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.

The outside world

I suddenly had a eureka moment. I realised my idea of the "outside world" was all wrong.

For some time I've been feeling a bit depressed about the state of the outside world with all its horrors and brutality and inhumanity.

Then it came to me that actually I know next to nothing of the outside world. It's so complex and intricate and enormous that I can't possibly know more than a minute fraction of it.

I might think I know all about (for example) climate change or the polar ice cap or deforestation but I'm kidding myself.

Even what I do know is mostly what the media tells me. And that's often highly suspect. Firstly they only tell us what they think is important, secondly they put their particular slant on it, and thirdly they sensationalise everything. Which means even that tiny bit of knowledge is very unreliable.

So what I refer to as the "outside world" is either a heavily filtered media offering or my own mental picture of the outside world. Neither of those is anything but a sketchy idea of the real thing.

In which case feeling depressed about the outside world is irrational because I'll never have a complete picture of it, and I'm therefore feeling depressed about something that's mostly unknown and unknowable.

So I should stop feeling depressed about the "outside world" and save my dejection for something manifest and tangible.

Simples!

All you can eat

I'm not one of those people who goes crazy at the sight of a buffet and piles my plate with as much food as possible to "get my money's worth". I don't abuse my stomach. But it seems some people don't know when to stop.

Some restaurants and hotels are concerned at the amount of food some people are grabbing, especially when they don't eat it all and leave half of it on their plate.

Mark Graham, landlord of the Star Inn in Penzance, Cornwall, now charges £2.40 a person for buffet "excess leftovers". A few spuds is obviously no problem, he told a customer who complained, but buffet behaviour was out of control, citing a plate "piled so high you could put a ladder and a flag on top of it."

When Jenny and I stay at the Premier Inn, we always opt for their buffet breakfast and have a generous amount of cold and cooked food to set us up for the day's wanderings. But we don't take more than we need.

Surely those people who leave half their food must realise they're taking far too much, so why do they do it?

Do they imagine they're in some kind of eating contest? Are they trying to get a bigger and better paunch? Is it some kind of comfort eating? I don't get it.

Careful how you eat. A Liverpool woman dislocated her jaw trying to eat a triple burger

Religious and happy

Apparently research shows that religious people are happier and healthier than atheists. But is this true? If so, as a life-long atheist I'm heading for a miserable and premature demise.

One study shows that someone's religious commitment, such as how often they attended church, was linked with a lower risk of depression, anxiety, suicide, heart disease and death from cancer.

Supposedly religion also gives you a sense of social connection and community, a sense of purpose, and reduces loneliness and isolation.

Well, I know atheists and I know believers, and it's hard to say who's happier, because people aren't necessarily truthful about their inner feelings. People can pretend to be happy when actually they're feeling despondent and pessimistic.

Certainly I'm happy enough despite my very early rejection of religion. So is Jenny. Neither of us feel the need for an external belief system to help us navigate our lives (though I totally respect those who find religion helpful).

It's easy to think of religious people you know who aren't at all happy, but no doubt they're the exception that proves the rule. My mother was religious but ended her life feeling gloomy about her physical and mental decline. Her parents on the other hand (from what I saw of them) were religious and happy.

Of course you can argue that actually I do have an external belief system - socialism. And does it make me happy? That would be a whole new post....

Not so old?

Like most people, I guess, I take news of some especially long-lived oldie quite uncritically, but apparently a lot of these amazing ages may not be genuine, due to dubious documentation and other errors.

In 2010, more than 230,000 Japanese centenarians turned out to be missing, imaginary, clerical errors or dead. In Greece 72 per cent of census-reported centenarians in 2012 were discovered to be no longer alive.

Do we even want to live so long? Rising numbers of oldies are enduring chronic medical conditions that restrict their quality of life. And do we really want to wake up every day to yet more horrific crimes, international conflicts, dictators and corporate greed? Better a shortened age with a good quality of life than an advanced age that isn't any fun any more.

