£814 million found.

£814 on vaccines for use overseas

  • I agree

    Votes: 20 28.6%
  • I don't agree

    Votes: 50 71.4%

  • Total voters
    70
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I'm lost on Duggie as well and i'm only 37 :confused:

If someone had mentioned a rocket to send all the chavs away i would have voted for that rather than the vaccine. :thumb:
 
I'm lost on Duggie as well and i'm only 37 :confused:

If someone had mentioned a rocket to send all the chavs away i would have voted for that rather than the vaccine. :thumb:

Just been on Urban Dictionary

"'Duggie' like an adjective to describe their swagger and their style, saying that they're fresh and looking fly. so they're basically saying that she likes my swagger and im fly." :dk:

Sounds crap to me :D
 
According to the statistics this thread doesn't say much for Mercedes owners.

Why should I give aid to a sick child when the price of caviar has increased by 50%, seems to the norm.
 
According to the statistics this thread doesn't say much for Mercedes owners.

Why should I give aid to a sick child when the price of caviar has increased by 50%, seems to the norm.

We're broke, we have a structural debt burden which means we will have to carry on borrowing more than we earn for the forseeable future.
Our infrastructure is also broken, essentials like nhs, schools, roads are seriously underfunded and facing even more cuts....and yet we're already the largest benefactor to the world in overseas aid and are now commiting more.
No one wants to neglect the sick anywhere in the world, but when we are plainly neglecting our own and then borrowing money to look after others its neither sustainable nor realistic.
 
Last edited:
Just been on Urban Dictionary

"'Duggie' like an adjective to describe their swagger and their style, saying that they're fresh and looking fly. so they're basically saying that she likes my swagger and im fly." :dk:

Sounds crap to me :D

Where I was brought up, 'Duggie' was a noun, and used to describe an idiot, or someone who was thick.

Not much change there then!
 
We're broke, we have a structural debt burden which means we will have to carry on borrowing more than we earn for the forseeable future.
Our infrastructure is also broken, essentials like nhs, schools, roads are seriously underfunded and facing even more cuts....and yet we're already the largest benefactor to the world in overseas aid and are now commiting more.
No one wants to neglect the sick anywhere in the world, but when we are plainly neglecting our own and then borrowing money to look after others its neither sustainable nor realistic.

This country has been broke for longer than you've been alive, so that is nothing new. We, like most countries have a national debt and that never stopped us helping others.

How many members here are in debt? a large proportion probably due to credit cards and mortgages etc. but that doesn't stop us giving to charities so why should the government be any different.
 
don't get me started on this one.

1. I have a disabled child, who has cost the NHS hundreds of thousands of pounds in medications and surgeries. Children hold a special value in the eyes of their parents, no amount of money to save a child's life can be deemed excessive.

2. We're talking about fractional amounts of money, yes it's more than you can lose behind an average sofa or down the back seat of a car, but percentage wise it's like me giving away a few quid a year for the next few years. Remind me again, how much is a child's life worth?

I changed my attitude to money and finances a few years ago when I heard a presentation from an old family friend, preacher and motivational speaker Bob Gordon, and one thing hit home. There are three things you need to do with money.

a. Spend some, so that you enjoy it and have the incentive to earn more
b. Save some, so when times are harder you have some to fall back on and don't need to depend on the state
c. Give some away, so you can get some real satisfaction that money you have earned has gone to the good of others.

The proportions are up to you, it's your money, but if you don't tick all three boxes then there's always something missing.
 
It's not so much the "value" of the money (it is fairly insignificant when looked at GNI, HMG spending, etc) but the message given out. It's OK to be the world's policeman and splash out money on aid (don't get me started on countries with nuclear and/or space programmes that receive aid) but cut everything back at home? Seen the latest performance numbers for cancer diagnosis? The message is that the government couldn't give 2 hoots about its citizens at home, but like to be feted by others in the world as a "development superpower"..


Welcome to the great dilemma.

Just because we can extend a 50 yr olds life expectancy from 10 to 20 years through expensive cancer treatment, should we do so at the expense of saving the lives of 10,000 children just because they are out of sight?

Not many years ago, cancer was the big fear for people, you got told you had cancer, then the cancer will kill you. Now you're more likely to die crossing the road to the hospital.

And yet children in the same world we're living on are dying of diseases that don't affect us here any more, and we take for granted.

I can get very emotive over this whole thing, but I choose to give some of my time and money to the betterment of mankind, because I can and I want to and it helps show how easy life is, as I type this on a laptop that cost less than a week's earnings, on a 3G connection, sat in a coffee shop having spent as much as a number of doses of vaccine on a cup of coffee.

