Nineteen Minutes by Jodi Picoult

I have not yet read this book, but was saddened to read the following on Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Minutes)

"Picoult has received some backlash on message boards, with people claiming that her book contributed to the Virginia Tech massacre that took place a little over a month following the book's publication. Picoult made a statement on her website, concerning the shooting:

“As a parent, my deepest sympathy goes out to the victims and families of the Virginia Tech community. Although shootings on college campuses are often motivated by different factors than the ones I researched for high school shootings in Nineteen Minutes, any time something like this happens it is tragic and raises questions. However, the one we should be asking right now is: How can we help this community heal?”

Also, as a result, the message boards located on Picoult's website have been indefinitely removed."

I found it very sad that she should have been criticised in this way and had to defend herself via her personal website. The United States of America is a democratic country which allows free speech for those who complained about Picoult's book as a possible contributor to the Virgina Tech. massacre but also for Jodi Picoult herself.

Why, in this day and age, is it seen as necessary to try and find somebody to take the blame for what has happened. One day it is authors and many seem to have criticised Jodi Picoult on this occasion. To those who blamed her, next time it could be you who the finger of blame is pointing at without reason - and think how that would feel.

April Fool's Day seems to have come early

Martin Johnson, the acting deputy general secretary of The Association of Teachers and Lecturers wants the national curriculum to be scrapped and also wants the testing system abolished.

I do agree that there needs to be work done on the SATs that children currently do at intervals throughout their time at school, however what Mr. Johnson is proposing is not simply verging on the ridiculous, it is completely ridiculous.

He is actually proposing the abolition of national examinations in subjects such as history and geography and replacing them with tests on life skills such as walking and thinking. He justifies this with the incredibly foolish statement :

"There's a lot to learn about how to walk," Mr Johnson said. "If you were going out for a Sunday afternoon stroll you might walk one way. If you are trying to catch the train you might walk in another way and if you are doing a day's cliff walk you might walk in another way. We need a nation of people who understand their bodies and can use their bodies effectively"

I sincerely hope that this is an April Fool inadvertantly issued a day earlybut sadly I think it is likely to be all to genuine.

Perhaps Mr. Johnson would like to observe just about any 2 year old in the country and realise that we are already bringing up a nation of people who understand their bodies and can use their bodies effectively without the need for ridiculous advice like this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article1588751.ece

Left to die....but who by?

This news/human interest story on Yahoo (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/07032007/397/woman-weighing-42st-die-0.html)
caught my eye and reminded me of the recent story about an 8 year old boy who weighed in at approximately 14stone.

In the case of the b0y, Social Services were facing criticism for considering taking the boy into care. In this case the National Health Service are being criticised for not providing treatment for a women who weighs in at 42 stone.

Surely it can't be right for Social Services to be criticised for considering action that would ensure the boy lost weight when the National Health Service are being criticised for being unable to take action to ensure weight loss?

Firstly, Social Services are trying to support the family of the obese 8 year old boy.
Secondly, the National Health Service have offered psychiatric care to the excessively morbidly obese women in the form of psychiatric care (which has been turned down) as she has suffered from Post Natal Depression.
Thirdly, the National Health Service previously paid for Sharon Mevsimler to have treatment at The Priory at a cost to the taxpayer of £5000 a week, resulting in a weight loss of 7 stone. That hardly seems to be doing nothing.

It seems that everything is the responsibility of the authorities one way or the other; they are criticised if they take action and now criticised if they don't. Why can't people accept responsibility for their own health and that of their families?

The mother of the obese boy told the BBC that "He refuses to eat fruit, vegetables and salads - he has processed foods. When Connor won't eat anything else, I've got to give him the foods he likes."

The husband of the obese woman (who apparently is confined to one room and has been for the past 18 months so presumably is not doing her own food shopping) has denied being a so called "feeder" - somebody who deliberately provides a loved one with an abundant food supply in order to cause weight gain.

The English language has a very powerful word that the mother, husband and wife would do well to learn.

That word is No. Just how difficult can that be?

Medical treatment of premature babies

Back in November Tom Butler, Church of England Bishop, said that it was morally acceptable to withhold treatment from premature babies even if their death results from that.

What a relief that others are not afraid to ensure that treatment is give, I refer to a recent case where a Canadian family had their premature babies taken in to care temporarily to ensure that they had life saving treatment.

I feel sorry for the family that they lost two of their babies but I think that there should be some gratitude on their part for they have been relieved of the responsibility of making a decision [whether to let their babies have a blood transfusion] when it was against their religion (Jehovah's Witnesses] and as a result they cannot be held responsible by the Church Elders and their children's lives have been saved.

