steadily along with the abortion rate and dare I say it, their child abuse and general crime rates. They have a long way to go but at least they are going in the right direction.
Meantime our politicians are too afraid to grab the bit between their teeth and do something decisive despite many knowing that the level of child abuse and neglect New Zealand is experiencing has everything to do with incentivised and casualised child-bearing. Because the state will provide on an indefinite and no-questions- asked basis, mothers are abandoned by or get rid of the fathers of their babies, and are then latched onto by new males who want sex and a roof over their head with no obligation to be a breadwinner. They do not make wonderful step-fathers. It's just dreadful what we have let develop under the guise of a 'caring, compassionate' welfare state.
Dear Danny
Yesterday you called for an end to "free money". People rang in and said "enough is enough". Now the assaulted baby is another infant death statistic. The outpouring yesterday was a replay of the outrage we heard after the death of Lillybing and too many others. After that particular case I got mobilised and started up a petition calling for a parliamentary review into the DPB. I wrote to every newspaper , advertised, called talkback, knocked on doors, as did many others. What happened? We collected 1400 signatures. A hugely disappointing result. Time and time again people wrote to me that they were having difficulty getting others to sign because everybody knew somebody - a friend or family member - on the benefit. Or that they supported the DPB system. Personally it was a very difficult time with a good deal of the opposition to my petition getting nasty via threats and public ridicule. I have continued to do what I can through articles, submissions to select committee, standing for parliament twice and working in the community with needy families. My point is this Dan;
There is not enough political support to stop the "free money" and all of the devastation it visits on children. You will find no support for ending or substantially reforming the DPB from the Maori Party , Labour, the Greens or even National. In fact, the formation of the unofficial Welfare Working Group comprising Sue Bradford, the Child Poverty Action Group, academics and the mainstream churches is gearing up to fight for the status quo, or even higher benefit levels. Your listeners seem to want the sort of change you were advocating yesterday yet at election time they vote for parties that refuse to form policies that would see an end to the cash for babies programme.
It doesn't have to be the way it is in NZ. The only other countries that have DPB-like benefits are England, Ireland and Australia. Elsewhere support is temporary and conditional. In the US teenage mothers must stay at school to be eligible for financial assistance and they must live at home or in an adult supervised setting. Their teenage birthrate, which is high like New Zealand's, has been falling steadily along with the abortion rate and dare I say it, their child abuse and general crime rates. They have a long way to go but at least they are going in the right direction.
Meantime our politicians are too afraid to grab the bit between their teeth and do something decisive despite many knowing that the level of child abuse and neglect New Zealand is experiencing has everything to do with incentivised and casualised child-bearing. Because the state will provide on an indefinite and no-questions- asked basis, mothers are abandoned by or get rid of the fathers of their babies, and are then latched onto by new males who want sex and a roof over their head with no obligation to be a breadwinner. They do not make wonderful step-fathers. It's just dreadful what we have let develop under the guise of a 'caring, compassionate' welfare state.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Sometimes your number is just up
Sometimes your number is just up. This morning, when I saw a photo of the student pilot killed near Feilding on Monday I remembered her as a woman I sat next to when I sat my Aviation Law paper a few weeks ago. Then I thought, but what would she be doing sitting an exam in Wellington? Read on to find she has recently being training in Wellington and lived in Waikanae. We only exchanged smiles, both focussed on exams. She was sitting navigation, evident from the map and instruments in use. My recollection of her is she looked about my age but was with a man who looked quite a bit older who waited in the visitor area during the exam. The first crash report told of a woman "about 50" so others also thought she was younger than 64. I thought when I heard the initial report, how many women "about 50" are aviation students flying around the Kapiti Coast/ Manawatu area? Can't be many. There aren't even that many female students full stop. We were the only two in that exam room....
I haven't been flying since I passed the biannual flight review mainly because during the school holidays I couldn't book the plane I wanted. For some reason most of the Cessna 152 fleet was out for maintenance. Perhaps as the organisation is orientated around being a commercial school for mainly international students term-time applies and holidays present the best opportunity for maintenance, required every 100 hours of flight time. But the two air crashes during that short space in time since have served to remind me that flying requires immense vigilance and diligence and every pilot wants to avoid that sick sensation of knowing there is terrain or another plane in close proximity but can't sight it. And even close to home, within landing distance of the runway, the danger can be elevated by higher density of traffic. RIP Pat Smallman and Jessica Neeson. They both had the aviation bug and died for it.
