‘I could have gone blind if I hadn’t been able to go private’
When her sight started to blur in one eye, Marianne Jones wasn’t too worried – but what happened next was terrifying and exposes the broken state of an NHS system failing millions of patients every day
Marianne Jones had always been short-sighted but, when her eyesight began to fail, she was facing a terrifying choice – pay now or pay with her sight later
It was three days before my silver wedding anniversary holiday that I booked an optician’s appointment to check out my suddenly blurry right eye.
For days previously, all I could see were wavy lines, distorted faces and floating blobs. I’ve been extremely short-sighted since I was a teenager (my nickname is Mr Magoo) and have check-ups more regularly than most. So, I was concerned but not overly so, putting my eye problems down to the strain of staring at the computer for too long. Still, I wanted to put my mind at rest before heading off for a 12-hour flight to Mauritius, for a celebration we’d saved long and hard for.
I hadn’t planned for the potential dire consequences of my symptoms, or the very British drama that came next. One hour later, on a Friday afternoon, the optician studied a scan of my problematic eye and declared I needed emergency treatment for what appeared to be fluid leaking into my retina.
I was told to head to the A&E department at Moorfields NHS Eye Hospital in London, as soon as possible. “You never know, they might treat you straight away,” my optician offered, not very convincingly.
I fear he knew what was coming. I arrived at Moorfields bright and early the next day as an emergency out-patient. A kind security guard pointed out the reception area, where I fumbled with the paperwork and tried to return it through the wrong gap. By now I could only make out dark shapes through my bad eye and even putting one foot in front of the other was disconcerting. I was nauseous, disorientated and alone, my husband having driven to the Midlands the previous morning to drop off our dog with relatives.
There was already a queue, but not a huge one. After handing in my “cheese counter” numbered ticket, I joined a row of other patients on plastic chairs. One woman was sobbing, her husband with his arms around her, another couldn’t open her eyes and had to be led around by the professional but harried staff who looked like they hadn’t sat down in a long time.
Two sets of tests and three hours later, I was ushered into a tiny, blue-curtained booth, where a registrar told me that I had a condition called Myopic CNV, brought on by my short-sightedness and resulting in blood vessels growing where they shouldn’t and leaking into my retina. It’s not common and it is very serious. The treatment – an injection into the eye – took seconds, was easy to administer and had a high success rate. But speed was of the essence and I was already approaching the danger zone.
I kept hearing the words “urgent” and “emergency” and it suddenly occurred to me that I was in real danger of losing my sight.
I’m almost certain that, had I waited the full three weeks, I would now be blind in one eye
A member of staff was dispatched to find the next available slot for treatment. Naively, I presumed it would happen that same day, but she returned to report that the next emergency NHS appointment at Moorfields was in three weeks’ time.
The registrar said what I was thinking: “That’s too late”, and picked up the phone to call hospitals nearer to my home in Kent (I’d chosen Moorfields that day because it was the easiest hospital to get to on public transport). Eventually, she reached a registrar at the ophthalmology department of Queen Mary’s Hospital in Sidcup. More “urgents” were used and I was put into their system. I asked how soon the hospital might contact me, the registrar hoped it would be soon but gave me the phone number to write down. I must call them first thing Monday morning, she told me. I thought it was odd to be asked to chase up my own emergency referral, but sensed that she had been here before.
My worried husband and delighted dog arrived back home that night to find me in a state of panic, the sight in my eye having become progressively worse. I wasn’t in pain but could see almost nothing but dark shapes. After two sleepless nights and the day I should have been jetting off to the sun, I shakily called the hospital phone number. Over the next two hours, I repeated this dozens of times, but the line simply rang out before cutting me off.
The craziness of being unable to contact the hospital I’d been told to chase so that I didn’t go blind, led to us quickly making the decision to go private. I simply wasn’t prepared to play Russian roulette with my eyesight.
I called Moorfields – this time its private wing. They answered straight away. The price of the consultation, scan and one injection came to £2,799. I could be seen immediately. So, that lunchtime I had the surreal experience of walking past the A&E department where I’d been 48 hours earlier and round the corner to its private hospital, with shiny sofas, vases of hydrangeas and serene staff who had time to chat about their weekend.