What a fortunate situation that they are in, yet this family have an odd way of showing their gratitude. They are planning to sue the Canadian authorities for the action that they took as their opinion is that their children have been violated. They have also asked a court to block any future blood transfusions.

A spokesman for the Jehovah's Witnesses quoted this bible passage:

"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people," Leviticus 17:10-1

I can see nothing in that passage that forbids blood transfusions, clearly this bible passage has an exception to the consumption of blood yet blood transfusions are not taken orally and the infants have not therefore consumed any blood.

Other bible passages that also relate to this are (according to http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness5.htm)

Genesis 9:4 "But flesh (meat) with...blood...ye shall not eat" I was interested in this so spoke to some JWs today; they do eat meat, but only meat that has been killed appropriately. For example, they will not eat an animal that has been strangled but will eat meat where the animal was bled; thereby minimising the amount of blood left in the meat.

The Times reported today that childminder Elizabeth D'Arcy took on so many toddlers that she did not remember their names and had to physical restrain them by strapping them into car seats.

I note that The Times sensible avoided using the word caring, presumably recognising that whatever Ms D'Arcy was doing, she was not caring for the children.

I find it amazing that she has apparently been "caring" for children for 13 years yet she had not had any unannounced visits by inspectors until a parent informed the authorities that she was suspicious about Ms D'Arcy as a result of being asked to wait outside the house when collecting her child.

Surely with routine inspections there should be scope for the inspectors to turn up unannounced to inspect the premises of a childminder and ensure that care is suitable and kind and that children are not having their human rights violated and are being treated with compassion?

Pathetic

Ian Huntley is to get legal aid.

Pathetic.

No other comment is necessary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6168919.stm

Morals (?) and the Church of England

According to today's edition of The Times, the Church of England has now said that it is morally acceptable to allow sick babies to die.

The Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, said that the economic cost of long-term health care and education must be considered when deciding whether a child's life should be saved.

Perhaps he would like to consider some points that he appears to have forgotten - or chosen to ignore.

Firstly; there is an issue with the long-term health care costs - it is impossible to predict at birth which individuals in the general population are going to need long term health care. Some will suffer from degenerative diseases needing long-term health care, others will need transplants, some will need long-term care because of smoking, alcoholism, drug abuse and numerous other health issues that could occur. Because they will cost a lot of money, should we withdraw treatment and let them die?

The only difference between these people and sick babies is that that we are not aware of their health problems when they are born. Suggesting that we allow sick babies to die simply because we know that they are going to need more health care than other babies is not morally acceptable now, and has never been. Tom Butler is not the first person to suggest that disabled people should die, he shares that dubious "honour" with an Austrian "gentleman" by the name of Adolf Hitler.

Tom Butler states that "all life is a gift from God, whether inside the womb or outside, whether disabled or not...we cannot therefore accept as a justification for killing them the argument that their lives are not worth living"

Given this, why is it acceptable to consider the economic cost of long-term health care and education when deciding whether to accept a gift from God? Few, if any, gifts from God come without associated costs (financial or otherwise) yet we do not question the morality behind accepting those gifts.

I have been fortunate enough to have my own two gifts from God, according to recent news reports they will each cost me in the region of £180,000 to raise. It would not be morally or legally acceptable for me to decide to stop striving officiously to keep them alive and if I were to do so I would, quite rightly, be spending a long time in prison. If they were disabled then would it be morally acceptable for me to decide not to strive officiously to keep them alive?

If not, then why is it acceptable for a Church of England Bishop to say that it is morally acceptable to withhold or withdraw treatment, knowing that it will possibly, probably or even certainly result in death?

If one of my children had a serious medical condition and I decided to withhold medical treatment which would result in death then I can see an situation occurring involving Social Services and the courts in an attempt to take the children away from me and prevent me from having any option to refuse their medical treatment. I think that the right of my children to have medical treatment to save their life is greater than my right to refuse. Given that, why should any unrelated adult be allowed to specify that babies should be allowed to die.

Finally, what does Tom Butler think he is suggesting by using the word "allow", as in "allowed to die". That implies that these babies have a choice, that they want to die and are being prevented from doing so. They are defenceless individuals with a right to life, and deserve the support of an organisation that claims that they are a gift from God. They do not deserve to be treated as an expensive liability that can be killed off.

How can it claim to to uphold, and encourage others, to follow the Ten Commandments and live a good and moral life if it's own Bishops cannot do so.

Thou Shalt Not Kill - not thou shalt not kill unless it is too expensive to keep the person alive.