I haven't been flying since I passed the biannual flight review mainly because during the school holidays I couldn't book the plane I wanted. For some reason most of the Cessna 152 fleet was out for maintenance. Perhaps as the organisation is orientated around being a commercial school for mainly international students term-time applies and holidays present the best opportunity for maintenance, required every 100 hours of flight time. But the two air crashes during that short space in time since have served to remind me that flying requires immense vigilance and diligence and every pilot wants to avoid that sick sensation of knowing there is terrain or another plane in close proximity but can't sight it. And even close to home, within landing distance of the runway, the danger can be elevated by higher density of traffic. RIP Pat Smallman and Jessica Neeson. They both had the aviation bug and died for it.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Getting sicker
Trends in proportion of the working-age population receiving Sickness Benefits at the end of June, between 2000 and 2010 
31,944 in 2000 up to 58,465 in 2010 - an 83 percent increase.
Currently 41 percent of recipients have a psychiatric or psychological disorder. Looking back, in 1971 there around 6,000 people on a sickness benefit at any given time and "mental, psycho-neurotic and personality disorders" accounted for 10.3 percent of "disease suffered by the beneficiary."
Notwithstanding far more people were hospitalised (as opposed to being supported on a benefit) 30 or 40 years ago, incapacitating mental illness, or the diagnosis of it, is on the rise.
The next biggest category is musculo skeletal conditions at 15 percent.
Interestingly Maori are over-represented at 26.6 percent of all sickness beneficiaries whereas Pacific people make up only 6.3 percent - slightly under their share of the total population. I wonder if this is because when Pacific people are ill they rely more on family? They tend to have poorer health, with higher rates of diabetes and some cancers, so it would follow that more rely on sickness benefits than is the case. Their reliance on the invalid benefit is even lower at 5 percent of the total. Perhaps Pacific people keep working through illness. Whatever the reason the difference between Maori and Pacific always fascinates me because it shows that belonging to a low socio-economic community (where conditions can often cause or aggravate ill health) need not automatically lead to benefit dependence.
31,944 in 2000 up to 58,465 in 2010 - an 83 percent increase.
Currently 41 percent of recipients have a psychiatric or psychological disorder. Looking back, in 1971 there around 6,000 people on a sickness benefit at any given time and "mental, psycho-neurotic and personality disorders" accounted for 10.3 percent of "disease suffered by the beneficiary."
Notwithstanding far more people were hospitalised (as opposed to being supported on a benefit) 30 or 40 years ago, incapacitating mental illness, or the diagnosis of it, is on the rise.
The next biggest category is musculo skeletal conditions at 15 percent.
Interestingly Maori are over-represented at 26.6 percent of all sickness beneficiaries whereas Pacific people make up only 6.3 percent - slightly under their share of the total population. I wonder if this is because when Pacific people are ill they rely more on family? They tend to have poorer health, with higher rates of diabetes and some cancers, so it would follow that more rely on sickness benefits than is the case. Their reliance on the invalid benefit is even lower at 5 percent of the total. Perhaps Pacific people keep working through illness. Whatever the reason the difference between Maori and Pacific always fascinates me because it shows that belonging to a low socio-economic community (where conditions can often cause or aggravate ill health) need not automatically lead to benefit dependence.
Well done and well said Stephen Joyce
Unusually I am pleased with the National Party and particularly Stephen Joyce. Instead of simply greasing the loudest squeaky wheel they are going to take an evidence-based approach to lowering the current blood-alcohol limit. For two years drivers involved in crashes will be tested to see if their reading is between .5 and .8. Good idea. But what Stephen Joyce says about overseas studies hits the nail on the head;"They also tell you that if you didn't allow anyone to have any alcohol, you would save more lives, and if you actually didn't let anybody drive, it would save the lot."
The legislative balancing act between protecting lives and protecting freedom is constant. Protecting life, as counter-intuitive as it may sound, cannot top the list of priorities. If it did we would have no freedom to act or exercise our own judgement at all. All risk can never be removed but the further society attempts to move towards that unachievable goal, the less freedom individuals have.
