Climate Change Again

I regret to say this but the message about man made climate change is not getting through. I recently had a conversation with a gentleman in a restaurant who simply did not believe that mankind could have any effect on the environment let alone an adverse one. He believed that nature was much more powerful than mankind that that the rise in the temperatures and increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air was all caused by nature. Of course he was correct that the rest of nature is and always will be more powerful than mankind. We are after all part of a whole. He could not accept my argument that the present composition of the atmosphere was substantially altered in pre-cambrian times when cyano-bacteria produced substantial quantities of oxygen which lead the way to the rapid increase in oxygen breathing animals and plants on the the earth. He also did not believe that the during the carboniferous period the earth's atmosphere was also altered by substantial plant growth to produce an atmosphere which had a concentration of oxygen much higher than today. It was, as if, he believed there was a disconnection between the activities of plants and animals and the geological conditions of the planet. He also felt that there was a complete disconnection between mankind and other forms of animals and plants and that none of our activities could affect nature. When I put forward the view that the rest of nature had taken millions of years to affect the composition of the atmosphere but that man himself had suddenly, and in the course of a couple of hundred years, increased the level of carbon dioxide to dangerous levels he was non-plussed. He would not concede that we were upsetting the equilibrium of the atmosphere such that we are about to arrive at a tipping point and set in motion dangerous climate change. The message had not got through despite all of the publicity and documentaries on television about climate change. Amongst most of my friends, there is still doubt or mild scepticism about man made climate change and the message has not got through to them. These attitudes are probably dangerous and the future health of the human species will be put into jeopardy if there is not a change of opinion. There are plenty of documentaries on television which are explaining the science but of course they have to compete with the X-Factor. My colleague in the restaurant was right as nature is more powerful than us but we are not supernatural beings which are immune to the influence of nature. If we trigger off dangerous "natural" climate change will will suffer along with many other species. Nature does not care about us and will be immune to our suffering. Life will prevail on the planet for many millions of years longer but it us up to us, as well as nature, to decide whether we shall be part of that survival or not. The choice is ours: is it X-factor or science?

Doctors recommendations

These days the medical profession can hardly keep out of the news. A lot of this news is bad for the general population.

Doctors have changed their advice for middle aged people to take aspirin every day to reduce their chances of a heart attack. They now believe that the doubtful benefit of a reduced chance of a heart attack is more than offset by the dangers of internal bleeding in the stomach and brain. I never believed this advice and ignored it. All medical advice should be given based on sound evidence. It should also be given in light of the individual circumstances of the patient. No-one should be advised to take medication unless there is clear evidence that it will work and that the side effects are not dangerous. There is a lesson to be learnt here.

Some hospitals in Hertfordshire , England, have said that they will not perform operations on patients who smoke or who are grossly overweight. I was of the view that the medical profession is morally obliged to treat anyone who is ill despite their personal circumstances. We could be on the slippery slope here, with doctors refusing to treat people who injure themselves during risky pastimes. They might even refuse to treat children who fall out of trees. The whole of society contributes to the education and employment of doctors so, surely, every one is entitled to medical treatment in an emergency. There should be no room for this sort of arrogance from some elements of the medical profession.

The situation regarding breast implants or breast augmentation is egregious. I do not doubt the need for breast implants for women who have had breasts removed because of cancer. Some women are genuinely psychologically disturbed by the appearance of their breasts and should be treated with an implant. Unfortunately, most women who have had breast implants have done so for purely cosmetic or vanity reasons. This latter category have been misadvised and should not have been operated on in the first place. It is my view that doctors should not perform unnecessary operations as it is simply a waste of resources combined with the risk to the "patient". From some of my conversations with friends, there seems to be very little sympathy for women who paid for breast operations for cosmetic reasons. These women deserve to be treated, however, and should have their bodies restored to an acceptable and healthy condition. They should not be left untreated if they cannot afford restorative treatment. The cosmetic surgery industry and their insurance companies should pay for this and where this is not possible the NHS should pay.

In conclusion, no one under any circumstances should be denied health care. Some people now are suffering from internal bleeding as they have foolishly followed the advice and taken aspirin on a long term basis. Some people cannot avoid being grossly overweight despite the blandishments of the authorities to eat less and exercise more. Some alcoholics and smokers are simply addicted and find their addiction extremely hard to control. Should they be denied health care? The worst case is the breast implant problem, as many of these operations were performed purely for profit and without concern for the mental and physical health of the clients. You are entitled to health care even if you have been foolish. You are even more entitled to sound advice regarding the dangers of all forms of cosmetic surgery. Where a cosmetic treatment is unnecessary the medical profession should be obliged not to treat you.