Friday, 23 January 2009

Nannies are for children, not Mums

I hear that Essex mums-to-be who smoke are to be paid to kick the habit in the form of £100 of vouchers to spend at their local Co-op. Good heavens; where to start?

Mrs Patently never started smoking, partly because she always knew she would want children. She has since had 2 children, and has never smoked in her life. If this program becomes nationwide, where is our £200??

Actually, I know where our £200 is. It's being confiscated at the end of this month in order to fund two pregnant women who are so thick they need a cash incentive to give up smoking. Frankly, if the fact that every drag they take is slowly but surely harming their child is not enough to make them stop, then the child is screwed whether she smokes or not. Let's face it; if there really are women out there who don't care about their child enough to stop smoking, but do care enough about £100 of free groceries from the Co-op, then they are not exactly going to be Mary Poppins impersonators in nine month's time, are they?

The idiot Nanny-state representative that Today interviewed on the subject tried to point out that if we stop these people smoking, then we will save money in the future when they don't turn up at A&E time after time with all the inevitable health problems of smoking. And thus, he avoided the allegation of bribery by moving the debate on to how these mums could blackmail us instead. My immediate thought was that if I go on a rampage of violence and vandalism, that will cost a pretty penny. So where is my official payout for not doing so?

I've got a better idea. Let's just make sure they know that if they smoke, they are harming their child. Then accept that the State cannot feasibly do more. In a few decades, when she turns up at A&E, fag in hand, asking for (a) a light, and (b) treatment for emphysema, give her a pamphlet about cause and effect and tell her to get lost.

4 comments:

  1. You mean put some faith in personal responsibility and reward people for behaving appropriately rather than inappropriately?

    As if.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This sort of thing really REALLY pisses me off. They are rewarding good behaviour? NO! They are rewarding bad behaviour because as you say where is Mrs Patently's £200 ? And how is it to be proven?

    I wouldn't deny health care to those who legally smoke as I wouldn't to those who legally drink. But why are we funding methadone with tax payers money when cold turkey doesn't kill? Stop funding methadone clinics and I might then have some sympathy with your position on restricting health care to smokers.

    But this initiative is just stupid. I agree with you there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You mean put some faith in personal responsibility and reward people for behaving appropriately rather than inappropriately?

    A reward other than coughing yourself to death attached to an oxygen tank? Wow, that's gotta be a great reward!

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Let's face it; if there really are women out there who don't care about their child enough to stop smoking, but do care enough about £100 of free groceries from the Co-op..."

    'If'...? Not sure there's any doubt. And it's a lot more than a few!

    Other than that, agree totally with what everyone else say.

    ReplyDelete