Down with the Sunbeds... and free will while you're at it.

Mother says

The endless wisdom of Heffalump Harney strikes again:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0824/cancer.html

So sunbeds should be banned outright because the simple minded folk of Ireland simply don't have the mental capacity to exercise personal responsibility and make decisions about their own well-being.

Am I the only person who feels that we as a people are treated by our political masters as if we are incapable of making sound judgements for ourselves?

Harney and co. seem to think that the only reason someone would use a sunbed or smoke a cigarette is because they are too stupid to know any better, not because they have wilfully chosen to take the risk for their own enjoyment.

Could she not just stick a label on the side of the sunbeds saying, 'This will give you cancer just like the real sun' and we can go ahead and make up our own minds about it?

Auvers

indeed Kneejerk Harney stikes again

oh btw Harney did you know that obesity is also associated with many diseases including cancer.

Diarmuid

It's an easy target. Let's see her try it with a real killer , ciggies.

mike65

And the parents who stick thier children in these things?

prinz

Mother says wrote: »

Am I the only person who feels that we as a people are treated by our political masters as if we are incapable of making sound judgements for ourselves?

Probably because in many instances people have proven themselves incapable of doing it for themselves

Diarmuid

mike65 wrote: »

And the parents who stick thier children in these things?

From the sounds of things the "7 year olds in the sunbeds" was a total red herring.

prinz

Diarmuid wrote: »

From the sounds of things the "7 year olds in the sunbeds" was a total red herring.

Er no it wasn't. From talking to a friend who worked in beautician's place they were inundated with calls about getting little mary into a sunbed for the first communion. Sad, but true.

Riskymove

Mother says wrote: »

So sunbeds should be banned outright because the simple minded folk of Ireland simply don't have the mental capacity to exercise personal responsibility and make decisions about their own well-being.

to be fair, that line of reasoning could be applied to many things which are banned or regulated, seatbelts, drinking, smoking, drugs and so on

I think we can agree that a lot of people cannot be trusted to make sensible decisions

kmick

Free will is overrated.

Salvelinus

prinz wrote: »

Er no it wasn't. From talking to a friend who worked in beautician's place they were inundated with calls about getting little mary into a sunbed for the first communion. Sad, but true.

I'd well believe it, peopel living their failed lived through their children.

getcover

Maybe Burkas (is this the right name for the all-over garment?) and umbrellas should be compulsory for all children too?

After all, parents let them out to play when the sun shines for its few hours each year here...

Riskymove

getcover wrote: »

Maybe Burkas (is this the right name for the all-over garment?) and umbrellas should be compulsory for all children too?

After all, parents let them out to play when the sun shines for its few hours each year here...

because obviously the two things are the same:pac:

Euro_Kraut

getcover wrote: »

Maybe Burkas (is this the right name for the all-over garment?) and umbrellas should be compulsory for all children too?

I know! The State might as well just take our children from birth althogher! I mean if we do not have right to expose out 7 year olds to dangerous levels of radiation that what 'freedom' do we have left??

Its PC gone mad. Too many forgeiners. Bring back whipping. Etc.

bangersandmash

Auvers wrote: »

indeed Kneejerk Harney stikes again

oh btw Harney did you know that obesity is also associated with many diseases including cancer.

That tired ad hominem isn't the best way to argue your point.

Realistically an outright ban is hardly going to cause sunbeds to disappear. Improved verification of the standards of tanning salons might be a better option. But naturally the financial wherewithal for enforcing such standards is non-existent.

getcover

Riskymove wrote: »

because obviously the two things are the same:pac:

They pretty much are.
Her claim is that sunbreds can cause cance so ban them.
There are many things that can cause cancer, so do we ban them all as well?

Riskymove

getcover wrote: »

They pretty much are.
Her claim is that sunbreds can cause cance so ban them.
There are many things that can cause cancer, so do we ban them all as well?

you think being out in daytime is the same as lying in a sunbed?

no wonder we have to clamp down on free will

getcover

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

I know! The State might as well just take our children from birth althogher! I mean if we do not have right to expose out 7 year olds to dangerous levels of radiation that what 'freedom' do we have left??

Its PC gone mad. Too many forgeiners. Bring back whipping. Etc.

Is throwing out some tired old cliché about PC, and mentioning "forgeiners" (whatever they are) and whipping supposed to be some sort of point?

She's at a cancer summit and says sunbeds should be banned.

I think the only kneejerk reaction here is from people who seem shocked and outraged at the very thought that our rich sunbed heritage should be destroyed. The phrase 'big deal' springs to mind.

I eblieve under 18s are banned from using them in the US. Who is paying that idiot Barack Obama a fortune? Does he not realise that smoking causes cancer etc. etc.?

getcover

Riskymove wrote: »

you think being out in daytime is the same as lying in a sunbed?

no wonder we have to clamp down on free will

Ahh that old trick.
You can't make a sensible reply to what was actually posted, so just make up what was posted.

Joey the lips

I think sunbeds and smoking should be banned! I also think if you smoke you should have to pay an extra premium to the health service. The way i figure is this, If i use a motorway I pay a toll if if i want to make myself sick i should have to pay extra as well....

Well you did ask!


#Cue the unhappy smokers response

getcover

Deleted User wrote: »

She's at a cancer summit and says sunbeds should be banned.

I think the only kneejerk reaction here is from people who seem shocked and outraged at the very thought that our rich sunbed heritage should be destroyed. The phrase 'big deal' springs to mind.

"kneejerk reaction" "shocked and outraged" ?


There is an outrage here, that a highly paid "Minister" comes out with this kind or rubbish, or that she seems incapable of doing the job she wanted and has had for quite a few years now, but I guess thats a whole other discussion...

just saw you editied you post to include a reference to Obama. Why doesn't he ban smoking then? There we have an irrefutable cause of cancer, so why not ban it? Children smoke, whether they should or not, so why not banish smoking altogeher?
Because people will demand the right to smoke if they want to?
Because farmers and many jobs are at stake?

If people are serious about doing something, let them do something serious about it.

Banning sunbeds is just a pr stunt, when a carcinogen like tobacco is so freely available.

Riskymove

getcover wrote: »

Ahh that old trick.
You can't make a sensible reply to what was actually posted, so just make up what was posted.

er....do you not claim that children being allowed out in the sun was basically the same as letting children use sunbeds?

if not, what did you mean?

getcover

getcover wrote: »

"kneejerk reaction"

That was with reference to the second post on this thread.

Euro_Kraut

getcover wrote: »

Is throwing out some tired old cliché about PC, and mentioning "forgeiners" (whatever they are) and whipping supposed to be some sort of point?

Yes. Some light satire on my behalf.

Your point was ridiculous. A straw man argument. I responded with a similar post. It was designed to show you how nonsensical it is to invent propositions that don't exist and argue against them.

I think others may have picked up on that.

getcover

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Yes. Some light satire on my behalf.

Your point was ridiculous. A straw man argument. I responded with a similar post. It was designed to show you how nonsensical it is to invent propositions that don't exist and argue against them.

I think others may have picked up on that.

My original point was sarcasm.
Pity you didn't pick up on that...

MementoMori

It would be fine to let people take the risk, as long as they agreed in advance to not come looking for medical treatment down the line from the state, when they inevitably develop avoidable skin cancer.

As the people are not going to take responsibility for their actions in terms of the future cost of using sunbeds, they banning them is the next best step.
While it may be a slight infringement on people's liberty to possibly give themselves cancer, I prefer this infringement compared to the alternative infringement which would be increased taxes, I and everyone else, would have to pay to provide medical cover for these morons.

Basically I don't see why I should have to pay higher taxes to provide medical care to treat morons who are willing to risk cancer for the benefit of looking pretty.

Banning of sunbeds is a step forward and should have been done sooner.
Irish people are already at enough risk from developing skin cancer and as such I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who use sunbeds.

I think people need to educate themselves on just how bad using a sunbed is.

A quick google turns up the following.

