The BBC reports that the United Nations (UN) World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed a set of "affordable steps governments should take" (¶ 4) to reduce the economic cost and death toll from "lifestyle-related" illnesses such as heart disease, lung disease, cancer and diabetes, which now cause more deaths in underdeveloped and developing countries than do infectious diseases. According to Dr Ala Alwan, assistant director-general for non-communicable diseases and mental health at WHO, implementing the suggested proposals could save millions of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 15 years. The WHO's suggestions include: higher taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, banning smoking at work and in public places, medical checkups and action to control dangerous eating habits, such unhealthy fats and excessive salt.
Although the WHO means well, their suggestions are awful. I am sure that the facts are correct. Being overweight because of an unhealthy diet and bad lifestyle is a serious health threat which is not only dangerous for the people themselves, but is also a serious economic burden for national economies due to lost productivity and higher medical costs. Smoking definitely causes cancer and other expensive health problems. Whisky and wine are alcohol, a dangerous drug of addiction which causes serious diseases as well as violence and social problems that come from any drug abuse. And the UN is surely right that preventing these problems is much, much cheaper than treating them after they occur.
But the WHO is still seriously wrong in most of its proposed solutions. They would certainly work, just like the US army really did save the Vietnamese village of Ben Tre from communism when it destroyed it, but the villagers might have preferred to keep their village and their lives than to be "saved" in such a deadly way. And the same is true for the UN's proposals, which I am sure will be popular with many people and with too many irrational and unjust governments: just because it really works does not make something just or an acceptable policy to force on people against their will.
What do you think? Am I wrong, or is the UN wrong?
Should governments follow the WHO suggestions? Why or why not?
Feel welcome to share your ideas in a comment below (click "comments" below).
__________
References
WHO targets non-communicable 'lifestyle' diseases. (2011, September 19). BBC News. Retrieved September 20, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14970547
In my opinion, most people don't care about their health so much,so the governments should follow the WHO suggestions because I believe that advice can help to reduce the death of the population which most people are die from smoking. I think if cigarettes or alcohol are more expensive, some people may decide to stop buying them.
ReplyDeletePreaw,
ReplyDeleteThank you for disagreeing with me.
I still think that the WHO suggestions are wrong, but I want to give your classmates a chance to respond before I support my idea.
But I do agree with you that "if cigarettes or alcohol are more expensive, some people may decide to stop buying them".
Peter, I agree with you. I think that the WHO's suggestions can't reduce this problem. For example, I have many friends who smoke too much. The government did higher taxes of cigarettes but my friends still buy it or buy another brand that unpopular and cheaper, and they don't follow in banning smoking at university or public places. They still smoke in places that teacher can't find them. So, I think they should psycho or show effect of cancer disease that people will afraid of this disease.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, I agree with the WHO suggestions. Some people argue that smoking and drinking are personal activities ,and they are willing to face healthy problems. However, their activities also make a negative effect on other people surrounding them. Because living near a smoker, someone can develop lung cancer while he does not smoke. Therefore, I think that it is necessary for governments to take measure against "lifestyle-related" illnesses. Although smokers or drinkers will feel unfair, those policies are beneficial for many people in their society.
ReplyDeletePlan,
ReplyDeleteAnd how about overweight people?
Must governments take action to get them down to a correct weight so that they stop harming other people in society with their unhealthy personal activities such as eating ice-cream?
I totally agree with you, Peter. Maybe the WHO's suggestions can solve some of those health problems, but only for a short time. If y'all can remember the prohibition of alcohol in the United States in 20's and 30's decades which made nothing but only more problems, perhaps this case seems to be no difference in consequence. All men are born free and equal with their free will, no one want being commanded. but if they are commanded too much, they usually find another way to follow their will and/or do everything against authorities controlling them, it's human nature, and that will cause more problems. In addition, I believe compulsion will never solve any problems.
ReplyDeleteI think that the WHO gives the reasonable suggestions to resolve the economic cost and death people problems from the illness. Increasing taxes rate on alcohol and cigarettes and banning smoking at work and in public areas can reduce a number of smokers. Consequently, people who are second hand smoker could significantly reduce as well. Another suggestion, controlling dangerous eating habits is acceptable solution to overcome such the problems. According to Peter’s view on overweight, people who suffer from overweight do not only further develop diseases, such as diabetes, high blood pressure and heart attack, but also lose high amount of medical expense. Thus, I agree with WHO ideas.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I do not know detail on a set of “affordable…” as mentioned on the passage certainly.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteIn case of eating ice-cream, I agree with your argument. However, I believe that,like smoking or drinking, obesity is not only a personal problem but also a public problem. We should think about our taxes which a government spends curing overweight patients. We should concern about how many competent employees that our country loses resulting from unhealthy people. Although taking legal action seems too aggressive, we still have to do something to persuade people to get down to a correct weight.
I'm glad that a couple of people have come to support me.
ReplyDeleteThank you Aom and Job.
And now I'm wondering how those who disagree will respond to the points you've made. (Actually, Plan has already started to address one of those arguments.)
Great discussion.
I don't think WHO's proposals are wrong. As we know that many people died and are suffering from 'lifestyle-related' illnesses, so it is time for the world's leaders to do something efficient to protect their nations. The suggestions could be annoying to some people, but I think these actions are resonable to follow. Peter, isn't it going too far to compare Ben Tre with WHO's proposals?
