Kind of skipped the introduction and went right into ranting, didn't I? Well, let's see about correcting the oversight. This blog is really just intended to be a continuation of the Xanga blog I started years ago (http://nepsis.xanga.com/). I would've posted the previous entry there except that it was inaccessible for some reason (perhaps some firewall on the work computer or their system), and I really wanted to post it. So, I started yet another blog here on Blogger. You may notice that I've got a couple other blogs here with more specific purposes. I don't keep up with them all too well, but perhaps I shall one day.
So, really, this is just a personal general blog, which I expect to cover quite a wide range of topics. I've never been especially good at keeping up with my journal or blog(s), so it won't be updated all too frequently. Here it is, though. Enjoy.
Metta.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
A public health rant
20101214, 07:51
Had a really interesting discussion at lunchregarding personal responsibility and its interplay with public health regulation. Kind of started by talking about raw milk. Much of this has come out of conversation with She of the Wee Abode and readings inspired by her. It sounds like there’s quite a little bit of outcry these days from folks who want to have the ability to choose the things that they think will make them healthy. Seems like an obvious enough right, but the way our regulations are currently designed doesn’t really lend itself toward a personal responsibility standpoint. So many lawsuits and public outcries in the past have created a litigious society looking to place blame, which has consistently gone toward producers. This, I think, has led to our current situation where the government is essentially responsible for the health of the public. As such, it dictates things that are unhealthy and not appropriate for human consumption. When it comes down to it, though, our science is not all-knowing, not even as close to all-knowing as we like to think it is. This is evidenced in the constant flux of fad diets and emphasis on what’s healthy and what’s the current pathogen craze, etc. I think it all comes back to the bond between responsibility and freedom. Folks seem to want the freedom to drink raw milk and eat sustainable and local food items produced under alternative schemes, but we’ve had years of folks (not that they’re necessarily the same folks) failing to take responsibility for the outcome. Oddly enough, a similar topic came up later in the day, involving a comment about signing waivers. Perhaps that’s what it’s come down to: every time someone purchases what’s considered to be a “risky” product, they have to sign a waiver to demonstrate that they’re taking responsibility for the outcome. Prior to signing the waiver, they may request to tour the facility (dairy, slaughter facility, whatever), but when they sign that waiver they’re essentially accepting the potential dangers with the product.
The role of regulatory public health is what’s essentially in question. There’s no doubt that it has had a beneficial impact on the health of humans: vaccinations do prevent disease (i.e.: smallpox and polio), sanitation does drastically cut down on epidemics (cholera in Snow’s day, and even in Haiti now). People live better and longer lives when there’s someone looking out for public health. And there are certain things that really do need to be mandated to accomplish these feats. Where does that cross into interference with personal freedom, though; and also, where does that enter the realm of the impossible. One of the things that I heard at the conference in MN a few weeks ago that needs to be stated louder and more often is the fact that we’re all going to die. No matter what, there will be some disease or deterioration that will end each and every one of us. We get too caught up in living forever (if we ever figure out how to do that, we’ll have an even bigger problem) when we should be focusing on living well – too focused on quantity when we should be focused on quality. Then public health regulations get caught up in the chase for quantity rather than quality. I’m reminded of juggling for little kids: “three balls? So what? Can you do 5? What about 8? How about 20? Oh, you can’t do 50? pffft.”
08:24
Had a really interesting discussion at lunchregarding personal responsibility and its interplay with public health regulation. Kind of started by talking about raw milk. Much of this has come out of conversation with She of the Wee Abode and readings inspired by her. It sounds like there’s quite a little bit of outcry these days from folks who want to have the ability to choose the things that they think will make them healthy. Seems like an obvious enough right, but the way our regulations are currently designed doesn’t really lend itself toward a personal responsibility standpoint. So many lawsuits and public outcries in the past have created a litigious society looking to place blame, which has consistently gone toward producers. This, I think, has led to our current situation where the government is essentially responsible for the health of the public. As such, it dictates things that are unhealthy and not appropriate for human consumption. When it comes down to it, though, our science is not all-knowing, not even as close to all-knowing as we like to think it is. This is evidenced in the constant flux of fad diets and emphasis on what’s healthy and what’s the current pathogen craze, etc. I think it all comes back to the bond between responsibility and freedom. Folks seem to want the freedom to drink raw milk and eat sustainable and local food items produced under alternative schemes, but we’ve had years of folks (not that they’re necessarily the same folks) failing to take responsibility for the outcome. Oddly enough, a similar topic came up later in the day, involving a comment about signing waivers. Perhaps that’s what it’s come down to: every time someone purchases what’s considered to be a “risky” product, they have to sign a waiver to demonstrate that they’re taking responsibility for the outcome. Prior to signing the waiver, they may request to tour the facility (dairy, slaughter facility, whatever), but when they sign that waiver they’re essentially accepting the potential dangers with the product.
The role of regulatory public health is what’s essentially in question. There’s no doubt that it has had a beneficial impact on the health of humans: vaccinations do prevent disease (i.e.: smallpox and polio), sanitation does drastically cut down on epidemics (cholera in Snow’s day, and even in Haiti now). People live better and longer lives when there’s someone looking out for public health. And there are certain things that really do need to be mandated to accomplish these feats. Where does that cross into interference with personal freedom, though; and also, where does that enter the realm of the impossible. One of the things that I heard at the conference in MN a few weeks ago that needs to be stated louder and more often is the fact that we’re all going to die. No matter what, there will be some disease or deterioration that will end each and every one of us. We get too caught up in living forever (if we ever figure out how to do that, we’ll have an even bigger problem) when we should be focusing on living well – too focused on quantity when we should be focused on quality. Then public health regulations get caught up in the chase for quantity rather than quality. I’m reminded of juggling for little kids: “three balls? So what? Can you do 5? What about 8? How about 20? Oh, you can’t do 50? pffft.”
08:24
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)