Within the hour I’d been talked to, examined and scanned by a consultant who also worked over the road at the NHS hospital. He told me he needed to treat me immediately. I was too shocked to feel squeamish as he led me to a surgery room and injected medication into my eye to help restore my vision (you’re awake but anaesthetic drops mean it isn’t painful).
For a perverse crumb of comfort, I asked him what would have happened had I gone on holiday and taken my chances with the NHS appointment. He informed me that, in his opinion, my eye condition was so severe that had I left it another week there was a 30 per cent chance of me losing the sight altogether, a statistic that increased with every passing day. I’m almost certain that, had I waited the full three weeks, I would now be blind in one eye.
I have now become just another statistic, with four in five high street optometrists saying their patients have paid for private procedures in the past six months. There are about 640,000 people waiting for an NHS ophthalmology appointment, more than any other speciality – accounting for roughly one in 11 people on a waiting list of a record-high 7.8 million people. Being told an easy treatment was effectively out of my reach unless I paid for it, brought home that our NHS is not only broken, but shattered and in tiny pieces on the floor.
Two days before my sudden visit to Moorfields, prime minister Rishi Sunak walked through its doors to learn about the research being carried out in the world of artificial intelligence. I couldn’t help but wonder whether the real-world problem of humans not receiving urgent treatment in time was discussed.
I walked out of there almost £3,000 lighter, but not blind. Three weeks on I have still heard nothing from the hospital in Sidcup and wonder if I ever will. I’m now back in the NHS system and have been referred to a different hospital for a follow-up appointment. My condition is one that will need regular monitoring, quite possibly for the rest of my life and I couldn’t possibly fund this privately even if I wanted to. I frequently think about those other distressed souls that I shared the emergency waiting room with a few weekends ago. How many of them had savings to raid or a supportive family to offer help? I wonder which of them needed emergency treatment that day to save their sight and who was offered the appointment that I turned down. The one that quite possibly came too late.
****************************************
Why are young people pro-Palestine?
One of the most alarming developments of recent months is the realisation that not only is antisemitism on the rise, but that young people in the West think that it’s somehow or other justified.
Unfortunately, one doesn’t have to look far to understand why this is happening. For the Western Education system is increasingly being highjacked by political activists. For example, James Morrow, writing in The Daily Telegraph recently reported:
Parents have described themselves as ‘disheartened’ by an attempt by a group of activist teachers to promote a one sided view of the Israel-Hamas conflict in classroom.
The group, calling itself Teachers 4 Palestine, has through its social media accounts accused Israel of ‘genocide’ online while encouraging teachers to ‘light up our schools for Palestine’.
The group not only encourages students to skip school for a planned unauthorised protest on Friday, but also tells teachers to ‘wear Khaffiyehs’, ‘Palestine badges’, and ‘make Palestine visible in our schools’ by, for example, taking group photos with pro-Palestine signs.
Consistent with the tactics of Hamas, pro-Palestinian protestors are using children as human shields to defend their actions. Note how children were present at the recent unauthorised rally in Port Botany, while at the same time then blaming the police for their ‘thuggery’ at upholding the law.
In a far-reaching interview with John Anderson – the former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia – distinguished historian and author, Niall Ferguson, makes the following cogent observation:
I think the strange thing about all of this is the generational divide that’s opened up. It’s very remarkable if you look at polling in the United States, Britain, or Continental Europe, that older people strongly sympathise with Israel and younger people strongly sympathise with the Palestinians. In fact, the youngest group surveyed – 18 to 24 in the US and in the UK – is strongly anti-Israel, and pro-Palestinian.
And that’s why when you look at the protests that you see in support of the Palestinians, they are very youthful when you look closely. And I think there’s a very good reason for this, and it’s an extremely important point which some of us have been making for years. It’s that the universities – and to an extent the schools too – have been systematically infiltrated by propagandists in favour of Islamism and anti-Zionism.
And we are now reaping the harvest of allowing the infiltration of higher education by radical leftists and Islamists. That’s the best explanation I think for this generational divide. It’s not just that the passage of time has dampened public sympathy for Israel. I think it’s something much more sinister than that.
Ferguson argues that the new current generation of leftists are different to their classic liberal forebears, and that there is even a ‘strange unholy alliance’ between Islamists and radical leftists who are both completely obsessed with identity politics. As Ferguson explains:
I think what has happened is there has been an unwitting, leftwards lurch. Liberals of the 1968 era, the anti-Vietnam types, thought when they saw the radicals of the next generation that they were seeing of themselves. Ah yes, to be young and radical again. And they appointed people who were far to the left of those anti-Vietnam liberals.
