You don't think withdrawing an ineffective medicine is a good idea? Or Wouldn't going farther with the withdrawal be even more 'nanny state'ish?
Infants are more vulnerable to excessive doses and cannot give the same feedback as older children regarding how they feel- which can make it likelier for parents to over-medicate. Plus, an ineffective medicine will already be prone to that. The children of inattentive parents do not deserve to die.
Did you know the medicines were ineffective before this? How would you have found out they were ineffective, if not by the advice of a responsible agency?
It's not about the minimum fool-proof common denominator. It's the same tired argument that's been used to argue against seatbelts, and there's a cause with no merit. No-one, how matter how intelligent, is incapable of nailing their hand to the wall on a bad day. If there is a choice, and by all reasonable sources one choice is simply bad, what do you lose? Choice alone is worthless. You need to be able to choose between viable alternatives, and introducing extra bad choices just makes it more difficult to make a good decision.
'Nanny state' pushes my buttons. I generally only ever hear it in dismal arguments that, when you strip away the rhetoric, become 'I don't actually have an argument, but I'm choosing to be belligerent'.
For me, the outrage is that a children's medicine with no proven benefit was ever allowed to be sold. But I suppose that's not much worse than homeopathy.
I think we need to remember that a 'Nanny State' has a light side and a dark side. While moderation in all things is generally a good thing there can be times when actions undertaken by the state in protection of children can go disastrously wrong, i.e. the 'Satanic abuse' of children that was alledged in Orkney.
How many times has govt or you and I asked for expert opinion and then completely ignored it? Too many, but that is the nature of politics and Life; Caught between the Light and the Dark.
Infants are more vulnerable to excessive doses and cannot give the same feedback as older children regarding how they feel- which can make it likelier for parents to over-medicate. Plus, an ineffective medicine will already be prone to that. The children of inattentive parents do not deserve to die.
Did you know the medicines were ineffective before this? How would you have found out they were ineffective, if not by the advice of a responsible agency?
It's not about the minimum fool-proof common denominator. It's the same tired argument that's been used to argue against seatbelts, and there's a cause with no merit. No-one, how matter how intelligent, is incapable of nailing their hand to the wall on a bad day. If there is a choice, and by all reasonable sources one choice is simply bad, what do you lose? Choice alone is worthless. You need to be able to choose between viable alternatives, and introducing extra bad choices just makes it more difficult to make a good decision.
'Nanny state' pushes my buttons. I generally only ever hear it in dismal arguments that, when you strip away the rhetoric, become 'I don't actually have an argument, but I'm choosing to be belligerent'.
For me, the outrage is that a children's medicine with no proven benefit was ever allowed to be sold. But I suppose that's not much worse than homeopathy.
Reply
How many times has govt or you and I asked for expert opinion and then completely ignored it? Too many, but that is the nature of politics and Life; Caught between the Light and the Dark.
Reply
Leave a comment