My mum lived until 96, by which time her quality of life was pretty poor. She had had dementia for several years, and had problems with walking and personal care, as well as having limited physical energy. Quite honestly, she would have been better off if she had died a few years earlier.

So I don't take any notice of people's sure-fire blueprints for living longer. I'll leave others to test them out. I'll happily accept whatever life span I've been allotted, as long as I'm still fit enough to enjoy it.

Meddling bullshit

People can't resist the urge to speculate madly about some police investigation, despite being warned that such speculation is obstructing official inquiries and spreading all sorts of wild conjecture.

The partner of Nicola Bulley, who was missing for 33 days early in the year, has described the online obsession with her disappearance as a monster that got out of control.

Paul Ansell said his family initially welcomed the huge public interest, but that changed when amateur sleuths on social media began posting numerous misleading theories about what had happened.

They accused him of killing her, misconstrued the limited information available, and released personal details about Nicola. Some people travelled to Lancashire to "help" the police, and simply got in the way.

Airing dubious theories in private to your family or friends is one thing (and I'm tempted to speculate as much as anyone else) but posting those theories online to thousands of impressionable people who're likely to keep repeating them indefinitely is another.

Of course a lot of the online speculation is just about getting attention, and the more attention the merrier.

Some of the would-be pundits even make out they're smarter than the police and have spotted things the police have overlooked. The sheer arrogance and self-inflation is breathtaking.

Unfortunately social media provides a perfect platform for these outpourings of meddling bullshit.

Pic: Nicola Bulley

Waited on

I sometimes fantasise about being so rich I can have everything done for me while I laze around doing nothing. I would be waited on hand and foot and not have to move a muscle.

But would I really enjoy that? Actually I think I'd hate it. I like doing things for myself and organising my own life. I wouldn't want other people butting in and doing things for me.

Apart from anything else they'd probably never do anything exactly the way I wanted it done and I'd have to keep putting them right. Or they'd be hanging around when I wanted a bit of privacy. Or I wouldn't get on with them and there'd be constant friction and annoyance.

How do the Royals put up with all the flunkeys attending to their every need? I suppose they've been waited on for so long they're totally used to it and would be horrified at having to do everything themselves.

I suppose being waited on is generally seen as a sign of luxury, but I'd rather have the luxury of doing things for myself the way I want to do them. Why be constantly beholden to other people for the most basic everyday actions?

For a while in London we took on a cleaner because we were both working full time and found it hard to fit in the housework. I was never comfortable about it though, I always felt we should somehow be managing to do the cleaning ourselves.

But I wouldn't mind a chauffeur to take over the hassle of driving.

Turning the clock back

I'm perpetually amazed by the number of people who desperately want to look younger, and resort to all sorts of dubious methods to achieve it. Why are they no sooner middle-aged than they want to turn the clock back and look young again? What's so awful about the way they look as they get older?

I've never wanted to look younger, I'm quite happy with the way I look at 77. I suppose I turned a few heads when I was young but I don't sit around pining for my lost looks and envying the latest generation of pretty young things.

Instead of wanting to look young again and wanting the attention that might bring, why can't we just be a bit more positive about the entirely natural appearance of older people instead of being embarrassed by it and seeking to erase it?

To my mind, many people look wise and more distinguished as they age, while the very young can look quite bland and characterless. And older people, because they've knocked around a bit, often have fascinating back stories.

But no, people want to slice away as many years as possible and artificially turn back time, and they'll try absolutely anything to get the desired effect. Botox, surgery, shapewear, anti-ageing cream, dental enhancements. Whatever it takes, and whatever it costs.

It's always tragic when some perfectly healthy youngster opts for a dodgy procedure at some unregulated foreign clinic and returns home with serious after-effects that the NHS has to put right. If they're even more unlucky, they might die on the operating table, leaving their family and friends to grieve.

We all have to grow older. Why try to fight it?