Welcome to a future of state-sanctioned, genetically modified humans

Monday June 6, 2011

Martin Cullip detects a ghastly fantasy distopia becoming all too real

In April Conservative MP Tracey Crouch tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Health on the prescribing of acamprosate and disulfiram for treating alcohol dependency. Without quoting numbers, his response all but confirmed that these drugs are indeed being issued by primary care trusts up and down the country. From her wording, we must assume that Ms Crouch is very concerned about the wisdom of prescribing such potentially damaging products, and rightly so.

The former can lead to side effects such as diarrhoea, vomiting, irregular heartbeats, high or low blood pressure, insomnia, impotence and – according to an American drugs advisory website – suicidal thoughts or behaviours. As for disulfiram, its method has been described as “immediate and severe negative reaction to alcohol intake. Some five to ten minutes after alcohol intake, the patient may experience the effects of a severe hangover for a period of 30 minutes up to several hours. Symptoms include flushing of the skin, accelerated heart rate, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, throbbing headache, visual disturbance, mental confusion, postural fainting, and circulatory collapse”.

While one hopes that the patient will be made fully aware of possible negative outcomes, and that they are actively seeking such a drastic ‘cure’, it’s difficult not to feel a trifle uneasy about treatments which have the potential for inflicting more harm than the condition they are designed to treat.

Worryingly, the development and prescription of nuclear remedies in the field of recreational and/or unapproved lifestyle choices is not new and only appears to be accelerating. The medical industry has long been working on ‘vaccines’ for cocaine and tobacco use, and just recently the BBC reported on drug trials targeting pregnant women, designed to “prevent obese kids”. The message this sends to children or young adults who currently exceed arbitrary – and arguably over-protective – BMI indicators can only be guessed at, but the suggestion that their type should be ‘prevented’ is more likely to harm their development than act as an encouragement.

All the above are strictly voluntary at the moment, but with the medical community increasingly entertaining the idea of restricting NHS treatment to those who are overweight, exceed absurdly low unitary alcohol guidelines, indulge in recreational drugs or – horror of all horrors – smoke, we are facing a pincer movement involving two sticks with not a carrot anywhere in sight.

Carry on with your enjoyment of frowned upon foods, alcohol or unapproved substances whether legal or not, and there is the tangible possibility of future NHS entitlement being denied. But of course, you could always take this pill instead and have the delinquent behaviour ripped out of you. It’s the stuff of dystopian future fantasy novels, yet here we are in the 21st century faced with the real threat of intentionally disturbing fiction becoming reality.

The motivation has seamlessly morphed from the old-fashioned harm inflicted on others routine – which at least held some moral justification – into a civic duty to protect public finances from any adverse expenditure. The state appears to have taken a position that it refuses to arrange itself around the public’s lifestyle choices anymore. Instead you must fit in with governmental budgets and cost reduction. If your freedoms are restricted as a result, then so be it.

The suggestion that overweight women be injected to prevent obesity in the womb, for the purpose of saving money, is hopefully as close as we will ever come to state-sanctioned genetically modified humans. However, the reaction of Dr Ian Campbell, medical director of the charity Weight Concern, doesn’t inspire confidence that all those involved in public health would immediately dismiss such a concept. “In an ideal world you would want women to take stock of their weight before pregnancy, but in reality that’s not going to happen,” he sighed.

In an ideal world it shouldn’t be any concern of charity directors, the state or anyone else how people live their lives. People should be left to make their own choices. Sadly, in reality, that’s not likely to happen either.

Politicians increasingly believe that the pursuit of the perfect population to deliver a healthy public purse, by eradicating unhealthy lifestyle choices, is a noble one. They have installed themselves as arbiters of the nation’s wellbeing where opting out is not acceptable. And as their suggested treatments become ever more extreme, so potentially do we suffer the most dangerous side effect of all, a further diminishing of liberty and personal choice.