We've all been told since the election that
NHS funds are going to be protected and more often than not we breathe a sigh of relief and conversations move on to think about areas such as defence, policing and justice which are under scrutiny. But should we just accept what we are told about NHS funding?
Looking into the figures more, it looks like belt-tightening is going to hit the NHS significantly. The King's Fund, a think tank focusing on health, has written a great blog post about this very subject, I'm not going to replicate it but just draw out some of its most interesting points.
It argues that in the past the NHS budget has increased by 6 per cent on average, but going forward that looks more likely to be reduced to a 1 per cent increase. In addition, the baseline on which to measure an increase has been reduced. In the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review, spending for 2010/2011 was projected to be £109.8 billion. By 2009 expected spending for this period was reduced to £105.8 billion. Its always easier to find an 'increase' in funding for 2012, if the last year's funding is £4 billion less than demanded. In short, with these increases, the NHS can only do all that it currently does if there is no extra demand on its services. And that seems highly unlikely.
Ignoring the fact that we are facing an increasingly old and obese population, the real concern for me is the reduction in social care spending. There are suggestions that £400 million of NHS funding could be transferred to social care spending, although we'll have to wait until tomorrow's Spending Review to see if that is confirmed. Not only would that mean that in reality the NHS will lose a chunk of its money, but in addition, the institute for Fiscal Studies expect local authorities to lose 33 per cent of funding by 2014/2015. It's clear that if social funding is heavily reduced - meaning that elderly people and those with long-term health conditions have community care removed - the pressure on hospitals will be immense, as admissions creep up and patients stay in hospital for longer as care they would normally receive at home is removed.
This is really false economics. In July this year the Nuffield trust said unplanned emergency hospital admissions had increased by 12 per cent since 2004, at a cost of £330 million per year. Speaking at the time, Nuffield Trust director Dr Jennifer Dixon said: "Reversing this unsustainable rise in emergency admissions must be the number one priority for the NHS - any reform to the health service that does not tackle this will fail." So you can see that a decline in local social care funding will have a direct impact on the NHS, which won't have its funding increased in line with the rising cost of the problem.
And some of the fall-out is already being seen. NHS Warwickshire has delayed IVF treatment until next April to ensure it doesn't overspend its budget. It has also postponed hip, knee and shoulder replacements and cataract operations. It is unacceptable that some Trusts see the best way to balance books as limiting what treatment is available year-round. It basically means that there are good times of the year to fall ill and bad times - and I would hate to be the surgeon trying to work out how best to get through a six month back-log of operations. How convenient that Health secretary Andrew Lansley abolished NHS waiting lists earlier this year.
I appreciate that there is not an endless pot of Government money and that spending reductions have to be found somewhere - but it seems pure political game play to ring-fence the very emotive issue of the NHS, and yet allow such significant cuts to areas that will directly increase the demands on the NHS along with how efficiently its money is spent. Like those people who live in the NHS Warwickshire catchment area, just pray you don't get the wrong type of illness at the wrong time of year, otherwise you could experience first-hand how weakly constructed the Government's NHS ring-fence really is.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
NHS should fight back against profiteering drug companies
Antibiotics are beginning to fail. For someone completely dependent on antibiotics every day (3 different types daily and a few administered directly into my veins every couple of months) this worries me.
There are already a few strains of CF bugs that are resistant to most antibiotics - they are the true bogeymen of the CF world, talked about in hushed tones - and the common chest infection that most CF people have, pseudomonas, shows on and off resistance to the usual antibiotics.
But even I, someone who is more interested in antibiotic resistance than the average member of the population, was shocked to read recently that there have only been two new classes of antibiotics invented in the LAST THIRTY YEARS.
We should all be worried - infections are a bit like freedom fighters, they've got nothing to lose, everything to win and are highly proficient at adapting and resisting any of the tactics we use to try and kill them. And to be frank we've barely varied our tactics since 1980.
David Brennan, Chief Exec of big drug company Astra Zeneca has called upon the public sector to work with it to help find a way to solve the problem of antibiotic resistance. This is because drug companies see little value to their shareholders in spending money creating new antibiotics because the speed at which infections become resistant to them does not make it a worthwhile investment, regardless of the human benefit.
A spokesman for Astra Zeneca was quoted as saying: ""If we think [a treatment is] not commercially viable, we can give it to somebody in the public sector who is willing to spend money to develop it."