Now if Joyce would just apply this understanding consistently he would be a very valuable and rare politician.
Monday, July 26, 2010
UN rapporteur - listen up
The indigenous rights special rapporteur from the UN is saying that the cause of the high rate of Maori incarceration is "the historical and ongoing denial of the human rights of Maori."
That is a view which I have more sympathy for than once was the case. But whatever the truth of it is, it is still a cop-out. And it undermines the chances of the situation improving by providing an extrinsic excuse for offending.
100 years ago NZ jails were not full of Maori. That came after urbanisation. It came after the alienation of males from the wider whanau. As James Belich has pointed out, in the 1800s there was a great deal of crime committed by colonial Pakeha men also alienated from their families through immigration. Having a family both relying on them and caring for them is the best protector from offending.
So I wonder if James Anaya would entertain the idea that Maori women have a great deal to do with the high rate of Maori incarceration? Because Maori women have supplanted a large number of Maori men as the head of their families. That's not to say it isn't a two-way street. Many of the men bring the alienation upon themselves by feckless and unsociable behaviour.
This then is where the state has played a damning role by supporting the alienation of Maori men from whanau. It does this through the benefit system and through the legal system (family court and CYF). The odds are stacked against too many a Maori boy from birth. Consider that;
1/ He will be raised on welfare in a workless household
2/ Most of the male role models he is exposed to are disaffected
3/ Most of the female role models he is exposed lack the capacity to 'mother' in the full sense of the word (which is possibly why so many Maori males have relationships with much older women - looking for the mother figure they never had.)
4/ He is stereotyped (rightly or wrongly) by Pakeha institutions
5/ He is failed by (or he fails - take your pick) the education system thus subjecting himself to a life of menial work which does not provide enough money to compete with the DPB.
6/ He will father children very young also subjecting himself to a life of penury being bled dry by the child support system.
7/ Crime becomes the only avenue through which he can make some real money and prove his machismo.
8/ He will grow up in an environment where going to prison is part of the wallpaper.
So forget the fading historic wrongs - land theft and racial exclusion. They are being, or have been righted. And I support that process in so much as the state should right its own wrong-doings.
What the rapporteur needs to get to grips with is that the state keeps Maori down with its benevolence-cloaked intervention. And he can add to the benefit and legal system drug prohibition, which takes a greater toll on Maori than any other ethnicity. There is no future for the group of Maori Mr Anaya claims to care about in furthering the role that the state plays in their lives; in appealing to more national and international state agencies to ensure their 'human rights' are upheld. That particular mode of action is what got many Maori into the position of 'extreme social and economic disadvantage' they now occupy. For instance it was radicalised Maori feminists who fought hard for the DPB in the name of human rights.
The Maori man has to understand that the state is not his friend. And neither is the UN.
That is a view which I have more sympathy for than once was the case. But whatever the truth of it is, it is still a cop-out. And it undermines the chances of the situation improving by providing an extrinsic excuse for offending.
100 years ago NZ jails were not full of Maori. That came after urbanisation. It came after the alienation of males from the wider whanau. As James Belich has pointed out, in the 1800s there was a great deal of crime committed by colonial Pakeha men also alienated from their families through immigration. Having a family both relying on them and caring for them is the best protector from offending.
So I wonder if James Anaya would entertain the idea that Maori women have a great deal to do with the high rate of Maori incarceration? Because Maori women have supplanted a large number of Maori men as the head of their families. That's not to say it isn't a two-way street. Many of the men bring the alienation upon themselves by feckless and unsociable behaviour.
This then is where the state has played a damning role by supporting the alienation of Maori men from whanau. It does this through the benefit system and through the legal system (family court and CYF). The odds are stacked against too many a Maori boy from birth. Consider that;
1/ He will be raised on welfare in a workless household
2/ Most of the male role models he is exposed to are disaffected
3/ Most of the female role models he is exposed lack the capacity to 'mother' in the full sense of the word (which is possibly why so many Maori males have relationships with much older women - looking for the mother figure they never had.)
4/ He is stereotyped (rightly or wrongly) by Pakeha institutions
5/ He is failed by (or he fails - take your pick) the education system thus subjecting himself to a life of menial work which does not provide enough money to compete with the DPB.
