Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Health

Remember, remember… it’s MOvember!

Nov 3

Posted by Malc in Health | 2 Comments

It’s that time of the year again when you’ll see men of a slightly younger generation (and some of those whom you may ordinarily think of as “cool”) sporting the dodgiest and most hideous ‘taches you’ve ever seen.  Yep, it’s MOvember again!

Began in 1999 when a group of Aussie guys got together and grew some ‘taches for the month of November for charity.  Since 2004, MOvember has been associated with Prostate charities and in 2007 in the UK, The Prostate Cancer Charity linked with the fast-growing (no pun intended!) event.

Anyway, Malc and Jeff joined in the fun last year (pic below) and the three of us have decided to do so again this year (EDIT – the three of us had decided to partake, but Jeff has had to bow out due to some external pressure).  Don’t worry – we’re not asking for cash – just trying to help raise awareness by looking like clowns for the month!  For some of us (Jeff) shaving is more natural whereas, three days in, Malc’s neck already has a million shaving cuts (I guess that’s what you get for having a pretty-much permanent beard since you were 16!).

So here are the three of us pre-MOvember (at our “AGM” – the first time we’ve met since we started this venture!) and how we normally look:

Also, I hear from Twitter than Edinburgh’s rugby boys are all involved and will be posting some pics of their glorious ‘taches on Twitter.  So keep an eye out for Tim Visser, Kyle Traynor, Alex Grove and Jim Thompson over the next few weeks!

So anyway – gents, this is aimed specifically at you (obviously, since women don’t have a prostate!).  Know the risk factors – get checked out.  And find out more by visiting here.

Now for your laugh – here’s last year’s effort.

This year’s effort looks pretty similar in shape (though obviously, three days in, it looks pretty weak at the moment).  Check back for more photos (if it doesn’t turn your stomach too much) later this month!

Dead Set

Oct 27

Posted by James in Health, Holyrood | 17 Comments

Margo Macdonald’s current proposals on assisted suicide go by the hard-to-argue with name of the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill. Who wouldn’t want to be assisted at the end of their life? I know nothing scares me more than the thought of non-existence, nothing that is except inescapable pain or the loss of function in my body or my mind. Some assistance would be appreciated, thanks society.

Of course, it’s an ambiguous name, and what it’s really about is assisting people to end their lives. No doubt the decision was taken to find a less controversial name than the Euthanasia (Scotland) Bill or the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill.

This is an issue normally phrased as a challenging moral debate, with newspapers feeling obliged to locate quotes for and against, the latter normally from the Catholic Church or similar. Sometimes it’s the supporters who don’t get a look in. For instance, the Daily Mail recently ran a virulently negative piece which suggested such legislation would lead, UK-wide, to 1,000 deaths.

I don’t get it. It’s a pure freedom issue to me, I have nothing but respect for Margo’s decision to bring the legislation forward, and I agree with her that there needs to be a set of robust safeguards. Personally, I cannot imagine what it would be like to suffer interminable pain and to be denied the choice to end it. If you’re against it, religious readers, simply don’t do it. Don’t take part. It’s absolutely your freedom, should you find yourself in the situation the Bill is intended to cover, to suffer on as long as you wish.

There’s a theme here we see in other areas: people seeking to project their own individual moral preferences onto society and make universal laws accordingly. It’s like the debate over decriminalising gay sex in the 60s. Just because you don’t want to do it yourself, fine, but that’s no reason why you should be allowed to limit the freedom of others to do so. I also wonder whether any of the small number of vociferous opponents ever find themselves in the situation they’ve speculated about later in life, and if that new feeling of powerlessness occasionally changes their mind.

That Daily Mail article can be read completely differently. The figure seems high, but if they’re right about it, there are 1,000 people in this country suffering unbearably and being denied the final relief, people whose freedoms must not be denied in their time of extraordinary need. Some of those thousand people would decide to ask for help to end their life, others may decide otherwise. Whatever the numbers, the choice should be theirs, and Scotland would surely be a better place if Margo’s Bill passes.