But to me this statement seems very one-sided. Drug companies make vast profits from the NHS - just look at the controversy surrounding GlaxoSmithKline's 10 per cent profit increase on the back of the swine flu panic. Plus their patent protection on drugs allows them to keep the cost of purchase high for a substantial period of time before they are legally obliged to divulge drug ingredients to allow cheaper, non-brand versions of the drug to be created.
A commercial approach to medicine works if profit proves an effective driver to creating new treatments. But if a focus on profit also means that vital drug treatments do not receive investment then to me something is clearly wrong with the system.
It has bothered me for some time that the NHS doesn't seem to use its huge buying power to exert demands upon drug companies. It must be one of the biggest, if not the biggest unified drug purchaser in the world, and it seems crazy that pharmaceutical companies are selling drugs to our Government at a vast profit but then also telling the Government to spend its own money creating cures for diseases that are unattractive to pharmaceutical shareholders.
I wonder what Astra Zeneca's reaction would be if the NHS said it would only buy its leading antibiotics for the whole of the UK population if they invested a proportion of the resulting profit in creating new antibiotics? Negotiation and bartering are the key to any purchasing agreement and at the moment it seems the Government is held to ransom over the threat of allowing its citizens to develop untreatable infections, when it should actually be using its huge monetary resources to ensure it holds the advantage over drug companies.
If we are forced to take a commercial approach to drug treatments, then the Government should quickly learn that two can play that game.
There are already a few strains of CF bugs that are resistant to most antibiotics - they are the true bogeymen of the CF world, talked about in hushed tones - and the common chest infection that most CF people have, pseudomonas, shows on and off resistance to the usual antibiotics.
But even I, someone who is more interested in antibiotic resistance than the average member of the population, was shocked to read recently that there have only been two new classes of antibiotics invented in the LAST THIRTY YEARS.
We should all be worried - infections are a bit like freedom fighters, they've got nothing to lose, everything to win and are highly proficient at adapting and resisting any of the tactics we use to try and kill them. And to be frank we've barely varied our tactics since 1980.
David Brennan, Chief Exec of big drug company Astra Zeneca has called upon the public sector to work with it to help find a way to solve the problem of antibiotic resistance. This is because drug companies see little value to their shareholders in spending money creating new antibiotics because the speed at which infections become resistant to them does not make it a worthwhile investment, regardless of the human benefit.
A spokesman for Astra Zeneca was quoted as saying: ""If we think [a treatment is] not commercially viable, we can give it to somebody in the public sector who is willing to spend money to develop it."
But to me this statement seems very one-sided. Drug companies make vast profits from the NHS - just look at the controversy surrounding GlaxoSmithKline's 10 per cent profit increase on the back of the swine flu panic. Plus their patent protection on drugs allows them to keep the cost of purchase high for a substantial period of time before they are legally obliged to divulge drug ingredients to allow cheaper, non-brand versions of the drug to be created.
A commercial approach to medicine works if profit proves an effective driver to creating new treatments. But if a focus on profit also means that vital drug treatments do not receive investment then to me something is clearly wrong with the system.
It has bothered me for some time that the NHS doesn't seem to use its huge buying power to exert demands upon drug companies. It must be one of the biggest, if not the biggest unified drug purchaser in the world, and it seems crazy that pharmaceutical companies are selling drugs to our Government at a vast profit but then also telling the Government to spend its own money creating cures for diseases that are unattractive to pharmaceutical shareholders.
I wonder what Astra Zeneca's reaction would be if the NHS said it would only buy its leading antibiotics for the whole of the UK population if they invested a proportion of the resulting profit in creating new antibiotics? Negotiation and bartering are the key to any purchasing agreement and at the moment it seems the Government is held to ransom over the threat of allowing its citizens to develop untreatable infections, when it should actually be using its huge monetary resources to ensure it holds the advantage over drug companies.
If we are forced to take a commercial approach to drug treatments, then the Government should quickly learn that two can play that game.
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
Chris Grayling and his mysterious employment figures
The Government is always keen for school children to improve their basic numeracy skills but don't seem so great at working out sums themselves.
Here's an interesting conundrum.