And one obvious distinction is, those anti-Vietnam liberals were at least in favour of free speech. But the new generation of leftists are not liberal at all. They’re totally against free speech. Nor are they secular. They’re highly susceptible to the Islamist arguments, which is remarkable when you consider some of the other things that they believe.
They passionately believe in LGBTIQ+ rights. They passionately believe that there are fifty-five genders … this is what is so bizarre about this coalition which has formed. It’s a strange unholy alliance between Islamists and radical leftists, completely obsessed with identity politics.
So obsessed with identity politics that they don’t recognise that the Palestinians are not just another minority like the transgender rights activists, but are really part of a globalist movement which is profoundly hostile to all the things that they care about, particularly when it comes to gender.
It’s a very strange – and I think unintended – consequence of the penchant liberal professors have to hire people further to the left of themselves.
This also goes a long way to explaining why so many young people are questioning whether Osama Bin Laden’s actions on September 11, 2001 were in fact, justified. It’s because their whole lens for viewing the world is that of oppressors and victims. Of those who have power and those who do not.
This powerful – but also poisonous – philosophical paradigm is why the younger generation today is coming to a profoundly different position regarding Palestine. What should be condemned is now celebrated. What should be denounced is now defended. And the reason why that is so is because that is how they’ve been taught to think.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/why-are-young-people-pro-palestine/
*******************************************Why Radicals Want to Sully Thanksgiving
Gratitude is peculiarly conservative. Leftism is anger, which is the opposite of gratitude
If you ask many people what Thanksgiving is about, they will provide an honest and accurate response: family and gratitude. And here we see why some radicals want to sully a unifying and wholesome holiday like Thanksgiving. Doing so taints a family occasion and promotes ingratitude, which helps undermine the American character.
So it’s easy to see why they’re targeting a holiday centered around the family. As Pope St. John Paul II wrote, “The future of humanity passes by way of the family.” Through the sacrament of marriage, men and women learn from one another, and the character of children is formed within the family. These are the bonds that root the individual and offer purpose.
Families are built around the small moments and the deliberate protection of those moments: of making time to read to children at bedtime and having a standing tradition of sharing a meal together amid the busyness of everyday life. Thanksgiving is naturally a precious occasion and is often a connecting point enveloping multiple generations.
The attack on gratitude is just as serious. Like forgiveness, gratitude is a choice, not grounded in naiveite or ignorance. Both forgiveness and gratitude require a confronting of wrongdoing, followed by a decision to dwell in the good rather than the bad.
Sometimes, like forgiveness, gratitude is difficult. Sadness and negativity have a way of lingering like unwanted guests. Those who, through habituation and resolve, have inculcated gratitude in their character, even amid the most devastating of life’s circumstances, arrest our attention the way virtue and fortitude tend to do.
Fostering gratitude is beneficial for the individual as well as for the nation. This republic we now seek to repair and maintain has always depended on a virtuous citizenry. That requires strength—and a gracious people is a strong people.
What is the intention of those who would deprive the American people of the spirit of thanksgiving, by sowing discord and inserting partisan politics into every aspect of the American way of life, by claiming that reflections on the American heritage should inspire nothing but shame and resentment? Are we to expect such assaults on the dignity of the individual to have no effect on the dignity of the nation?
While habituating gratitude on the individual level is an act of will and practice, doing so as Americans is aided through the study of history. We see in primary documents evidence that the founding generation strove to establish a wonderful continuity of gratitude and obligation that would form a single people. In the 1774 Suffolk Resolves, they declared,
That it is an indispensable Duty which we owe to GOD, our Country, Ourselves and Posterity, by all lawful Ways and Means in our Power, to maintain, defend and preserve those civil and religious Rights and Liberties for which many of our Fathers fought—bled—and died; and to hand them down entire to future Generations.
The debt of honor began with the men and women of the Revolution who, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, laid “so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.” And it extends forward to posterity, as an invitation to join in the great project of preserving the experiment in self-government.
The most appropriate response to such a debt is not a material offering, as it itself is not a material gift. It is a gift of character, and we respond with the dedication of our very person.
