Safety revisited | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    In March of 2011, I wrote a piece about safety. In it I opined that there is no such thing as safety because so called "safety" in reality is the absence of risk. Risk can be quantified; safety cannot. Not so many of us are actuaries or would even try to understand their arcane processes - even though a whole lot of what goes on in our life is controlled - or at least impacted - by the work that actuaries do. Where did you think your life insurance, your house insurance, your auto insurance rates (to name just a few actuarial outputs) came from?? Short answer - actuaries. If you would like to see a perfect example of "arcane" just try to understand in detail some of the calculations performed by actuaries.

    I further suggested that how much personal safety is required (i.e. how much risk is tolerable) is a judgement that each person should make for themself, depending on their acceptance and tolerance of the risk associated with the activity in which they are participating (or are about to undertake).

    So why am I bringing all this stuff up?? It's because the notion of "safety" (perhaps, more precisely, "guaranteeing safety") seems to be gaining so much traction that it is potentially beginning to hamstring our everyday activities. We seem to be coming so obsessed with "safety" that it is beginning to take on a life (or death) of its own. When it comes to "institutional safety" (i.e. the safety requirement that is government imposed - as in the Nanny State), our "safety" is mandated by some faceless bureaucrat deep in the bowels of some Government Agency in Washington, D.C.. They seen to think of safety as an absolute. They are wrong... Institutional safety, as practiced in the U.S., supercedes and replaces "personal safety" (i.e. the risk that each of us is willing to accept without reference to the Government imposed requirements).

    We must not think of it in terms of an absolute. The amount of "risk" we are willing to accept is in inverse proportion to the consequences of being wrong when we settle on what is personally acceptable.

    A case in point...It is certainly clear that the Director of the CDC has a much higher tolerance for risk than a lot of the public. Either that, of he knows a whole lot more about the Ebola virus than he is letting on. We are told that the virus is not transmitted by a "vector" (such as a mosquito) or through the air, but rather by contact with body fluids of those infected with the virus. Surely the two health care professionals who were brought home knew those things also. Of course the next question is: "So how did they get infected?? Surely, not on purpose..

    And what do you suppose is keeping anyone at Emory University from being exposed the same way - by accident?? And if that happens, then what??

    We continue to allow visitors from W. Africa. to enter the US seemingly unimpeded.. Our ever vigilant government tells us that we have personnel strategically located around the country (presumably at aircraft ports of entry) who are watching for people who look as though thy may have symptoms of the onset of the disease. After hearing a lot of different numbers a to the incubation period, folks seem to have settled on three weeks.

    That we have people at our ports of entry ready to identify folks who may be at risk sounds almost as good as our "promises" that Iran will not be allowed to get a nuclear bomb - seemingly as long as we continue to "negotiate" with them. All the while we continue to allow them to keep their centrifuges spinning and free up money for them. We set deadlines for completing negotiations and when it doesn't happen, they agree to more talks if we will free up some of their money that we had frozen - so we do. ("John Kerry!! Wanna buy a bridge??) Let us hope neither one of those horses gets out of the barn before we wise up.

    Back to Ebola. We are now hearing questions to why we don't start treating more folks with the as yet "unproven" medicine that was used on the two infected Americans (and apparently a couple of other folks). The Americans were brought home for treatment... We are hearing questions as to why it was the two American and a couple of other non-African folks who were given the few doses of the medicine in existence. Maybe it would have been better to give the medicine to some African politico rather than people who were trying to save the lives of those who already had it. Not just a commoner, but surely someone with political clout in Africa?? The first question for the medical ethicists will be whether we should even use unproven serum. Reportedly the ethicists response has been "yes". The next great problem will be in trying to figure out who is first in line, who is second, etc. That could be difficult to decide, but I have a suggestion. We could bring the Ezekial Emanuel who I have heard say that he supports the establishment of panels to decide these kinds of issues to take care of it (Obamacare "death panels" as Sarah Palin would call them). They already know how to pick winners and losers. At least that's what Rahm's brother Ezekial seems to believe. Hmmm.... No need to get ethicists involved..

    What if the medicine doesn't work, despite encouraging results so far. What if some unpleasant side effects turn up later?? What if.. What if... What if those who have the virus die before we have ensured the medicine is safe enough to keep the class action lawyers at bay?? Here we have a perfect example of risk that is acceptable. The acceptance of the risk of using an unapproved medicine is surely greater among those who are at risk of dying than among those with a class action lawyer standing in the wings just waiting for something to go wrong. Is the "go" or "no go" decision one that should be made for us?? Or is it a decision each person should make for themself?? I am inclined to believe the latter..People need to be made aware of the facts surrounding the serum and they should decide for themselves whether or not to take the medicine. And the same goes for a lot of other things in our lives. Get the government out of the business of trying to control everything we do. Get it back to doing what the Constitution says it's job is. No parsing. No "splitting hairs". Just do what it says.

    D'ya Think??
Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




Barber flatulates. Drive-by media is there on the scene to take a whiff. Related to Federal, D'ya think??, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics State Clarifies Student Voter ID Rules


HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

far left sugar daddy has also funded anti-Israel groups and politicians in US
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it
America needs to wake up and get its priorities right
Former President Donald Trump suggested this week that if he becomes president again, he might allow Prince Harry to be deported.
It's a New Year, which means it's time to make resolutions — even for prominent evangelical leaders. The Babylon Bee asked the following well-known figures in the faith what they hope to accomplish in 2024:
Vice President Kamala Harris will visit a Minnesota Planned Parenthood clinic, reportedly the first time a president or vice president has visited an abortion facility.
An eight-mile stretch of the Blue Ridge Parkway near Asheville has been temporarily closed due to a string of “human and bear interactions,” the National Parks Service announced.
University of Wisconsin tried to punish conservatives for the fact that liberals regularly commit crimes to silence opposition
most voters think EU officials not doing a good job on illegal immigration

HbAD1

 
Back to Top