Speaking at the Tory party conference, Work and Pensions Minister, Chris Grayling said he hoped that about half of those claiming incapacity benefit can be helped back into work. That means from a total of 2.5 million currently claiming incapacity benefit, he is hoping about 1.25million people will be moved back into work.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is expecting 2 million jobs to be created in the next five years. This figure is already considered to be highly optimistic. In comparison, after the recession of 1980/81 it took seven years to create 2 million jobs. Following the 1991/1992 recession it took nine and a half years to create 2 million jobs. And the average annual GDP growth rate after these previous recessions was 3.6% and 3.2% respectively, which is significantly higher than the current 2.5% GDP growth rate the OBR has predicted.
But for argument's sake, let's say that the OBR is right in its predictions - it still means that Mr Grayling expects those who have been claiming incapacity benefit to acquire 62.5% of these newly created jobs.
I've tried to find some figures on an employer's attitude to taking on disabled people or the long-term ill, but do let me know if you're aware of any more recent studies. In a 2004 study that looked at 1000 small business owners, 45% said they thought it would be 'quite difficult/very difficult' to employ a disabled person. I appreciate it's hard to extrapolate this research out into the wider employment market, but if this attitude was found to be genuinely indicative of the overall employer attitude across the nation, that would mean that of the potential 2 million new jobs the Government hopes will be created, the disabled or those on incapacity benefit would be considered for about 55 % of these positions - or 1.1million of the new jobs. In short, that means someone on incapacity benefit would have to be appointed for every single job available from employers who have a positive attitude towards employing the long-term ill - and there would still be 150,000 jobs too few.
To me it seems very unlikely that someone who has been off sick for a significant period of time, or is disabled with special work-place requirements or has a history of mental health issues will find themselves at the top of the pile when it comes to finding work.
So, Mr Grayling, where did you get your figure from? If I've done my sums wrong then please do correct me.
Or did you actually mean, you expect 1.25million people to be moved from Incapacity benefit onto Job Seeker's Allowance and left alone to figure out how best to get work, without any of the specialist support that the new Employment Support Allowance promises the ill or disabled?
Here's an interesting conundrum.
Speaking at the Tory party conference, Work and Pensions Minister, Chris Grayling said he hoped that about half of those claiming incapacity benefit can be helped back into work. That means from a total of 2.5 million currently claiming incapacity benefit, he is hoping about 1.25million people will be moved back into work.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is expecting 2 million jobs to be created in the next five years. This figure is already considered to be highly optimistic. In comparison, after the recession of 1980/81 it took seven years to create 2 million jobs. Following the 1991/1992 recession it took nine and a half years to create 2 million jobs. And the average annual GDP growth rate after these previous recessions was 3.6% and 3.2% respectively, which is significantly higher than the current 2.5% GDP growth rate the OBR has predicted.
But for argument's sake, let's say that the OBR is right in its predictions - it still means that Mr Grayling expects those who have been claiming incapacity benefit to acquire 62.5% of these newly created jobs.
I've tried to find some figures on an employer's attitude to taking on disabled people or the long-term ill, but do let me know if you're aware of any more recent studies. In a 2004 study that looked at 1000 small business owners, 45% said they thought it would be 'quite difficult/very difficult' to employ a disabled person. I appreciate it's hard to extrapolate this research out into the wider employment market, but if this attitude was found to be genuinely indicative of the overall employer attitude across the nation, that would mean that of the potential 2 million new jobs the Government hopes will be created, the disabled or those on incapacity benefit would be considered for about 55 % of these positions - or 1.1million of the new jobs. In short, that means someone on incapacity benefit would have to be appointed for every single job available from employers who have a positive attitude towards employing the long-term ill - and there would still be 150,000 jobs too few.
To me it seems very unlikely that someone who has been off sick for a significant period of time, or is disabled with special work-place requirements or has a history of mental health issues will find themselves at the top of the pile when it comes to finding work.
So, Mr Grayling, where did you get your figure from? If I've done my sums wrong then please do correct me.
Or did you actually mean, you expect 1.25million people to be moved from Incapacity benefit onto Job Seeker's Allowance and left alone to figure out how best to get work, without any of the specialist support that the new Employment Support Allowance promises the ill or disabled?
Friday, 24 September 2010
Lessons from the Government: Get rid of people that don't agree with you
I haven't written all week and I'm dead tired. On some new drug that means you pretty much can't sleep even though you want to. Yeah, legal version of speed I guess. So I've mostly been a zombie this week.
Anyhow I haven't posted all week which is a bad habit to sleep into, wow, that was a Freudian slip, I meant fall into. Obviously my fingers are now dreaming of sleep.
Another bad habit is always finding things to bitch about - so please do send me suggestions for positive health stories so I can try to balance the scales a little. But until that point I'm just going to post a list of the 177 quangos that the Government is considering axing.
The ones that are directly relevant to this blog are:
Disability Employment Advisory Committee
Disability Living/Attendance Allowance Advisory Board
Disabled Persons' Transport Advisory Committee
And that's all folks. I think I need to S L E E P.
Anyhow I haven't posted all week which is a bad habit to sleep into, wow, that was a Freudian slip, I meant fall into. Obviously my fingers are now dreaming of sleep.
Another bad habit is always finding things to bitch about - so please do send me suggestions for positive health stories so I can try to balance the scales a little. But until that point I'm just going to post a list of the 177 quangos that the Government is considering axing.
The ones that are directly relevant to this blog are:
Disability Employment Advisory Committee
Disability Living/Attendance Allowance Advisory Board
Disabled Persons' Transport Advisory Committee
I've linked to what each one does. The first two listed give independent advice to the Government on how best to help disabled people back into work and eligibility for Disability Living Allowance.
The Government has been getting plenty of stick over the medical test used to assess eligibility for Employment Support Allowance, basically telling people to go back to work when they clearly aren't well enough to do so. And in its emergency budget earlier this year the Government announced measures to reassess all DLA claimants from 2013, a measure that disablity groups are already expressing concern about.
So I must say I'm very impressed with the tactics behind this latest 'money saving' venture. I wish I could just make people disappear who don't agree with something I've said. Unfortunately I'm not the Government, so I can't use cost-cutting excuses as a reason to disband committees that might have something to say about its continual policy attacks on the disabled community. I'ts really rather ingenious on the part of this wonderful Government.
And that's all folks. I think I need to S L E E P.
Friday, 17 September 2010
A progressive government: Schizophrenic man who has just spent 6 months in mental institute told to find work
I heard of this story yesterday via Twitter (yes I am a convert) and I thought it worth sharing - mainly because it only happened this week and it shows that the much-derided medical test for ESA is affecting real, vulnerable people now - it's not just a dry political argument with which to bandy insults at Prime Minister's Question Time.
A man with Schizophrenia has just been taken off Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and put onto Job Seeker's Allowance. Earlier this year he was discharged from a mental institution where he had spent the previous six months. He is now living in residential accommodation, which in itself shows he is not yet healthy enough to live a fully independent lifestyle. He has also not worked for 10 years.
The real shock behind this story is the way in which this change has happened. He was asked to attend a medical test which is administered by a company called ATOS, who have the contract from the Government's Work and Pension department. A person has to score over 15 points to be deemed eligible for some form of ESA. This man scored 0. Yes, you read that correctly, ZERO. As he has a clear diagnosis of a severe mental illness this score tells me either that ATOS doesn't recognise the debilitating nature of a mental illness or its test criteria are entirely inadequate for unearthing the effects of mental illness on a person's capacity to work.
Either way the man has been moved from ESA straight onto JSA - he has not even been moved to the lower rate of ESA which would mean he would have been given greater support on how to go about preparing himself for work and identifying which employers are accepting of a long history of mental ill-health and unemployment. How is a job centre employee with basic training on how to get the average Joe back into work going to know how to deal with a schizophrenic not yet capable of fully independent living?
I'm beginning to warm to the Work and Pensions minister Ian Duncan Smith, he seems to be intriguingly genuine in his desire to reform our benefits system so that, in his words, people don't get left behind. And clearly the man of our story has been left to languish for ten years on incapacity benefit. But it's obvious the current welfare reduction drive is more focused on reducing the cost of welfare than exercising any common sense or, dare I say it, empathy towards those with long-term ill health.
Rumours are going round Twitter that Ian Duncan Smith has threatened to resign 12 times since taking office due to consistent, unyielding clashes with the Treasury. With stories such as this schizophrenic man surfacing, it seems clear that the battle is far from over between government members who just wish to reduce the cost of welfare and those who wish to reform welfare to help those who are on it achieve a better life.
I can only hope that the schizophrenic man in question appeals the decision so that at the very least he is awarded lower rate ESA and given proper support in finding work. If not, he clearly has very little chance of ever gaining employment and will be left to live in even greater poverty than before. That's a 'progressive' government for you.