I think I've had a hard day because I got a phone call this morning from my brother wanting some help, and so I rented a van and cancelled a days work and went to help him because it was the right thing to do, the cost is irrelevant. I felt tired at the end of it but fixed that with a coffee and a sandwich worth about a weeks wages to many people elsewhere on this planet...
 
Ethics... a mine field (too often populated by our own home-grown munitions) and it can be hard to examine the issue without stripping away the political wrapper that obfuscates that issue. Our NHS does not need money... it needs a root and branch removal of multiple layers of useless, lazy, thick and sweepingly incompetent management and all of the supporters and protagonists for such a cumbersome and unwieldy system of micro-management.

The NHS is currently a system that revels and delights in deliberately manufacturing clinical staff shortages, while managers have secretaries who also appear to need secretaries. Useful work is never carried out by the NHS management structure. We could cut the NHS budget at a stroke if we sacked 95% of the management... who have no useful role to play in deciding on clinical imperatives.

Schools? Don't get me started. We waste multi-millions on imposing mediocrity in our state school system and teachers are left with form completion as their main task. Ofsted and a dozen other similar quangos that serve no useful purpose... I would disband them all.

In summary, more children's lives will be saved by vaccines than by our politicians and I am completely for the expenditure. The vote-garnering exercise is meaningless and I wont be swayed by it one way or the other.
 
As has been said, this is a minefield of opinions and dilemmas.

We all KNOW its basically the right thing to do. To give aid to potentially save childrens lives can never be said be an inherently wrong thing to do. Even at the expense of other things.
We all have to balance our budgets as best we can, which unless you are extremely wealthy, some things have to be put on hold before bread can be put on the table.
But its all a matter of scale.
Some say the £814m could be better deployed elsewhere in this country. Saving lives here for example.
As I said its really a matter of scale of the amount of money given away.
How many would flinch if that amount was say £1000m or even £2000m ? ?
There must come a point where most would say "too much".
Or if that amount was for example only £10m, would we be having this discussion at all ?

Its the PRINCIPLE thats under debate here.
If you agree with not giving aid abroad, then thats fair enough. Your choice.
But, on the other hand, if you think giving aid abroad is a good thing, then again, thats fine.
But you have to ask yourself whether you would agree if it meant your local hospital or police station had to close because of lack of funds - or your village suddenly lost its only bus.
Its a real difficult question and unfortunately there isn't a universally acceptable answer.
 
Its a real difficult question and unfortunately there isn't a universally acceptable answer.

That is a tautological response which does not help us find a solution. :)

If we were to accept that morality is more than just a descriptive appellation (describing a personal set of standards below which an individual would not wish to fall) we can see that that particular moveable feast may well result in conduct which the person acting may deem to be an act which underpins their own moral conduct but is, in actuality, a clear and agreed case of turpitude. cf Dr Harold Shipman & similar...

Moral conduct is an absolute and it is always right, regardless of our personal opinions and our cultural milieu. I would not wish to support the notion that the saving of the lives of children born into poverty is a worthwhile act, only if I am driving my Merc and I am well-fed and earning a 6 figure salary. That would be an utterly immoral conclusion to arrive at. The vexed question is usually something like this: if you have enough food for one person and two starving people must be saved, who gets the food?

To the present case... we have more than enough drugs in the UK to ensure that every single one of the children born in the UK does not die during childbirth or during the perinatal, infant and childhood periods of their lives; from what are now considered to be common childhood diseases. We are not and would not be killing our own children, in order to save the lives of others by dint of vaccination (an act that we can easily accomplish) and I would want to suggest that we are (as a relatively wealthy and advanced nation) morally bound to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

We appear to have no problem with supporting dictators or selling them armaments if that suits the aims and objectives of Great Britain plc whether that be in Africa or the middle east. cf Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak and Idi Amin, :doh:

Schopenhauer was credited with the aphorism, Compassion is the basis of all morality and I am inclined to agree.
 
Last edited:
I think it is good if we can do something to improve the life of a child whatever the country.
Iḿ not sure if anyone saw it but there was a program on tv the other week about Britains poor. There was a council tower block, all of the residences were damp,mould growing on everything. The children in these flats were suffering ill health due to the damp and mould. In the end the block was demolished and the people moved.
How can this be allowed to go on in this so called developed country. I think there are many problems around the world but sometimes perhaps our own do get overlooked. Even if the £800 million wasn´t spent on africa, I doubt it would go on improving lives here.
 
That is a tautological response which does not help us find a solution. :)

.


I had to Google (other search engine are available) tautological :eek:.

Come on admit it guys, who else did :D.
 
I had to Google (other search engine are available) tautological :eek:.

Come on admit it guys, who else did :D.

Me.

Got really bored after the first para though.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom