"The report describes the health conditions and outcomes among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as “a disturbing picture”.

RUBBISH

It is not a "disturbing" picture.

It is SHAMEFUL picture.

Yes, SHAMEFUL.

As I have pointed out previously Aborigines on average die 17 YEARS younger than the average for non-Aboriginal Australians. Aboriginal life expectancy is worse than Gaza.

See:

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/statistics/index.html

Using ANY of the generally accepted measures of population health and welfare, Aborigines lag behind. They experience higher infant mortality rates, are less likely to complete school, experience higher unemployment, have greater incarceration rates and higher levels of substance abuse than the general population.

I wish Keim and McGree had focused less on obscure UN committees and more on spelling out the truly appalling conditions in which most Aborigines live.

Steven,

There isn't just one 'gap': in the cities, Indigenous people who are employed, can expect to live almost as long as other Australians, while in the remote communities, thegap can be forty years and more: ask around, people who have lived and worked in remote communities will tell you that there are funerals all the time, sometimes weekly, sometimes more often. Ask them how old these poor people were and your answer will usually be 'under forty'.

I lived and worked as a labourer in one fairly well-off community here in SA, back in the seventies. Very few of the guys my age are still alive. Many of my friends died long ago, in their twenties and thirties. A handful were still living into their fifties. And it's not much different for the women either. As well, quite a few children and teenagers died, some from drowning in the Murray, a couple from petrol-sniffing, one in a horrific car fire.

Why, you might ask (I hope you do, otherwise how do we know what can be done about early deaths ?):
:grog, for one - one Saturday afternoon, I was chatting to one bloke and he said, 'you know, you and me are the only sober blokes on this place.'

: This community is only twenty km from towns, and most of the men worked. In more remote communities, good food is far more expensive and hard to come by (in the absence of vegetable gardens, orchards, chook-yards, milk-cows and small killing flocks) and almost nobody is genuinely employed, putting in eight hours a day of solid work.

: so diet and exercise are way below par in remotecommunities.

: With poor housing, hygiene in remote communities is bound to be pretty casual.

Many of these conditions apply also to the lifelong-unemployed in country towns and outer suburbs.

Joe

TBC

The only sure way to reduce poverty in all its aspects is education. Not only the academic, but also the social and ethical, together with teaching of responsibilities. Better health and living standards tend to follow on as education provides wealth and money to afford these things.

[continued]

If this is correct, then we can't say we don't know the reasons for the gap. There is no mystery about them. The question then becomes: what to do ? Who is supposed to do it ? And the elephant in the room is: what can the people themselves do about their own health, how can they be more self-determining in living more healthy lives ?

In communities with ample water, growing much of their own food would be a start. A couple of thousand dollars would buy much of the basic equipment: seed, fertiliser, forks, piping. Another couple of thousand would pay for a small Husqvarna cultivator on larger gardens. A thousand dollars would be all that would be needed to set up a chook-yard. Over time, a thousand dollars might be all that is needed to put in a fruit orchard. A few thousand dollars would get you a couple of milk-cows, shelter sheds and water-troughs. Ten thousand dollars over time, and you could do the lot.

So money is not the issue. Controlling grog and drugs, and communities organising themselves might help. A recreation officer/health educator could organise fitness clubs for the unemployed population, sports activities for kids and young adults, while many others could be engaged in the gardens. It's not rocket science. But it would take an imaginative approach to leasing suitable land adjacent to housing areas for the gardens, chooks, orchards, cows and sheep.

Self-determination should not be a fraud, a smoke-screen for the re-colonisation and re-segregation of Aboriginal people. But if it is clearly not working, and doesn't look like ever really working, then surely Aboriginal people must have other options, including the dreaded move to the towns and cities: and THAT hasn't done much harm to the people already working there.

Joe

“‘“The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”””.

Bit of sloppy drafting there, if it’s reported correctly. Nobody or no organisation or state can grant the ‘right’ to a high standard of physical and mental health. All that can be offered is TREATMENT (of the highest standard attainable, perhaps) of physical and mental health problems.

When people decide to distance themselves from modern facilities, become addicted to alcohol and other mind-altering substances (aborigines), or find themselves in prison (mostly for drug use and offences related to drug use) they have deliberately distanced themselves from the mainstream and, also deliberately, distanced themselves from mainstream medical care which is, for Australia, the highest in the world.

As for illegal entrants – the only people in detention – they receive the necessary medical care, even though they are not morally entitled to be here, let alone enjoy the benefits Australians have. As for mental care, this is largely a con to gain release and, even if sometimes it is not, that’s too bad. Like many other people who have brought on their own medical problems – physical and mental – they can hardly blame the Australian health system for what they have had no need to incur.

Like all other UN reports, the one these authors are relying on should be treated with the contempt it deserves. The UN would be much better employed looking into the shocking conditions in the countries of most of the UN fat cats infesting that corrupt organisation, which continually criticises Western democratic countries like Australia.

The authors, one a mouthpiece of “Australian Lawyers for Human Rights”, they other law a ‘reformer’ and human rights warrior, would also do better by picking on some other country, rather than on their own country’s standards, which surpass the rest of the world.

So Leich,-in a nutshell:

1)Aborigines are bringing this upon themselves-so ALL of them do not deserve any better care.

2)Refugee's/Illegals shouldn't be here anyway so THEY don't deserve any better.

3)UN is useless. (Here we agree).

3) Authors: One a human rights lawyer-the scumbag!.!.!.!
One a law reformer/human rights warrior-trouble making barstard!.!.!

4)Nothing wrong with our system-it is the best.

Right. Sorted.
_______________________________

"The right to health is the equal entitlement of all persons but, in Australia, some enjoy the right more equally than others."

Why? If one person smokes a pack of cigarettes a day, and another one doesn't, why should they both have an equal "entitlement" to health? If one is born with a congenital disease, and another is not, why should they both have an equal entitlement to health? Where does this supposed entitlement come from?

RoughHead , You are misleading , you will need to gather up whites with the same bad habits and preference for appalling living conditions and abysmal diet to come up with a bonafide comparison.

Peter the entitlement comes from all of us being members of the human race and Australians.

Why do you hate the idea of equality so much?

"Equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. . . Free opportunity of expressing and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations."

Loudmouth

I was thinking along diet and lifestyle lines also. Fresh food in remote Australia is rare, expensive, and not of great quality. The resulting poor diet, high in salt, saturated fat and sugar, and low in fibre and nutrients, would have to be a substantial part of the problem. It would be nice to see horticulturists and agricultural scientists working with outback communities to give them the capacity to produce their own healthy food.

Hi Fester,

Well, many 'communities' used to be missions, where by necessity (i.e. insufficient funding to missions), populations had to be largely self-sufficient in food production, and many had vegetable gardens, orchards, chooks, milk-cows and flocks of sheep for meat.

For thirty years or more, I naively thought that self-determination meant ECONOMIC self-determination (silly me) - it seemed logical that communities would keep those activities going, in order to (a) provide their populations with fruit and vegetables, milk, meat and eggs, (b) provide some employment, with a view to expanding - not winding down - some of those economic activities, and (c) keep their populations relatively healthy.

For example, if the people found that, let's say, olives grew very well in their area, and if they had enough water to keep them flourishing, then expand the orchards to include commercial olive production. But it didn't happen.

What sorts of crops could people grow in remote communities where there was enough water, and which had high value to counteract the negative factor of distance from markets ? Dates, olives, citrus, sandalwood are a few products which come to mind. I'm sure the CAEPR could think of others. (No, perhaps not). A bit of imagination could have seen some of these worked up into quite profitable initiatives. Even camel meat, skins, and live camel exports couldn't be rulled out.

One side of me said, what if you put a thousand Vietnamese people in some of these communities: what could they achieve ? And if they could, why can't Aboriginal people ? They are as able as anybody else, and after all, it's their land, their patrimony.

Surely one factor in general ill-health is continuing unemployment, idleness, despair, boredom, futility and pointlessness. Surely even remote communities can get themselves together, provide employment, provide basic fruit and vegetables, eggs and milk and meat, and kill about three birds with one stone ? Surely they are not completely useless ? Doesn't self-determination mean able people doing things for yourselves ? Or have I been barking up the wrong tree for forty years ?

Joe

"Peter the entitlement comes from all of us being members of the human race and Australians."

Well if it comes from all of us being members of the human race, why aren't all members of human race equally entitled to it?

And what's the answer to my question? Does someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day have an equal entitlement to health as someone who doesn't, and why?

Very true, Joe. The missions gave heaps to those people. It's a shame that the good doesn't get remembered a bit more, but I guess it is human nature to take civilisation for granted, which brings me to my concern with the article. The author thinks that the health of Australians is something to be proud of: What bull. Australians have substantial dietary and lifestyle problems which are impacting adversely on their health. And do people instinctively know what to do to improve their lot? No. That only comes from being educated. Similarly, remote communities need education about lifestyle and diet as much as they need better health services.

"Does someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day have an equal entitlement to health as someone who doesn't, and why?"

If by health you mean access to a doctor and care to reduce suffering and cure disease then yes they deserve whatever is needed. The same as sportspeople who deliberately go out and smash their bodies up in pursuit of a shiny trophy. The same as people who continue to drive cars despite the fact that thousands of them will end up dead and maimed every year. The same as soldiers who go off to war where people shoot at them and try to blow them up. The same as we save anyone who is lost in the bush or at sea.
It is because we are civilised humans and not barbarians willing to see others suffer when we can relive that suffering. It is called altruism and is a very common aspect of "human nature".

The real question is by what possible method do you justify the withholding of treatment to anybody? Talk about your "death panels".
Where does it end Peter? Smokers? Drinkers? The obese? People with disabilities? Stupid people? People with a lower IQ than you?

See what a dogmatic belief in the absolute truth of capitalism does to you. Turns you into an inhuman psychopath who only worships money and efficiency. People dont matter.

"Capitalism knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."

1. If people's own voluntary behaviour is what gives rise to their need for other people's services, they don't "deserve" to be able to use force to obtain those services.
2. enabling some people to force the costs of their own risky or unhealthy behaviour onto other people who avoid such behaviour because it is riskly or unhealthy, will only worsen the health outcomes of both categories.
3. if you think people morally deserve to have other people pay for their unhealthy or risk-taking behaviour, and those other people don't agree, then it is you and everyone who agrees with you who should pay for it, not everyone who doesn't.
4. why does what people deserve stop at the border? Human society doesn't. Why isn't everyone in the world equally entitled to have other people forced to pay the costs of their own unhealthy behaviour at the same standard of those in Australia?

But perhaps if you keep mouthing anti-capitalist slogans, and keep up your mind-reading and personal abuse you'll make for a better world?

Peter

What about a woman near the end of her childbearing years having a Downs Syndrome child? Should she be denied health care? Perhaps it would be a good idea to have compulsory preventive education courses? At the end of each course the attendee could sign a declaration that he now knew how to prevent various medical ailments and would forgo the right to free medical treatment for them.

As mikk suggests, isn't the compassion we show a measure of our civilisation? And it might also be common sense. Why, for example, do less than 5% of the population have the potential to become addicts? If at some time addiction becomes a treatable ailment, the denial of free medical services for such people may be looked upon as our civilisation views attributing disabled children to divine punishment.

Another problem with denying people free health care for poor lifestyle choices is the difficulty of making objective measurements. For example, how would you estimate the saturated fat consumption of a person and determine whether or not that was enough to void free care? How many cigarettes would you allow people per day? How would you police this? And what about passive smokers? Then there is the question of why government should allow the sale of tobacco, alcohol, and crappy fast food, when they are known to be damaging peoples health?

Regulating peoples lives would be an administrative nightmare. I think it is easier to be compassionate.

It is fake compassion that is based on force and threats.

So you're responsible for everyone in the world except yourself?

Fester, Jefferson,

Just a thought

On average fat smokers who never exercise cost the taxpayer less than lean fit non-smokers.

Here's why.

Roughly speaking for every extra $1 smokers generate in additional healthcare costs they pay $20 in cigarette taxes. Smokers are, on average,net contributors.

If they are also fat and never exercise they will most likely die at a relatively young age from heart attack or cancer. That's cheaper than having them linger for years on the old age pension and having to pay for their care if they get dementia. Many dementia sufferers required a decade or more of care.

I don't think we can simply look at the cost to the taxpayer when we consider healthcare. Nor should we assume that lean, non-smoking healthy types are the lowest cost.

Looking at the TOTAL picture those with unhealthy lifestyles may cost less.

Interesting, Steven. You reminded me of a story-no idea of its veracity- about an Eastern European country offering discounted cigarettes to its senior citizens as a means of reducing health costs.

I think it far more practical to sell a good lifestyle for the benefit it brings. For example, in other parts of the world high salt intake is targeted as a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and is believed to kill more people than smoking.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/the-silent-killer-we-cant-seem-to-live-without-20100710-104vt.html

It is probably also a major cause of morbidity and mortality in remote Australia.

Out of interest, how many on this forum are on a low sodium diet? How many are aware of how damaging a high sodium diet can be? The government is very concerned about tobacco, yet has little or no policy directed at something which kills more Australians: Yet another example of why exclusion based policy is not such a great idea.

Fester

In the late 1940s old age pensioners in the UK could get free tobacco discount vouchers as a supplement to their pensions:

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-59.html

In 1999 Phillip Morris advised the Czech Government to abandon attempts to get people to quit smoking because it would harm the economy:

See:

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/philipmorris/pmczechstudy.pdf

Quote:

Public finance gained between 19,523 mil. CZK and 23,793 mil. CZK, with the realistic estimate of 20,270 mil. CZK, from smoking-related taxes. Public finance saved between 943 mil. CZK and 1,193 mil. CZK (realistic estimate:1,193 mil. CZK) from reduced health-care costs, savingson pensions and housing costs for the elderly -- all related to the early mortality of smokers.Among the positive effects, excise tax, VAT and health care cost savings due to early mortality are the most important. Increased health-care costs, absenteeism-related social costs, lost income tax related to early mortality, and fire-induced costs total between 13,849 mil. CZK and 16,605 mil. CZK, with the realistic estimate totalling 15,647 mil. CZK.

(CZK = Czech Kronor)

Sounds bizarre doesn't it? Kill off the old dears to save a few bob on each.

I take your point about salt but I suspect the negative effects of a sedentary life style are even greater. I have no evidence but I would guess that lack of exercise is the biggest single cause of premature death in Australia.