A man with Schizophrenia has just been taken off Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and put onto Job Seeker's Allowance. Earlier this year he was discharged from a mental institution where he had spent the previous six months. He is now living in residential accommodation, which in itself shows he is not yet healthy enough to live a fully independent lifestyle. He has also not worked for 10 years.
The real shock behind this story is the way in which this change has happened. He was asked to attend a medical test which is administered by a company called ATOS, who have the contract from the Government's Work and Pension department. A person has to score over 15 points to be deemed eligible for some form of ESA. This man scored 0. Yes, you read that correctly, ZERO. As he has a clear diagnosis of a severe mental illness this score tells me either that ATOS doesn't recognise the debilitating nature of a mental illness or its test criteria are entirely inadequate for unearthing the effects of mental illness on a person's capacity to work.
Either way the man has been moved from ESA straight onto JSA - he has not even been moved to the lower rate of ESA which would mean he would have been given greater support on how to go about preparing himself for work and identifying which employers are accepting of a long history of mental ill-health and unemployment. How is a job centre employee with basic training on how to get the average Joe back into work going to know how to deal with a schizophrenic not yet capable of fully independent living?
I'm beginning to warm to the Work and Pensions minister Ian Duncan Smith, he seems to be intriguingly genuine in his desire to reform our benefits system so that, in his words, people don't get left behind. And clearly the man of our story has been left to languish for ten years on incapacity benefit. But it's obvious the current welfare reduction drive is more focused on reducing the cost of welfare than exercising any common sense or, dare I say it, empathy towards those with long-term ill health.
Rumours are going round Twitter that Ian Duncan Smith has threatened to resign 12 times since taking office due to consistent, unyielding clashes with the Treasury. With stories such as this schizophrenic man surfacing, it seems clear that the battle is far from over between government members who just wish to reduce the cost of welfare and those who wish to reform welfare to help those who are on it achieve a better life.
I can only hope that the schizophrenic man in question appeals the decision so that at the very least he is awarded lower rate ESA and given proper support in finding work. If not, he clearly has very little chance of ever gaining employment and will be left to live in even greater poverty than before. That's a 'progressive' government for you.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Will toddlers on anti-psychotic drugs be the future for the new NHS?
Great article I read last week in the New York Times about the increasingly prevalent use of psychotic drugs to treat toddlers. Yes you read that right. An 18 month old was put on an anti-psychotic drug for throwing temper tantrums. And this isn't an isolated case.
Admittedly, this is America, where the use of mental health drugs on children is much more widely practicised, and it's easy to read this piece and say 'Thank God that's not our country'. BUT what really struck me in this piece, and which should act as a harbinger for the UK, is that those who are poorer in the US are more likely to be put straight onto a mental health drug rather than time be taken to provide talking therapies or more in-depth diagnoses.
And as our country's politicians are considering changes to the NHS that could see the creation of a two-tier health system - one level of service for those who can pay and another level for those who cannot - such stories as this should act as both a case study and a warning.
Last December a US research team found that those kids on Medicaid, the health cover provided by the US state for families on low incomes, were four times more likely to be given antipsychotic medication than children who were privately insured. The reasons given by the researchers for this disparity were partly because Medicaid often pays less for counselling than private insurers do and because the waiting time to see a psychiatrist who accepted Medicaid patients was so long that medication felt like a better option.
Turning back to the UK and the great charity Rethink found that only 1 in 6 mental health patients received all the treatments recommended by NICE, with over half of people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder NOT receiving psychological therapies (such as talking to someone) as recommended.
It seems the UK already has a problem providing access to non-medication treatment for mental health issues, and I'd hate to see this worsen due to cost implications and waiting lists. But for a government that wishes to hand over funds to GPs and effectively privatise hospitals allowing them to seek income from the NHS or from private patients at a ratio they chose (creating long waiting lists for NHS patients and budget-conscious GPs who may feel compelled to prescribe the cheapest option) I just can't see how those who are poorer in society will have a chance to choose their mental health treatments.
In the future, I'd hate to read about UK toddlers heavily medicated on anti-psychotic drugs but I wouldn't be surprised at all.
Admittedly, this is America, where the use of mental health drugs on children is much more widely practicised, and it's easy to read this piece and say 'Thank God that's not our country'. BUT what really struck me in this piece, and which should act as a harbinger for the UK, is that those who are poorer in the US are more likely to be put straight onto a mental health drug rather than time be taken to provide talking therapies or more in-depth diagnoses.