The IARC research, published in the latest edition of The Lancet Oncology medical journal, concluded that the danger was greatest to children and young adults. It found that the risk of melanoma was increased 75 per cent if tanning devices were used before 30 years of age.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0729/breaking17.html

Research carried out by the Irish Cancer Society in 2005 revealed that 237,000 people living in Ireland - that is 7% of the population - used sunbeds. Of these, one in three were under the age of 19 when they first tried them out.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=10922

90% of all skin cancers are preventable. Virtually, all the risk comes from the sun & sun beds/sunlamps.
About 80 – 85% of the suns rays can pass through clouds so you need to take care on cloudy days too.
Damage to the skin by the sun is permanent. It also builds up - that means damage to the skin in one year is added to damage done in previous years. In later life this can lead to skin cancer.
Skin cancer can take 20 to 30 years to develop, so the rates of skin cancer today reflect the trends of the 70’s and 80’s.
For the majority of the population, 10 - 15 minutes daily exposure of the face and hands to the sun and adequate diet provides a sufficient level of vitamin D.
Skin damage is caused by exposure to ultraviolet rays, which are strongest from 11am to 3pm. This is not related to the hottest part of the day, which is usually later in the afternoon.
Ultraviolet Radiation from sunlight and sun beds/sunlamps is the main risk factor for skin cancer.

Why should Irish people be aware?
In Ireland, one in every eight men and one in every ten women will develop skin cancer by the age of 74 years
The number of skin cancer cases is rising every year.
Ireland has among the highest skin cancer rates in Europe.
Two-thirds of Irish people have a higher risk of developing Skin Cancer because of their skin type.
Irish people are exposed to the sun more often than in the past (mainly due to holidaying abroad).
In general, Irish people have more disposable income and more free time to spend in the sun and on sun beds (whether abroad or on holidays).
A tan has become more fashionable in Ireland than in the past. This puts us at greater risk of developing skin cancer in later years.

http://www.cancer.ie/sunsmart/

In fact, sunbeds are estimated to cause around 100 deaths from melanoma every year in the UK.

The more you use a sunbed the greater your risk of skin cancer. Using a sunbed once a month or more, can increase your risk of skin cancer by more than half.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/sunsmart/advice-and-prevention/sunbeds/

Irish Cancer Society News

Date: 11 May 2009
Ireland has witnessed a 36% increase in all new cases of skin cancer over the last ten years and a worrying 75% increase in females under 50 years presenting with malignant melanoma

Irish Cancer Society appeals to people to be more SunSmart

The Irish Cancer Society announced the launch of its annual SunSmart campaign on Monday, 11th May by revealing a 36% increase in the number of all skin cancer cases diagnosed in Ireland from 1997 to 2007. There were 5,687 new cases of skin cancer in 1997 and this figure has risen to 7,743 new cases in 2007. This includes malignant melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer.

Recently published data from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland (NCRI) shows that:

In 2007, there were 667 new cases of malignant melanoma skin cancer. 313 of these cases were in males and 354 of these cases were in females. Malignant melanoma is the most serious type of skin cancer. It develops in cells in the outer layers of the skin and can grow from a mole, freckle or a normal part of the skin. However, spotting a melanoma early and getting it treated as soon as possible can save your life.
In 2007, there were 7,076 new cases of non-melanoma skin cancer. Non-melanoma skin cancer is the most common and easily treated type of cancer.
This data further shows that there has been an 84% increase in the number of cases of malignant melanoma skin cancer in males and a 48% increase in women over the last ten years (there has been a 75% increase in females under 50 years presenting with malignant melanoma).

There has been a 32% increase in the number of cases of non-melanoma skin cancer in males and a 36% increase in women over the last ten years.
The sun produces two types of ultraviolet (UV) radiation (rays), which reach the earth’s surface. UVB rays can cause sunburn and skin cancer and UVA rays can cause premature ageing of the skin and skin cancer. 80-90% of all cases of skin cancer are caused by the UV rays of the sun and are therefore preventable by being more careful in the sun and avoiding sunbed usage.

http://www.cancer.ie/news/news.php?newsID=246

SeanW

I would NEVER use a sunbed. EVER. That having been said, I oppose this ban since I firmly believe in "live and let live."