6/ He will father children very young also subjecting himself to a life of penury being bled dry by the child support system.
7/ Crime becomes the only avenue through which he can make some real money and prove his machismo.
8/ He will grow up in an environment where going to prison is part of the wallpaper.
So forget the fading historic wrongs - land theft and racial exclusion. They are being, or have been righted. And I support that process in so much as the state should right its own wrong-doings.
What the rapporteur needs to get to grips with is that the state keeps Maori down with its benevolence-cloaked intervention. And he can add to the benefit and legal system drug prohibition, which takes a greater toll on Maori than any other ethnicity. There is no future for the group of Maori Mr Anaya claims to care about in furthering the role that the state plays in their lives; in appealing to more national and international state agencies to ensure their 'human rights' are upheld. That particular mode of action is what got many Maori into the position of 'extreme social and economic disadvantage' they now occupy. For instance it was radicalised Maori feminists who fought hard for the DPB in the name of human rights.
The Maori man has to understand that the state is not his friend. And neither is the UN.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Numbers on benefits up 7 percent
June 2010 benefit statistics have just been released;
At the end of June 2010, 112,000 working-age people (aged 18–64 years) were receiving a Domestic Purposes Benefit . Over the year to June 2010, the number of Domestic Purposes Benefit recipients increased by 7,000, or 7 percent .
At the end of June 2010, 85,000 working-age people (aged 18–64 years) were receiving an Invalid’s Benefit. Over the year to June 2010, the number of Invalid’s Benefit recipients increased by 1,000, or 1 percent.
At the end of June 2010, 58,000 working-age people (aged 18–64 years) were receiving a Sickness Benefit . Over the year to June 2010, the number of Sickness Benefit recipients increased by 4,000, or 8 percent .
At the end of June 2010, 62,000 working-age people (aged 18–64 years) were receiving an Unemployment Benefit . Over the year to June 2010, the number of recipients of an Unemployment Benefit increased by 11,000, or 22 percent .
At the end of June 2010, 333,000 working-age people (aged 18–64 years) were receiving a main benefit . Over the year to June 2010, the number of recipients of a main benefit increased by 23,000, or 7 percent .
The sickness and invalid totals are record June year highs, and the DPB number is the highest since around 1998. As I have said many times before the unemployment number will drop as the recession eases but the numbers on the other benefits will be much slower to reduce, if they reduce at all.
At the end of June 2010, 112,000 working-age people (aged 18–64 years) were receiving a Domestic Purposes Benefit . Over the year to June 2010, the number of Domestic Purposes Benefit recipients increased by 7,000, or 7 percent .
At the end of June 2010, 85,000 working-age people (aged 18–64 years) were receiving an Invalid’s Benefit. Over the year to June 2010, the number of Invalid’s Benefit recipients increased by 1,000, or 1 percent.
At the end of June 2010, 58,000 working-age people (aged 18–64 years) were receiving a Sickness Benefit . Over the year to June 2010, the number of Sickness Benefit recipients increased by 4,000, or 8 percent .
At the end of June 2010, 62,000 working-age people (aged 18–64 years) were receiving an Unemployment Benefit . Over the year to June 2010, the number of recipients of an Unemployment Benefit increased by 11,000, or 22 percent .
At the end of June 2010, 333,000 working-age people (aged 18–64 years) were receiving a main benefit . Over the year to June 2010, the number of recipients of a main benefit increased by 23,000, or 7 percent .
The sickness and invalid totals are record June year highs, and the DPB number is the highest since around 1998. As I have said many times before the unemployment number will drop as the recession eases but the numbers on the other benefits will be much slower to reduce, if they reduce at all.
It's not ok to have a baby on a benefit
Media Release
23 PERCENT OF BABIES ON BENEFIT BY YEAR-END
Friday, July 23, 2010
Data released under the Official Information Act shows that by the end of December 2009 14,394 babies born that year were being supported by a main benefit. Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said, "That represents around 23 percent of babies born in New Zealand last year, an increase on 2008 when the percentage was 21% and 2007 when it was 18%."
"The increase partly reflects the recession, with more males appearing as the primary caregiver, but even pre-recession the percentage never dropped below 18. "
"Ministry of Social Development research has shown repeatedly that the younger a child relies on welfare the lower the likelihood of them leaving it. So this recent increase is going to contribute significantly to long-term welfare dependence and long-term child poverty."