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you. In my view, you cannot make a comparison between what the US army did in Vietnam war and the WHO's actions because they are based on different perspectives. Vietnam war was based on the social or politic belief but this WHO's policy is based on the fact that a lot of people in undeveloped countries, now, are suffering from non-communicable diseases. Furthermore, in undeveloped countries, most people are not educated, so they are not aware of dangerously eating habits. In order to solve this problem ,the governments should give them the knowledge, but it takes a long time. I agree with WHO and think that the fastest way to handle this problem is to adopt the compulsive measure. It may limit the human right. However, people's lives are the most important to concern.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Peter. I'm not sure that the WHO suggestions can solve the problems because I think,the WHO suggestions don't solve or prevent the problems from the cause of problems. In my opinion, the causes of this problems in teenager are just copy from friends or influencers such as their favourite TV star and they want to be accepted from their friends according to the research(Independent Study of Faculty of Economics of Chiang Mai University) about the factors effect smoking behavior that I've seen. Then, I think,the causes of this problems in adult is a lot of pressure in their daily life so most of people believe that drinking alcohol or smoking can make them be relax. In my view, even though, the taxes on alcohol and cigratte was increased, the consumers still drink or smoke at the same but they may switch to the cheaper brand because they still need and these products have low switching cost.
ReplyDeleteSunny,
ReplyDeleteI think the comparison is reasonable.
As I mentioned in my introduction, a couple of other comparisons also popped into my mind. Like Ben Tre, they were all more dramatic, or they seem to most people more dramatic, than taxing ice-cream to save people from such unhealthy behaviour.
One of the other examples were the series of Catholic (Christian) Inquisitions from the 13th century until quite recently which saved people's immortal souls by torture and murder to protect them and society from not believing in the one true god of Christianity. Today, Islam does the same in many countries; in Afghanistan, for example, under their constitution, it is an offence punishable by death for a Moslem to leave Islam for another religion - this is to protect the citizens and society from failing to be good Moslems!
The intention is to save people, even if they do not want to be saved. And in order to save them, the government, informed by well meaning experts, thinks it can do anything necessary to achieve that good and beneficial aim. What could be more noble, good and wonderful than saving people's immortal souls, even if the people themselves don't want it?
I think the reasoning is very similar with the WHO and national government's thinking when they advocate punitive taxes, bans and similar measures to force people to be saved from poor health against their own wishes. The intention is good in all cases. But I'm not sure that the action is good.
The UN's scientists and statisticians are very good at collecting useful facts and reasoning about cause and effect. They are very bad at reasoning about justice. Job did better than the WHO in his comment above.
Golf,
ReplyDeleteI think education is over-rated as a solution.
Everyone in Thailand knows that cigarettes and alcohol are bad for you, but that doesn't stop people using them. I think everyone probably knows that eating a lot of meat and not many vegetables is unhealthy, but, again, people still do it. In fact, people often say that they want to change their diet because they know it is unhealthy! But they plan to change ... tomorrow, after one more big, tasty beef steak with chocolate cake for dessert and washed down with wine and cognac. I don't think that lack of education is usually the cause of a problem.
However, even if the problem were lack of education, the reasonable solution would surely be to educate people, not to punish them. Education is much easier and cheaper, and would not involve the human rights violations you mentioned. A few TV announcements would be enough, and perhaps some posters on the street: quick, cheap and not against human rights.
According to your opinion, I don't think both topics are similar. For this reason, I think WHO's suggestions are useful to help people who want to change their lifestyle. Although someone don't want to change it, but they'll be healthy. However, I think events in Vietnam are different because it's about humankind, not just lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteAom's comment (AOMSIN, September 22, 2011 8:36 AM) seems to me to make a connection between this post and the ideas in the one about Kate's ring: Aom talks about things being "useful".
ReplyDeleteBut I think that eating ice-cream, drinking wine, shooting heroin, smoking cigarettes, sitting for hours in front of TV every day, gambling and so on are all useful for the people who choose to do those unhealthy or foolish activities.
Certainly, if they want help to change their lifestyle, they should be given that help, but how can it be right to force them to change if their unhealthy and foolish way of life does not harm other people? Is drinking wine really dangerous to others? Sitting watching TV for hour after hour? Shooting heroin? Having a 10 Baht bet on a football game with a few friends? None of these things seem to me to harm others.
And I think this is another similarity with Ben Tre - if the village wanted to adopt communism, shouldn't that be their right to decide? Of course, if the village did not want to be communist, the US might have been right to help them fight their enemies. I think that the relevant similarity between Ben Tre and the WHO's proposals is that they don't respect the people's wishes, decisions and right to decide how they will live and what values matter to them. In that, the US army who destroyed Ben Tre and the WHO, and every government that follows the WHO's suggestions, is acting immorally against the citizens of nations being punished for making decisions that they have a right to make as mature, rational human beings.
It's not easy to change the way how people think and act especially when that person is an adult. It take times and lessons for them to say I want to change or please help me. What we can do as an individual is understand well this issue and trying to apply to us and our family. If every family has a heart to have a healthy life in the community then government can help them by providing the all information and things that they need. It takes good strategies and positive approach each country in different culture.I believe Who's proposal can solve the symptoms not the roof. So These issues will not end until the citizens have already changed their heart.
ReplyDelete