I do know that sunbeds are even more dangerous than regular tanning and I think that they should have warnings applied and a minimum age requirement.

Beyond that, if a person knows the risks but chooses to use a sunbed *anyway* such stupidity is their own business. A problem of course arises when
the taxpayer has to foot the bill for their (avoidable) cancer care.

bleg

Pfft first they ban drink driving now a proposed ban on sunbeds, when will the assault on our free will end?!

Won't some body please think of the children!

Soldie

MementoMori wrote: »

It would be fine to let people take the risk, as long as they agreed in advance to not come looking for medical treatment down the line from the state, when they inevitably develop avoidable skin cancer.

Which is why we should privatise healthcare outright instead of coming up with these one-size-fits-all blanket bans for the "greater good" of society.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Joey the lips wrote: »

I think sunbeds and smoking should be banned! I also think if you smoke you should have to pay an extra premium to the health service. The way i figure is this, If i use a motorway I pay a toll if if i want to make myself sick i should have to pay extra as well....

Well you did ask!


#Cue the unhappy smokers response

I wish they would ban smoking for my lung's sake, but seeing as smokers die younger they end up costing the health service less than they would have if they lived on and needed doctors regularly in old age.

Manic Moran

to be fair, that line of reasoning could be applied to many things which are banned or regulated, seatbelts, drinking, smoking, drugs and so on

With the possible exception of drugs, none of the other items are being banned or regulated to the extent that they render the entire associated devices unlawful and unusable. Regulate sunbeds if you will. Tax them higher, if you so desire. But I'm not so sure about banning the things.

Basically I don't see why I should have to pay higher taxes to provide medical care to treat morons who are willing to risk cancer for the benefit of looking pretty.

Welcome to part of the current healthcare argument in the US.

NTM

Red Alert

I think they should be banned, full stop.

The big problem is that a lot of them are very poorly maintained and operated by dodgy operators in the back rooms of other businesses. Staff training is almost non-existant. Although there are some professional outfits, there are many more 'sunbed in the back of the hairdresser' setups where maintenance, training and general safety are poor.

The first steps the minister should make are:

Make a register of all sunbeds in commercial service, and require certain standards to be upheld in order to register. This would get a full picture of where they are located and the sort of facilities we're talking about.

Make it an offence to operate an unregistered sunbed in commercial service.

Use teenage actors to ensure that age limits are being enforced. Additionally use fair skinned / red headed people to make sure that operators are refusing to do anyone who shouldn't be using the sunbed anyway.

Hospitals to give questionnaire to anyone presenting with sunbed-caused burns or skin cancer - noting frequency of usage, place of usage and type of machine.

994

Joey the lips wrote: »

I think sunbeds and smoking should be banned! I also think if you smoke you should have to pay an extra premium to the health service. The way i figure is this, If i use a motorway I pay a toll if if i want to make myself sick i should have to pay extra as well....

Well you did ask!


#Cue the unhappy smokers response

If a smoker doesn't die of lung cancer, he/she will just die of something else anyway, and it won't make a difference to the health service.

tallus

Red Alert wrote: »

I think they should be banned, full stop.

The big problem is that a lot of them are very poorly maintained and operated by dodgy operators in the back rooms of other businesses. Staff training is almost non-existant. Although there are some professional outfits, there are many more 'sunbed in the back of the hairdresser' setups where maintenance, training and general safety are poor.

The first steps the minister should make are:

Make a register of all sunbeds in commercial service, and require certain standards to be upheld in order to register. This would get a full picture of where they are located and the sort of facilities we're talking about.

Make it an offence to operate an unregistered sunbed in commercial service.

Use teenage actors to ensure that age limits are being enforced. Additionally use fair skinned / red headed people to make sure that operators are refusing to do anyone who shouldn't be using the sunbed anyway.

Hospitals to give questionnaire to anyone presenting with sunbed-caused burns or skin cancer - noting frequency of usage, place of usage and type of machine.