Like others, Lincoln knew that the memories of the deeds of the Revolution would fade as new Americans were born and journeyed to become possessed by the land. Along with that fading could come the fraying of Americans’ binding gratitude. Fortunately, common history is not all that ties us together. For,
when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are.
What a wonderful thought to linger on this Thanksgiving.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11/22/the-virtue-of-gratitude
*********************************************The Christophobic ‘Wall of Separation’
Leftists only care about the Constitution when they’re defending what’s not in it.
That’s our takeaway from the latest flap over House Speaker Mike Johnson. We wrote a couple of weeks ago about Johnson and leftist Christophobia — the affliction that renders sufferers incapable of tolerating anyone who espouses patriotism and Biblical faithfulness. This was again on full display after Johnson made comments that left journalists in triggered hysterics.
Appearing on CNBC yesterday, Johnson was asked about praying on the House floor the day he was elected speaker, which his interlocutor said provoked a “question about the separation of church and state” and public perception about the whole episode. (Translation: I don’t like what you did, so explain yourself.)
Johnson’s reply, in which he even accurately quoted our Founders from memory, was a brief and incredible history lesson that every American should hear, so we’ll quote him in full:
Listen, faith, our deep religious heritage and tradition, is a big part of what it means to be an American. When the Founders set this system up, they wanted a vibrant expression of faith in the public square because they believed that a general moral consensus and virtue was necessary to maintain this grand experiment in self-governance that we created — a government of, by, and for the people. We don’t have a king in charge, we don’t have a middle man, so we’ve got to keep morality amongst us, so that we have accountability. And so they wanted faith to be a big part of that.
The separation of church and state is a misnomer. People misunderstand it. Of course, it comes from a phrase that was in a letter that [Thomas] Jefferson wrote [to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1802]. It’s not in the Constitution. And what he was explaining is, they did not want the government to encroach upon the church — not that they didn’t want principles of faith to have influence on our public life. It was exactly the opposite.
[George] Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.” And John Adams came next and he said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
They knew that it would be important to maintain our system, and that’s why I think we need more of that — not an establishment of any national religion, but we need everybody’s vibrant expression of faith because it’s such an important part of who we are as a nation.
If members of Congress understood history and faith half as well as Johnson just articulated, we wouldn’t be facing most of the issues we do as a nation. If children in our public schools learned that instead of divisive critical race theory or family-destroying gender-confusion, our culture wouldn’t be falling apart at the seams.
Unfortunately, there was predictable outrage among ignorant journalists over Johnson’s comments.
Media outlets didn’t, of course, explain that Johnson is right about the “wall of separation.” Though NBC News did concede that “it is technically true that the words ‘separation of church and state’ are not written in the Constitution,” its story went on to insist that unnamed “legal scholars” believe the doctrine is key to the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
Our Mark Alexander debunked that myth way back in 2005.
Instead of the truth, other headlines across the board treated separation as if it’s a constitutionally settled doctrine, which, again, it’s not. They decried that Johnson called it “a misnomer.”
For good measure, the UK’s Guardian added a subtitle with what the paper obviously considers a smear: “Christian nationalist House speaker bemoans ‘misunderstanding’ of one of US’s founding principles.”
Correction: Johnson was articulating one of America’s founding principles.
Taxpayer-funded NPR might take the cake, however. In a related hit piece, it headlined about “Speaker Johnson’s close ties to Christian right — both mainstream and fringe.” The story delves immediately into a pastor who a quoted “expert” claims helped “organize Christians for January 6th.”
Indeed, NPR proceeds to warn, Johnson and this “network of religious leaders who have advocated to end or weaken the separation of church and state” are a threat to democracy. “Taken to its extreme — as it was by some adherents on Jan. 6 — it embraces anti-democratic means to achieve their end.”
Your tax dollars at work.
This hyperventilating about Johnson is really quite something to behold. This “mastermind of the January 6 plot” is also a “theocrat” who poses a “threat to democracy.” Why, you’d almost think that authoritarian abortion zealots like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are the real Christians.
Time will certainly tell what kind of leader Johnson will be, but it speaks volumes that the Christophobic media is waging a shock and awe campaign to utterly discredit him. When it aids their cause, they’ll espouse and exploit historical ignorance about “separation of church and state” to scare people about a fundamentally decent man.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/102209 ?
