It's sometimes easy to come out against the nanny state, to rail against those politicians and civil servants telling us what to do, how to live our lives. Telling us to drink less, smoke less, exercise more, eat our five-a-day and the rest of it.
On occasion, our lovely tabloids are rather good at it.
But sometimes we can see the limits to that approach; the time when the Mail - amongst others - just want nanny to tell us what to do, even if nanny really isn't sure herself.
Swine flu has presented a wonderful example. The Daily Mail describes it as a farce when a charity, the National Childbirth Trust, advises women to consider delaying pregnancy to minimise the risks to themselves and their baby and the Department of Health say that's excessive.
The Mail (and they're far from alone), feels Government isn't doing its job unless we receive a single, unambigious message on the risks of swine flu and what we should do about it.
They're asking Government to nanny us. Because giving us one message, one set of advice on swine flu, is saying something that isn't true.
The truth is that there are genuine differences of opinion between experts. The truth is that they just don't know. There are many unknowns and the difference in advice has more to do with which guesses people are making about them than anything else.
If we were to be treated honestly, we would be told clearly that there are all these unknown elements, that experts disagree and that it's all about balancing different risks, none of which are very clear.
My question is whether honesty leads to a better outcome. What makes us less scared? What makes us panic less? What leads to deaths being minimised?
So, when it comes to health matters, do we want to be nannied - to be told things that aren't really true, the ladybird version - for our own good? Or do we want the "farce" of knowing that medical science doesn't have all the answers and experts have different opinions.
Monday, 20 July 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Personally, I want to be treated like an adult and not given a pile of bullshit that lulls me into false sense of security.
If govt is organising practical things like distribution of tamiflu or allocation of resources, I expect them to do it competently, though. I also expect them to recall Parliament0if things get worse so they can be subject to appropriate scrutiny.
Being lulled into a false sense of security is the last thing everyone wants. Unfortunately, that is what everybody has been lulled into. So it is important to have some kind of disaster preparation. The government will never change its approach to telling the "truth."
I suspect there is also a tension going on here between the individual good and the public good.
Many people could afford to quit the economic sphere, and yet much of the country would grind to a halt if they did.
Speaking from memory, people have talked about the nanny state when government forced us to do something.
It is quite different for the government to provide information so we can choose for ourselves as adults.
But when the Government tells us things that aren't true - for our own good, of course...?
There are times when the government should lie - to protect official secrets where a "no comment" would give away information.
But generally the government should tell the truth.
However, the truth is an easy thing to demand when you are in opposition.
Would Mr Clegg agree to answer the question in a half hour question session each week? Or would he evade and spin?
Voter, Clegg has been doing this in town hall meetings up and down the country, most weeks since he became leader.
Post a Comment