"Child poverty, which often leads to poor mental and physical health, and educational under- achievement, is nearly always framed as a problem for government to resolve, usually by increasing benefit payments. But why aren't questions asked about the high number of people having babies with no way of supporting them beyond using somebody else's money? While the unemployment associated with a recession may be beyond the individual's control, starting or adding to a family is not. Successive governments have poured money into changing attitudes towards smoking and domestic violence. Perhaps it is time for a campaign saying, it's not OK to have a baby on a benefit - something the Welfare Working Group could usefully explore."
Additional data;
Of the babies born in 2009 who were reliant on welfare by the end of that year,
*51 percent had a caregiver aged 16-24 years of age
*46 percent had a caregiver of Maori ethnicity; 30 percent had a caregiver of NZ European ethnicity
*82 percent had a female caregiver
23 PERCENT OF BABIES ON BENEFIT BY YEAR-END
Friday, July 23, 2010
Data released under the Official Information Act shows that by the end of December 2009 14,394 babies born that year were being supported by a main benefit. Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said, "That represents around 23 percent of babies born in New Zealand last year, an increase on 2008 when the percentage was 21% and 2007 when it was 18%."
"The increase partly reflects the recession, with more males appearing as the primary caregiver, but even pre-recession the percentage never dropped below 18. "
"Ministry of Social Development research has shown repeatedly that the younger a child relies on welfare the lower the likelihood of them leaving it. So this recent increase is going to contribute significantly to long-term welfare dependence and long-term child poverty."
"Child poverty, which often leads to poor mental and physical health, and educational under- achievement, is nearly always framed as a problem for government to resolve, usually by increasing benefit payments. But why aren't questions asked about the high number of people having babies with no way of supporting them beyond using somebody else's money? While the unemployment associated with a recession may be beyond the individual's control, starting or adding to a family is not. Successive governments have poured money into changing attitudes towards smoking and domestic violence. Perhaps it is time for a campaign saying, it's not OK to have a baby on a benefit - something the Welfare Working Group could usefully explore."
Additional data;
Of the babies born in 2009 who were reliant on welfare by the end of that year,
*51 percent had a caregiver aged 16-24 years of age
*46 percent had a caregiver of Maori ethnicity; 30 percent had a caregiver of NZ European ethnicity
*82 percent had a female caregiver
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
What happened to the 'Death With Dignity' Bill?
After NZ First departed from parliament what happened to Peter Brown's Death With Dignity bill? Isn't it time for another party to draft a bill? Isn't this something ACT could usefully do? (As an aside I had a look at ACT's website to see if such a bill would fit with their philosophy or values and was surprised to find none described. And the 'Liberal' tag now gone, though it may have been gone for a while. But I remember reading about the most recent voluntary euthanasia debate in Rodney's autobiography and he was very sympathetic to the issue.)
Voluntary euthanasia is an issue for everybody and I couldn't agree more with the sentiments expressed by Dr John Pollock.
Voluntary euthanasia is an issue for everybody and I couldn't agree more with the sentiments expressed by Dr John Pollock.
"I think an individual has the right to choose for himself how his life goes and how it ends. I don't think that it is fair or it is moral for somebody else to suggest that they know better and that they have the right to determine that you may not be helped to die."
...Under the current law, some terminally ill patients were left in the "most appallingly wretched states, sometimes akin to those who died of starvation in Nazi concentration camps", Dr Pollock said. "Ironically if we allowed a cat or a dog or a horse to reach such a condition we would be breaking the law and risking a prison sentence."
"I really do believe strongly that that we ought to have euthanasia and I think it's time to push. I would feel that the last few months of my life were worthwhile if I could stimulate a push to change this cruel law.
"The law won't be changed in time for me and the only way that I can legally end my life before it is due to end is suicide and that's the cruelty of it - not only suicide but suicide alone because if I top myself with my family present then I put them at risk and I think that's hideous. It's very cruel."
He said the law would give terminal patients the comfort of knowing help was available - if they needed it...
"I may not make use of it and that is a very important point to make ... just knowing it's there, just knowing it's a possibility is a huge comfort and relief."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
