Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "NHS crisis: junior doctors angry over new contracts" video.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that all the people they interviewed were women. I don't see why women should expect to take years out of their career, then only work part time, but retain all the same benefits as men who work full time with no time off. And I don't know which NHS doctors this woman has visited recently, but they seem to me to have been pretty bad for decades now. That said, 15 hour shifts are utterly unacceptable, and shouldn't be permitted, even with adequate compensation.
3
+Goldie Dawn Join the back of the queue Goldie. ;-)
1
+randomacc27 How does that even make sense? The majority of manual workers in the field are female, but certainly not the majority of doctors. And why should SOCIETY pay for the individual's desire to have kids?
1
+Naryan Robinson I agree - raising kids is the most important job in the world. But don't expect to have your cake and eat it too. At the expense of people who choose other priorities. RAISING kids is important, not HAVING them. The planet would be just fine if it were 5 billion people lighter.
1
+Naryan Robinson I never said that there should be no more children. If I buy a car, I don't expect YOU to pay for it simply because it enables me to pay tax. I make sacrifices in order to own the car. If you choose to have a child - not something that the planet is in need of - why should I pay for that child beyond its education and health? What is a "fair wage" Naryan? What should a person be able to do with that wage? And people ARE resources. Just pieces on a business chess board. There is NO business on the planet that does not recognise that. The only difference is whether companies seem them as resources purely to be exploited, or if a progressive company considers that those resources give a better return when they are happy.
1
+Naryan Robinson Do you think that Walmart considers the emotional and health welfare of the people it does not pay enough to live? Do you think Britain's biggest companies would farm out all their labour to countries with no minimum wage, virtually non-existent health and safety, and child labour if they did NOT view people as assets rather than valued individuals? I am not saying I endorse that view by a long way; I am merely stating the way that it is.Children are something special and wonderful to those who want to have them, but to those who do not, they are simply another of life's choices, like a car or a house. That doesn't decrease their value TO YOU, but don't expect the rest of society to share your values. An increasing proportion of people are choosing NEVER to have kids as they realise that they are not necessary to a fulfilling life. That is a dispassionate evaluation made by people who realise that, enriching though children can be, they are also choices to be made in the plus and minus ledger of one's life. If you cannot see that, then it is YOU who is detached from reality. Perhaps if more people evaluated the impact of child rearing logically, rather than simply drifting into it, there'd be less unwanted kids, or less kids raised by single parents, to the detriment of the kids AND society.I realise that people like you get some kind of gratification and sense of moral superiority by being outraged at everything, but honestly, I'm neither fooled nor impressed. If you'd like to have an intelligent conversation about the issues, rather than using silly fake indignation littered with schoolboy ad hominem's as a tactic, come back and try again.
1
+Naryan Robinson Again with the childish ad hominems. Your continued responses show how bereft you are of substantive counter arguments. It's a pity, looking at your profile you are clearly an urbane, intelligent man. I would have hoped for a more reasoned discussion.
1
+Naryan Robinson Cruel because I don't think that human existence should be organised around children? Heartless because I suggest that not everybody wants, nor has an obligation to protect or pay for other people's offspring? You'd make a perfect journalist for the Sun or the Mirror. They like to play the emotion game too - discarding reason and logic, and instead whipping people up into a frenzy of indignation. It's a pity - you seemed like you might be better than that, but now I see that you are either a troll, or so emotionally invested in the line that you have taken, that you cannot think straight. Irish Indian - two cultures not known for their progressive attitudes towards birth control or gender equality, and both with historical poverty issues. Guess the worst of both have rubbed off on you. Bravo for cultural indoctrination huh?
1
+Naryan Robinson So India and Ireland both have progressive attitudes towards birth control and gender equality? That must be why abortion has only just been legalised in Ireland and they are now trying to roll it back. It must also be why female babies in India have been murdered at birth by their parents because they represent a liability. Reality is not racist. But you clearly have a massive chip on your shoulder. I'm done toying with you. You're not worthy of grown up conversation.
1
+randomacc27 So you consider that the population of planet Earth should constantly grow so that old people will have someone to care for them? Why not just have ten kids as they did in third world countries, then you'll have your own labour force. This idea has long since been proven to be destructive, and from a planetary sustainability perspective is simply ludicrous. For a person who calls others "moron", I would have hoped that this would be self apparent. The average British family has more families with 3 or more children than most of Europe. As we only have 2.8 doctors per thousand people, child birth could fall by orders of magnitude and there would still be plenty of people available for that profession provided that they chose to go into it.The problem is not the number of children, but the number of adults choosing to go into healthcare. I am all for equitable working conditions for junior doctors - 8 hour days, reasonable pay and holidays etc, but I stand by my assertion that society does not need to be rewarded for producing children.
1
+randomacc27 I agree with almost everything you said there (except questioning my obviously considerable intelligence ;-) And I agree that we need the next generation. Where I am conflicted, is the idea that people should be REWARDED for providing that generation. There is not, nor ever will be a shortage of people willing to have children, planned or otherwise. As a single person, I already pay a disproportionate penalty for that - a higher tax code, a great deal of which is used to support the young via school, medical care, etc. Most of which I willingly pay to help nurture the young. And then IN ADDITION to that, you suggest that I should further contribute to the months or years of leave that people take whilst child raising? Whilst I am certainly no libertarian or brutal capitalist, leaning more towards socialism than most, a large part of me still feels that people should not have kids that they cannot afford to raise. If you cannot afford for one of you to take 6 months out of your career to raise a child, then don't have a child. People are not born with the right to OWN their own home, two cars, a big screen TV, state of the art phones, and all of the other luxuries that they seem to expect nowadays. In the past, people had to live a little more modestly, but nowadays, single people support the lifestyle expectations of the middle class. I don't see that as reasonable. However, you make a very persuasive case about the need for a next generation, but it is not one that I find absolutely compelling, hence my conflict. Thank you for your most interesting thoughts on the subject.
1