Good Post.

I am against banning them, but I do think that they should definetly be regulated with an age limit. It's sad to think that people are risking cancer just for vanity.

dvpower

tallus wrote: »

Good Post.

I am against banning them, but I do think that they should definetly be regulated with an age limit. It's sad to think that people are risking cancer just for vanity.

But who's going to pay for all this regulation? It's hardly a massive industry; i doubt it could shoulder the burden.

drkpower

tallus wrote: »

Good Post.

I am against banning them, but I do think that they should definetly be regulated with an age limit. It's sad to think that people are risking cancer just for vanity.

What do you mean by "regulate"?

Do you not just mean that there should be a law that you cannot supply the service to under-18s? That is pretty straightforward. Similarly it is very straightforward to require some kind of warning on every machine or such like.

Beyond that, the Gov really shouldnt get involved.

dvpower

What? No red headed inspectors?

amacca

Its a pity its not really workable to calculate how much usage of sunbeds is costing/will cost in terms of healthcare in the future and then tax accordingly.

I'm all for free will if the persons choice doesn't impact negatively on others.

Alternatively, and completely unworkable if it was possible to say with absolute certainty that a persons skin cancer was a direct result of dangerous/excessive sunbed usage then they pay for their own treatment or simply don't receive any if they cant.

It is amazing how stupid willfully or otherwise some people can be when it comes to using these things. I worked in an office about 5 or 6 years ago and a girl in the section up from ours who was a demon for the things wafted past me one morning actually peeling - her whole face was alternately brown with white patches where skin was falling off and she hadn't just gone on holidays. It was like that for weeks and she still had the tan months after wards so she had gone back.

What made this even worse was the fact that the tan she had before the "incident" didn't improve her appearance at all, she just looked like a freakshow, she looked like an oompah loompah before this happened and resembled pictures of hiroshima victims for weeks after this so perhaps some people do need to be protected from themselves as much as it galls me to have the state interfering too much in the running of our lives.

I would think a tax (to cover increased medical costs), much tighter regulations as other posters have mentioned including a max amount of time you can spend on the things and an age limit would be a better response than a headline grabbing outright ban.

Davidth88

You know , for the minister who decided that a number of 12-13 year old girls will be sentenced to death in the future for want of a small ( in HSE terms ) amount of money to come out with this is unreal.

No doubt , the same amount of moeny ( near enough ) that could have been spent on the Cervical cancer jab will now be spent on legal advice to see if this ban can be implimented etc.

Now , personally I think it's free choice but needs to be regulated to stop under 18's using this , and also clear health warnings to anyone who is stupid enough to use these devices.

Can you imagine if you ban them , the ' underground ' use of sunbeds , 'ohhh while you are tanning / getting burnt to a cinder why not try this great new drug I have available ' .............

Riskymove

Davidth88 wrote: »

You know , for the minister who decided that a number of 12-13 year old girls will be sentenced to death in the future for want of a small ( in HSE terms ) amount of money to come out with this is unreal.

No doubt , the same amount of moeny ( near enough ) that could have been spent on the Cervical cancer jab will now be spent on legal advice to see if this ban can be implimented etc.

Can you imagine if you ban them , the ' underground ' use of sunbeds , 'ohhh while you are tanning / getting burnt to a cinder why not try this great new drug I have available ' .............

I really dont know which of these points is the more surreal


you think hundreds of million will be spent on legal advice in this case?

underground tanning salons...aparrantly with hard drugs being peddled or something?

Riskymove

994 wrote: »

If a smoker doesn't die of lung cancer, he/she will just die of something else anyway, and it won't make a difference to the health service.

not quite as simple as that

a long-term smoker is more likely to develop illness that requires treatment, or indeed ongoing treatment which will cost the health service

the health service is not required in the case of every death

Davidth88

underground tanning salons...aparrantly with hard drugs being peddled or something?

I was being satirical , ban anything and who starts selling it ...criminals , so you ban sun beds and they will be driven underground . The type of people willing to break any proposed new law would no doubt be happy enough to supply other things too.

you think hundreds of million will be spent on legal advice in this case?