Tags: , ,

Can we find a cure for asbestos-related diseases?

Oct 14

Posted by Guest Blog in Health, Holyrood | 6 Comments

In the interests of good debate, and in recognition of the fact that no one party will ever have all the answers, this blog will from time to time step out of its comfort zone and invite contributions from elsewhere on the political spectrum. We are therefore pleased to announce a guest post from one of Labour’s “new generation”, John Park MSP.

Since 1999 the Scottish Parliament has taken positive and far reaching decisions on health issues – free personal care and the smoking ban are two that immediately spring to mind.

Perhaps not appreciated more widely is that our parliament also has a proud record in tackling the major problems faced by sufferers of asbestos-related diseases and by their families. These haven’t been health measures but rather justice measures. Most recently the Scottish Parliament agreed legislation to overturn a House of Lords decision that would have prevented workers exposed to asbestos from claiming against employers for developing pleural plaques (benign localised scars that can develop from exposure to asbestos).

And in 2006, following a Members Bill from Clydebank MSP Des McNulty, the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Act 2007 was introduced. Before our parliament passed this legislation, those affected by an asbestos related disease would have to make a choice between either making a claim for damages for their own pain and suffering, or waiting until they passed away – thus allowing their surviving family members to make a claim for loss. This change in legislation meant that they could claim for both, removing an agonising burden from sufferers and their families at a difficult time.

We have moved forward in terms of justice due to the vigorous campaigns run by local asbestos groups (particularly those established in the former shipbuilding communities on the Clyde) and the wider Scottish trade union movement. But another more troubling reason for the concentration on a justice approach to ensure that sufferers and their families are properly compensated – rather looking to advancements in health – has been the long-held view that a cure for asbestos related diseases such as mesothelioma and asbestosis was virtually unattainable.

However there is growing evidence from across the globe that with intensive treatment patients can survive much longer than previously thought possible, and in some cases the cancer has gone into remission. I have met many people who have lost a family member to an asbestos-related disease and what is abundantly apparent is the desperation they all felt experienced knowing that there was no hope of their loved one living for more than a matter of months after diagnosis.

Asbestos related diseases are considered by some as from a time gone by: not as relevant in this new post-industrial era as they once were. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cases of asbestos related diseases have yet to peak in Scotland and many estimate that that peak will happen some time in the next 10 years. Furthermore, a danger continues to exist from exposure. Although it is not being used in the construction of buildings and engineering projects any longer in the UK, it can still be found in buildings and manufactured products that were built before the full effects of exposure to asbestos was known.

Worryingly, despite significant resources being invested by the Health and Safety Executive into campaigns highlighting the dangers of asbestos, over 88% of people working in industry are unaware that exposure can be fatal, and 74% have had no formal training in dealing with asbestos.

For all these reasons I believe that if we want to genuinely make Scotland a better place to live and work that we must establish and support a collaborative research network. This doesn’t need to be a physical building. A proposal last year by the All Party Group on Occupational Safety and Health at Westminster recommended the establishment of a National Centre for Asbestos Related Diseases (NCARD) – based on an example from Australia. This was agreed by the then UK Government but unfortunately the new coalition has decided not to support it and have scrapped the plans. I also raised the importance of this proposal having support from the Scottish Government during a Members Debate in January of this year. Unfortunately this received a lukewarm response from the Scottish Government – probably driven by officials in the health department rather than Ministers.

We have the powers, we have the need and we have shown in the past that we have the political will to tackle difficult issues such as this. Yes, of course there would be financial considerations, but surely the insurance industry would support such a move both in policy and financial terms? If the prognosis for those suffering from an asbestos related disease was better and there was a chance of a cure surely we could encourage insurance companies to make the necessary investment to support such an initiative? I hope so, because asbestos is a persisting scourge on Scotland’s proud industrial heritage and one we must tackle now.

The MS Society, Leuchie and MSPs who agree

Oct 7

Posted by Malc in Governance, Health | 2 Comments

*NB: Declaration of interest – a relative of mine works for MS Society Scotland and I also ran the Loch Ness Marathon for them last year*

I was in Inverness this weekend, helping out MS Society Scotland, cheering on those running for the Society this year and generally helping promote the charity and its work. At the same time, the Politics Show was having a discussion about the impending closure of Leuchie House, Scotland’s only respite care centre for those with MS. Naturally, I missed it live (being outside in the rain in Inverness!) but caught it on iPlayer (the discussion is 45 minutes in, and you can see it here).

I have to say, I was a little disappointed by the tone of the debate. I’ve known about the closure plan for a  few months (since it became public knowledge) and I know a fair bit about the process. I also see that Jackie Baillie secured a Members’ Debate on the issue two weeks ago, which gained cross-party support against the decision. It’s not often that I disagree with a unanimous consensus (and how often do we lament politicians for arguing on minute points of disagreement) but I feel in this case this consensus is misplaced – for both general and specific reasons. I’ll deal with the general first.

As Shona Robison pointed out in the closing of the debate, the government cannot override the decision of an independent organisation, be that a charity, as in this case, or a business (as we saw in the case of the Johnnie Walker closure in Ayrshire). This was an internal decision taken by an organisation through a consultation process which included the entire membership of the MS Society UK – and a democratic decision as well (in spite of some of the more hysterical contributions to the debate) which was voted upon and supported at the MS Society’s AGM. The MS Society is a member-led organisation – and the membership, many of whom have MS, voted against keeping Leuchie House open. Yes, there were grass-roots campaigns (as Derek Brownlee pointed out) but policy decisions are not made by campaigners – they are made by members. That may be a harsh fact, but it is the truth.

More specifically, the MS Society is a charity, with a finite budget, dependent on the good will of the public to help raise funds for them. In the times of prosperity, it is all well and good to spend all the money on everything you can. But in times of austerity, such as we face at the moment, that spending cannot be sustained – we only have to look at the government’s cuts to see that. The MS Society Scotland has 10,500 people in Scotland with MS to consider. Their budget is split between research into how MS works and potential cures, treatment for it, and care for those who have what is a cruel, cruel condition. As Simon Gillespie points out in the piece above, only 13% of the MS Society’s members think they would use Leuchie House or a similar respite care centre, and that those who had the highest dependency needs were the lowest percentage of users of Leuchie. So, the Society has actually looked at what has been requested of it – by those who use its services – and adjusted its services accordingly. That to me seems an entirely logical process. Of course you can’t please everyone all of the time – and yes, some of those who suffer the most, who have the highest dependency needs, as Jackie Baillie points out, are those who will lose out from this decision.

The MS Society Scotland is entirely funded by donations. No public money is awarded to them. The money they spend has to be raised by people willing to do amazing things in order to fund the research and support provided by the society in Scotland. It irks me greatly that elected politicians are now attacking a charitable organisation which provides a service to those with the condition – a service which is NOT made available by the NHS.

I know the MS Society has to be a little more circumspect when dealing with MSPs – and more particularly with Jackie Baillie, who as Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, will potentially be Cabinet Secretary for Health next year. But for me, her objection to the closure of Leuchie – and, indeed, those of all parties – would ring a little less hollow if any of them had made a commitment in their manifesto to fund research into MS or, more particularly in this case, to dedicate some NHS funding to respite care centres like Leuchie. Of course, funding such a respite care centre out of the public purse is unlikely ever to happen, so a charity providing such a service is the only way it could be provided for. This then, makes it much easier for our elected politicians to stand on the sidelines and criticise, even though they probably recognise that the decision was taken out of necessity, difficult and unpopular though it is.