Making yourself ill

The idea is regularly mooted in the UK that people shouldn't get free medical treatment - or any medical treatment at all - if they've "made themselves ill". It's only a small minority who take this line, but they always get plenty of media attention, as if it's a wonderful idea.

If people drink too much, take drugs, smoke, engage in risky activities, or become enormously fat, goes the argument, then they shouldn't qualify for NHS treatment and they should be left to their own devices. If their behaviour leads to severe medical conditions, they should be left to seek treatment at their own expense and not expect the taxpayer to step in and sort them out.

Well, apart from the fact that the NHS has always pledged to be free at the point of use, regardless of personal circumstances and regardless of financial status, deciding that certain people shouldn't qualify for NHS treatment would be the start of a slippery slope. Once you begin turning away certain individuals, where would it end? The exemptions would proliferate until whole swathes of people could no longer use the NHS.

Furthermore, if people happen to have engrained psychological weaknesses that have led to illness - lack of self-control, recklessness, impulsiveness, whatever - why should be penalised for it? They may have tried many times to change their behaviour and failed. Or their behaviour might be a response to distressing personal circumstances they find it hard to cope with. People don't simply "make themselves ill".

Another case of engaging mouth without engaging brain.

NB: Of course all this only applies to the NHS because health care is organised quite differently in the States.

Tug of war

The English High Court is having to resolve the deadlock between a couple who have totally different views on treatment for their sick son.

This must be a situation every parent dreads - heated disagreement on how to deal with a crisis in their child's life, and no obvious way of ending the dispute. Meanwhile the crisis intensifies and the child is left in a limbo.

Sally Roberts, mother of 7 year old Neon, who has a brain tumour, didn't want him to have either radiotherapy, chemotherapy or a second brain operation, fearing that the treatments would leave him disabled or otherwise damaged.

His father Ben however supports the treatments as without them doctors say Neon could be dead in a matter of months.

The judge ordered that the second brain operation should go ahead, but his mother was firmly opposed and was gathering evidence on alternative treatments. She said she didn't trust British doctors.

I think this sort of parental conflict over their children is much more common than we realise. Not just on medical treatment but on things like schooling, discipline, choice of friends, internet use, religion, diet - any number of issues. If the conflict isn't quickly resolved, a lot of harm can be done.

My own parents were divided on what secondary school I should go to. My father insisted on a boarding school but my mother didn't like the idea. Eventually his view prevailed and I was packed off to a boarding school where I was thoroughly miserable.

I hated the school's emphasis on religion but although my mother sympathised with my wish to opt out my father decided I should go along with it to avoid being an "oddball". Once again his view held sway.

The result of course was me forever resenting my father's obstinacy and insensitivity and ineptness. But at least it didn't end up in the High Court.

Pic: Sally Roberts