Sorry was it going to cost 100's of millions to supply cervical cancer drugs ? Maybe I am out of date

I was under the impression it was 10's of millions , and legal bills mount up quickly

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1105/1225523373382.html

Riskymove

Davidth88 wrote: »

Sorry was it going to cost 100's of millions to supply cervical cancer drugs ? Maybe I am out of date

I was under the impression it was 10's of millions , and legal bills mount up quickly

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1105/1225523373382.html

€10m a year so a lot in the long run

legal advice to look into something like this would not cost anything near that

dvpower

Davidth88 wrote: »

I was being satirical , ban anything and who starts selling it ...criminals , so you ban sun beds and they will be driven underground . The type of people willing to break any proposed new law would no doubt be happy enough to supply other things too.

Psst... Want some smoky coal?

I've seen the cervical cancer argument a few places.

It is a completely different issue, just a red herring dropped into this argument. Whether one believes she was completely wrong in that matter or not has no bearing at all on whether her call on the sunbeds issue is correct.

seamus

You know what's the most shocking thing about her comment? The fact that the minister for HEALTH says that she would like to ban sunbeds, despite the fact that sunbeds are used in the treatment of serious skin disorders, including things like psoriasis.

So when Joe Bloggs is prescribed a ten-minute session by his dermatologist, instead of going to the chartbusters around the corner and giving them a fiver, the State (or the insurer) will have to pay a pharmacist €500 for the privilege of using their "skin treatment facility", which is in fact the sunbed they bought off the chartbusters around the corner.

She comes out with some howlers sometimes.

It would of course be far easier to regulate these things - insist that the "operator" attends a one-week course on basic dermatology and set some minimum standards in terms of who can and can't use it. If an inspector wanders in and finds a girl who's red raw, lying in a sunbed, you impose a €20k fine.

What next, closing beaches if we have more than 3 days of sun in a row so that people can't sunbathe?

Red Alert

They are not that similar at all other than the physical construction of the unit. The lamps are different, and ones designed to treat skin disorders actually have two sets of lamps for different types of UV radiation. You'd actually not get a tan from them, more a burn if you tried using them for cosmetic purposes.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

So when Joe Bloggs is prescribed a ten-minute session by his dermatologist, instead of going to the chartbusters around the corner and giving them a fiver, the State (or the insurer) will have to pay a pharmacist €500 for the privilege of using their "skin treatment facility", which is in fact the sunbed they bought off the chartbusters around the corner.

Not sure I'd place much faith in any dermatologist who actually recommended Chartbusters. Thought those skin treatment courses always took place in hospitals by professionals, the 'rub in Cookeen and lie on a roof to get the rays' was not an option.

As for the argument in general, I'm sure I recently heard a Minister discus the war on drugs and yet he completely forgot to specify that he was excluding those drugs which are prescribed by health care professionals and dispensed by pharmacists. I still got the point he was making.

getcover

Deleted User wrote: »

I've seen the cervical cancer argument a few places.

It is a completely different issue, just a red herring dropped into this argument. Whether one believes she was completely wrong in that matter or not has no bearing at all on whether her call on the sunbeds issue is correct.

Why is it a different issue?
She wants to ban sunbeds because of the risk of causing cancer, yet she won't go ahead with a programme that will eliminate a risk of cancer.

At basis, banning sunbeds/giving this vaccine is about removing a risk of cancer, so why are they so different?

getcover

getcover wrote: »

Why is it a different issue?

Because it is!

Buit if you want to show me the Health Journal story 'Cancers and Cancer Prevention, Sure Tis All the Same Stuff' by all means do.

getcover

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it is!

Buit if you want to show me the Health Journal story 'Cancers and Cancer Prevention, Sure Tis All the Same Stuff' by all means do.

because it is....hmmm...thats convinced me

Its different because one is cervical cancer and the other is skin cancer, and skin cancer is something we must do something about, but we don't have to be too worried about cervical cancer? Is that the difference?
Seriously, help me out here...