**********************************************************
'Dutch Trump' Geert Wilders shocks Netherlands with huge election win
The Netherlands has a lot of poor immigrants who live permanently on welfare payments. That jars on the hard-working Dutch. And the sheer numbers of "asylum-seekers" arriving is very disruptive
Far-right firebrand politician Geert Wilders has won a 'monster victory' in yesterday's Dutch general election that has shaken the Netherlands and Europe.
The 60-year-old - who is anti-Islam, known as the 'Dutch Trump' and was once turned away from Britain's Heathrow airport for being too extreme, now faces an uphill struggle today to woo rivals to form a coalition government in parliament.
His populist PVV (Freedom Party) won 37 seats, more than doubling his share from the last election and outstripping opponents, according to near complete results.
A left-wing bloc trailed far behind on 25 seats, with the centre-right VVD on 24 - a catastrophic result for the party of outgoing Prime Minister Mark Rutte.
The result puts Wilders in line to lead talks to form a new ruling coalition in the country's 150-seat parliament, and possibly become the country's first hard-right prime minister at a time of political upheaval through much of the continent.
'I had to pinch my arm,' a jubilant Wilders said. Addressing cheering supporters in The Hague after exit polls, he doubled down on his anti-immigrant rhetoric, saying the Dutch had voted to stem the 'tsunami' of asylum-seekers.
'The PVV can no longer be ignored,' he cried, urging other parties to do a deal.
The unexpected landslide win prompted immediate congratulations from fellow far-right leaders in France and Hungary but will likely raise fears in Brussels - Wilders is anti-EU and wants a vote on a 'Nexit' to leave the bloc.
Hungary's nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban hailed 'winds of change' after the exit poll, while France's Marine Le Pen cheered his 'spectacular performance.'
Although he softened his anti-Islam rhetoric during the campaign, the PVV programme pledges a ban on the Koran, mosques and Islamic headscarves and Muslim community leaders in the Netherlands were quick to voice concern.
In his first reaction, posted in a video on social media, Wilders spread his arms wide, put his face in his hands and said simply '35!' - the number of seats an exit poll forecast his Party for Freedom, or PVV, won. The number has since risen to 37.
But as of Thursday morning, it is not clear how he can scrape together the 76 seats he needs for a majority in the 150-seat parliament.
Former European Commissioner Frans Timmermans, whose Green/Labour bloc came in second, immediately ruled out cooperation, saying it was now their job to 'defend democracy' in the country.
Anti-corruption champion Pieter Omtzigt, whose New Social Contract party scored 20 seats, seems certain to play a role and indicated he was 'available' for talks, but admitted they wouldn't be easy.
Dilan Yesilgoz, who led the centre-right VVD to a disappointing 24 seats, was coy on election night, saying Wilders would have to see if he can forge a coalition.
She first opened the door to Wilders joining a VVD-led government but has stressed she would not serve under him.
Diederick van Wijk from the Clingendael Institute told AFP news agency the Netherlands was now in 'uncharted territory' after the 'landslide victory' of Wilders.
'A Prime Minister Wilders could be within reach,' he said.
Dutch media were left agog by the margin of Wilders' victory.
'No one expected this, not even the winner himself,' said the Trouw daily.
Even the usually unexcitable NOS public broadcaster called it a 'monster victory', a phrase that featured in several media.
The Financieele Dagblad said the result 'turns politics in The Hague on its head' while the NRC daily describes it as a 'right-wing populist revolt that will shake the Binnenhof to its foundations', referring to the government quarter in The Hague.
Wilders has built a career from his self-appointed mission to stop an 'Islamic invasion' of the west, but during his campaign sought to tone down his message, saying he could put some of his more strident views on Islam 'in the freezer'.
He stressed he would be prime minister for everyone 'regardless of their religion, background, sex or whatever', and insisted the ongoing cost-of-living crisis was a bigger priority. But his opponents allege his PVV manifesto tells a different story.
Wilders is known as the 'Dutch Trump', partly for his swept-back dyed hairstyle that resembles the former US president, but also for his rants against immigrants and Muslims.
From calling Moroccans 'scum' to holding competitions for cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, Wilders has built a career from his self-appointed mission to stop an 'Islamic invasion' of the West.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment