Saturday, 24 April 2010


Just finished work and have work again in the morning so I'm pigging out in front of the telly. Very dull of me, I know. I'm watching Britain's got talent, I quite like the show(to my horror and disgust at myself!) because of the way the presenters are with the absolutely-rubbish-but-think-they're-amazing contestants. They are sarcastic and mock them subtly whilst under the pretence of interviewing them backstage, and the morons don't seem to have a clue.

Currently on TV there are two adverts that show women shaking their derrieres. One is selling toning shoes and the other is selling tena ladies (I hate these ad's selling ladies 'intimate products', they just aren't necessary, but that's another issue.) I wish the trainer's ladies bums were closer to the size of the other ones. I understand that they are targeting different demographics and that the trainer one is supposedly saying look you can get a bum like this! Yet it doesn't make me want to buy the shoes, it doesn't make me think 'Oooh they make your bum like that wow!' It just makes me want to punch the skinny bitches shaking their barely-there bums all over my telly. Their whole arse is about the size of one of my butt cheeks. It just doesn't reflect reality at all, the average woman's bum isn't that shape/size and most men say they prefer a curvy shape anyway. Besides, who hoover's in their knickers? The feminist in me is scowling a little bit as well.

OK, bitter rant over. I'm going to watch Reservoir Dogs and post this later.....

Reservoir Dogs is good but I wasn't amazed by it.

Thursday, 22 April 2010

Crabbit old women

We were learning about some ideas around patient dignity this week. One of the things we were shown was a short film based on this poem. I think it is a very good poem in that, it makes you stop and think. Though it could be just me that thinks that because I'm terrified of getting old and being forgotten about, being unable to do daily tasks and the things that I enjoy, the things that make me me.

"Crabbit Old Woman"

What do you see nurse, what do you see?
Are you thinking, when you look at me-
A crabbit old woman, not very wise,
Uncertain of habit, with far-away eyes,
Who dribbles her food and makes no reply
When you say in a loud voice,
I do wish you'd try!
Who seems not to notice the things that you do
And forever is loosing a stocking or shoe.
Who, unresisting or not; lets you do as you will
With bathing and feeding the long day is fill.
Is that what you're thinking,
Is that what you see?
Then open your eyes,
nurse, you're looking at me.
I'll tell you who I am as I sit here so still!
As I rise at your bidding, as I eat at your will.
I'm a small child of 10 with a father and mother,
Brothers and sisters, who loved one another-
A young girl of 16 with wings on her feet,
Dreaming that soon now a lover she'll meet,
A bride soon at 20- my heart gives a leap,
Remembering the vows that I promised to keep.
At 25 now I have young of my own
Who need me to build a secure happy home;
A woman of 30, my young now grow fast,
Bound to each other with ties that should last;
At 40, my young sons have grown and are gone,
But my man's beside me to see I don't mourn;
At 50 once more babies play around my knee,
Again we know children, my loved one and me.
Dark days are upon me, my husband is dead,
I look at the future, I shudder with dread,
For my young are all rearing young of their own.
And I think of the years and the love that I've known;
I'm an old woman now and nature is cruel-
Tis her jest to make old age look like a fool.
The body is crumbled, grace and vigor depart,
There is now a stone where I once had a heart,
But inside this old carcass, a young girl still dwells,
And now and again my battered heart swells,
I remember the joy, I remember the pain,
And I'm loving and living life over again.
I think of the years all too few- gone too fast.
And accept the stark fact that nothing can last-
So open your eyes, nurse, open and see,
Not a crabbit old woman, look closer-
See Me.

Wednesday, 21 April 2010

Easily distracted.

Today I rediscovered twitter and then rediscovered this blog. I get so easily distracted and bored that I can never keep a regular blog up. I started this thing as a way to practice for the GAMSAT but right now I'm not going to apply to do medicine as I started a degree in nursing in March. So for now I'll just use this as an ordinary blog to blurt out some nonsense on topics that are floating around in my head. Its late now so I'll right a proper post at some point in the near future. Maybe.

Tuesday, 1 December 2009

DNA Dilema

I think it's about time for another post.! The topic this time, DNA Databases.

There has been allot of debate recently over whether it is right to keep innocent, or rather arrested but non convicted, people's DNA on a database. There is the argument that it is and could be a very useful tool in making catching criminals more quick and efficient. The police and our glorious government (insert sarcastic tone there) maintain that it has reduced crime (since they have started keeping a database), they claim that it will protect the innocent from being wrongfully convicted and that the scientific evidence supports this. I believe they are talking nonsense. The statistics released by the home office do indeed show a reduction in crime but it is a 0.3% reduction. Not enough. Innocent people have indeed been in the past wrongfully convicted and cleared by DNA evidence, however you don't need a database to do this, you just need to compare DNA from the crime scene and DNA of the suspect. Their final argument holds no water either, only recently they displayed that they only listen to what suits their agenda when it comes to their scientific ad visors with the case of their ex-drugs advisor Prof Nutt. These are the strongest arguments that the home secretory came up with in an article he wrote, all in all pretty weak.