And as our country's politicians are considering changes to the NHS that could see the creation of a two-tier health system - one level of service for those who can pay and another level for those who cannot - such stories as this should act as both a case study and a warning.
Last December a US research team found that those kids on Medicaid, the health cover provided by the US state for families on low incomes, were four times more likely to be given antipsychotic medication than children who were privately insured. The reasons given by the researchers for this disparity were partly because Medicaid often pays less for counselling than private insurers do and because the waiting time to see a psychiatrist who accepted Medicaid patients was so long that medication felt like a better option.
Turning back to the UK and the great charity Rethink found that only 1 in 6 mental health patients received all the treatments recommended by NICE, with over half of people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder NOT receiving psychological therapies (such as talking to someone) as recommended.
It seems the UK already has a problem providing access to non-medication treatment for mental health issues, and I'd hate to see this worsen due to cost implications and waiting lists. But for a government that wishes to hand over funds to GPs and effectively privatise hospitals allowing them to seek income from the NHS or from private patients at a ratio they chose (creating long waiting lists for NHS patients and budget-conscious GPs who may feel compelled to prescribe the cheapest option) I just can't see how those who are poorer in society will have a chance to choose their mental health treatments.
In the future, I'd hate to read about UK toddlers heavily medicated on anti-psychotic drugs but I wouldn't be surprised at all.
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
How belief in good luck brings us good luck
So if August was measured in terms of bad luck than I think I'd be up there for some kind of award (a few giant buckets of gin and tonic would be a suitable prize if anyone wants to send it my way). I don't need to tell you what's been going wrong, mainly because its September 1st and I've decided that August is the month of bad luck and September the month of good luck.
But as my boyfriend points out this concept of good luck and bad luck makes no sense to someone, who like me, purports to be rational. So it got me thinking whether our concepts of fate, luck and the belief that life can't always stay bad is an inbuilt coping mechanism we deploy in bad times to create our own light at the end of the tunnel?
A recent psychological survey found that superstition improved performance across four key areas: memory, sporting tasks, intelligence test and motor dexterity. For example 41 students were told to bring a lucky charm with them and performed a memory task either with the lucky charm to hand or when it had been removed from the room. Those with their lucky charm performed better at the memory task than those without it.
So I suppose it shows that if we believe we can do something than we are more likely to be able to achieve it. And 'luck' seems to be our way of externalising our own self-belief, allowing those with less confidence to still achieve their dreams. Perhaps, conversely, it also means that bad luck does not 'belong' to us either, and therefore is something we can 'shake off' and move on from.
So lets see if September does bring me better luck. I suppose the belief that something has to change for me, that such bad luck can't continue, is actually my own way of not giving up, of not falling into a mire of doubt and inactivity.
Anyhow, I might write more on this at another date and tie it back into health issues and the NHS. But for now I'll sign off as I'm off to hospital (hopefully just as a day patient) to start some intravenous antibiotics tomorrow (ivs) and fancy getting an early night.
But as my boyfriend points out this concept of good luck and bad luck makes no sense to someone, who like me, purports to be rational. So it got me thinking whether our concepts of fate, luck and the belief that life can't always stay bad is an inbuilt coping mechanism we deploy in bad times to create our own light at the end of the tunnel?
A recent psychological survey found that superstition improved performance across four key areas: memory, sporting tasks, intelligence test and motor dexterity. For example 41 students were told to bring a lucky charm with them and performed a memory task either with the lucky charm to hand or when it had been removed from the room. Those with their lucky charm performed better at the memory task than those without it.
So I suppose it shows that if we believe we can do something than we are more likely to be able to achieve it. And 'luck' seems to be our way of externalising our own self-belief, allowing those with less confidence to still achieve their dreams. Perhaps, conversely, it also means that bad luck does not 'belong' to us either, and therefore is something we can 'shake off' and move on from.
So lets see if September does bring me better luck. I suppose the belief that something has to change for me, that such bad luck can't continue, is actually my own way of not giving up, of not falling into a mire of doubt and inactivity.
Anyhow, I might write more on this at another date and tie it back into health issues and the NHS. But for now I'll sign off as I'm off to hospital (hopefully just as a day patient) to start some intravenous antibiotics tomorrow (ivs) and fancy getting an early night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)