health Archives - Page 2 of 2 - Neil Turner's Blog

Blood donation

December 23, 2024November 15, 2012 by Neil Turner

I donated blood for the first time today.

On Tuesday, I donated a pint of blood, for the first time.

It’s been something that I’ve been meaning to do for quite some time. I’m already an organ donor (I carry a card around which shows that I give consent for my organs to be used in transplants after my death), but until now I’ve never given blood.

I couldn’t donate throughout much of 2007 and 2008, as I had been on high-strength steroid tablets due to flare-ups with my asthma and my overnight stay in hospital in November 2007. But although I’ve been okay since then, I admit that I’ve simply never got around to it, even when there have been donation sessions at work.

My big worry was that it would hurt. And it did – a bit. For me the worst bit was the needle being inserted at the start; the pain was similar to when I’ve had vaccinations but lasted a little longer. However, once it was in, it was okay – a little uncomfortable, but not painful, and it was done after around 10-15 minutes. All in all, I was there for about an hour, due to me being a new donor and needing a slightly longer medical check first.

Afterwards, the site where the needle went in was a little tender for a few hours, but I didn’t receive any bruising and there was just a small red dot when I took the bandage off.

I’ve already booked another appointment, for mid-March next year, to donate my second pint. If you want to give blood, you can find details at blood.org.uk – the NHS needs a constant supply of blood and so if you are healthy and can spare the time I’d urge you to do it.

Schools deny girls cervical cancer jabs on religious grounds

March 27, 2026July 18, 2012 by Neil Turner

This was originally a guest post at Stupid Evil Bastard, re-posted here following that site’s demise.

It’s been almost three years (!) since I’ve written a Guest Post for SEB, but a recent news story here in the UK prompted me to put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) and write something.

Over here in the UK, some religious schools have opted out of offering free HPV vaccines to their students. HPV – the Human Papillomavirus – is linked to as many as 70% of cases of cervical cancer and is therefore offered, free of charge, to girls aged 12 and 13. Around 1000 women die from cervical cancer each year, so this vaccine has the potential to save hundreds of lives. And normally, it is up to individual parents’ to opt their children out, but these schools have made the decision to opt out of the vaccine for all of their students.

The HPV vaccine is controversial – not because of any side effects, but because HPV is a sexually-transmitted infection. Consequently, some parents opt their children out as they do not want to encourage sexual promiscuity, or feel that because their religion forbids sexual intercourse before marriage that this is incompatible with their faith.

The key problem is that a number of these schools have not informed local doctors that they have chosen to opt out. Consequently, should a child’s parent actually want their child to have the vaccine, it is not subsequently being offered by their doctor and so some children may miss out.

What is laughable are some of the reasons given by the schools for opting out, such as:

“pupils follow strict Christian principles, marry within their own community and do not practise sex outside marriage”

Because we know how likely that is. Regular SEB readers will know that abstinence-only sex education is not effective and actually results in a higher rate of unprotected sex – and consequently puts both men and women at risk of contracting the virus. Although the vaccination programme only targets girls, men can carry the virus and it while it frequently results in no adverse symptoms, carriers are at a heightened risk of other cancers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has some handy information if you want to read more.

Should schools be allowed to put the health of their students at risk in this way, in the course of religious observance? And if so, should such schools be forced to make the effort to provide parents with the information they need to seek alternative sources of the vaccine?

Is public healthcare in Britain really that bad?

March 27, 2026August 12, 2009 by Neil Turner

This was originally a guest post at Stupid Evil Bastard, re-posted here following that site’s demise.

Obama’s plans for healthcare reform in the US are far from uncontroversial and many of those on the right side of the political spectrum have been coming up with various facts and figures to undermine his moves to widen access. One of the (perhaps unintended) targets of this has been Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), a ‘socialised’ health care system, and many claims have been made about its supposed failings. But are these claims really true? British newspaper The Guardian investigated the claims and came up with the facts:

The claim: Ted Kennedy, 77, would not be treated for his brain tumour if he was in Britain because he is too old – Charles Grassley, Republican senator from Iowa.
The response: Untrue, says the Department of Health. “There is no ban on anyone of any age receiving any treatment, ” said a spokesman. “Whether to prescribe drugs or recommend surgery is rightly a clinical decision taken on a case by case basis.”
The claim: In England, anyone over 59 years of age cannot receive heart repairs, stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed – an anonymously authored, but widely circulated, email, largely sent to older voters
The response: Totally untrue. Growing numbers of patients over 65 with heart conditions are having surgery, including valve repairs and heart bypass surgery, says Professor Peter Weissberg, the British Heart Foundation’s (BHF) medical director. For example, the average age at which people have a bypass operation has risen from 58 in 1991 to 66 in 2008.

There are several more which reveal the true facts. It’s true that survival rates for breast and prostate cancers are lower in Britain than in the US, but whether that is due to the standard of treatment or care, or down to other factors (such as diet, exercise or genetic variations) isn’t explored. In any case, not one of the major British political parties promotes the abolition of the NHS, and barely any of the minor ones would abolish it either. While most Brits, politicians or otherwise, would happily spend half an hour telling you about how the NHS could be improved, you would find it hard to find anyone who would want to get rid of it altogether.

Poorest Brits are healthier than Richest Americans

March 27, 2026May 7, 2006 by Neil Turner

This was originally a guest post at Stupid Evil Bastard, re-posted here following that site’s demise.

A study published by the American Medical Association shows that even the poorest Brits are healthier than the richest Americans:

Middle-aged, white Americans are much sicker than their counterparts in England, startling new research shows, despite U.S. health care spending per person that’s more than double what England spends.
A higher rate of Americans tested positive for diabetes and heart disease than the English. Americans also self-reported more diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, lung disease and cancer.
The gap between the countries holds true for educated and uneducated, rich and poor.

The study focused only on non-Hispanic whites and took factors like smoking, drinking and obesity into account – Brits tend to drink more heavily and more Americans are obese. It concluded that Americans tend to have a worse diet (eating more junk food) and took part in less exercise, but also that in Britain the primary health care provision was better, so that ailments were being picked up and treated earlier.

The media on both sides of the Atlantic constantly derides Britain’s state health care system but actually it does work nearly all the time, and studies like this show that.