The scientist in me however (or a little part of the scientist in me) sees this as an ok idea. A database of any information has its usefulness in creating efficiency. Also, DNA is so specific to individuals (bar that of identical twins- though even their DNA has some small differences in it) that it is surely the perfect way of identifying someone? Yet there have been a few cases (albeit according to hearsay/and tabloids) where a 'suspect' identified by his DNA couldn't possibly or plausibly be the suspect. So as long as we were to continue using it in conjunction with other evidence it would be a good method of identification. On the other hand nothing, not even science (shocking as it seems) is flawless. Errors occur with contamination at different stages of the process (at the crime scene- the lab etc), or even silly things like mixed up labels etc.

Although scientifically I think it's a good way of identifying a suspect doesn't mean it is morally acceptable. The human rights court ruled last year that retaining DNA of innocent people 'constituted a disproportionate interference with the individuals right to respect for a private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society'. The system they have of giving someones DNA profile a unique 20 digit code, for me, conjures up images of people being tattooed with numbered bar codes. Even if I was willing for them to know every tiny detail of my make up, I would never trust them with my data, if not because of worry of what they might do with it, then because of their record of loosing sensitive data which is abysmal. What if in 30 years time (and I'm going to go a bit sci-fi/paranoid on you now) there was a scientific advancement that allowed biological weapons to be DNA tagged. What if the government just lost another CD with sensitive data on it? What if this scientific advancement was made by some terrorist group? Or Perhaps another example- Who knows where the collection and usage would stop? Scientists (<3) could identify the gene that causes a violent personality, everyone with this gene now gets monitored in a prevention is better than freedom society.
Finally there is the argument that if you are innocent you won't get arrested. Yet evidence suggests, according to the human genetics commission, an increase of arrests to boost the DNA database was occurring. If we start collecting DNA of those arrested and not convicted what's to stop them turning around and saying, well we might as well get everybody's?I'm perhaps being a little over dramatic with my examples but I think in principle they stand. It would be a blatant invasion of privacy, we may as well have CCTV in every home.

The government should get rid of the databases they have, stop making up policies to suit themselves and listen to what the majority of people want. Spend the money on better police forces to find the criminals, who are more than likely not on the DNA database anyway!

Friday, 27 November 2009

Would imposing a minimum price on alcohol benefit society?

(Although I want your criticisms please don't be too harsh with my first post! I'm just need help being more expressive with my opinions! :D )
Britain has long been viewed as being irresponsible when it comes to drink. A view recognised not only by British people, but the world as a whole There is no doubt that it is a problem that needs to be tackled somehow, as it kills 30,000 people a year. One way of tackling this could be as the government is often suggesting is to make it harder to buy such large quantities of cheap alcohol. I partly agree that this would be a sensible option. It would mean less people would be able to become paralytic frequently which would therefore cut down on policing and NHS costs. There would also be less people dying from long term abuse as it has been proven that making alcohol more expensive slows the amount of long term users. However I think there are alot of issues with this option. To start it seems far too controlling. Although the government are there to reign in the extremes of the masses to benefit the majority of people, I think this is a step too close to the whole 'nanny state' thing. Another issue is that it would surely only help to widen the divide between the classes, leaving the poorer unable to afford to unwind with a social drink where as the richer could afford an increase in price and still binge drink without batting an eyelid. As someone who likes to go out and drink but who also knows when I've had enough (although sometimes admittedly I like to watch as I go past this point.) I am wondering why I should suffer the consequences of a few bad eggs? Why should I have to pay more to enjoy myself so that someone else can't afford to drink themselves into oblivion? So I conclude that although there is a real heath and a social issue that needs to be tackled when it comes to alcohol, I do not believe that making it less accessible for everybody is the answer. If someone really wants to drink loads, they are going to anyway - if health issues aren't strong enough to deter them, why would a higher price tag?

Thursday, 26 November 2009


Hi all! I have decided to start blogging again. I have abbandoned my livejournal. I cannot believe how angsty and apathetic I was all through Uni and only a year or so ago! FAIL. So I am starting afresh. The main reason is so that i can practice my writing/debating/ discussing stuff skills. This is so I can resit the GAMSAT and be third time lucky and pass the essay section. SO constructive critiscism, ideas on stuff to discuss, and any input what so ever will be greatly recieved from anyone!