HOME New Additions NEWS ITEMS ARTICLES Letters from the Papers and DoH, MP & Press Emails ODDS & SODS LINKS CONTACT

 

The Health Bill as a GCSE Design Technology examination project

 

From Choosing Health:

“Small changes in the choices people make can make a big difference. Taken together, these changes can lead to huge improvements in health across society. But changes need to be based on choices, not direction. We are clear that Government cannot – and should not – pretend it can ‘make’ the population healthy. But it can – and should – support people in making better choices for their health and the health of their families. It is for people to make the healthy choice if they wish to. Choosing health sets out what this Government will do to help them.” - Tony Blair 2004

This sets the scene and makes no suggestion of legislation, bans or coercion.

 

The Consultation document included

1. The Government wants this consultation to be as extensive as possible. We want to hear from organisations that have an influence on people’s health and the choices people make about health. But it is crucial that this debate is also informed by individuals and communities, so that we can be clear about what role individuals want central and local government to play in improving health.

It would reasonable to examine the responses to establish the extent, if any, of the influence that anti-smoking groups had on the results

The consultation results highlighted

· national ban in public places/workplaces;

· information provision;

· no restrictions on smoking;

· more cessation services/primary care interventions;

· action by employers to support cessation;

· licence venues for smoking;

· improve ventilation;

· separate smoking areas;

· increase taxation;

· decrease taxation;

· local ban/power to local authorities for a smoking ban;

· action to tackle smuggling;

· nicotine substitutes more widely available/cheaper;

· regulatory body for tobacco;

· asthma;

· action on underage sales; and

· advertising restrictions.

The main themes of responses were requests for a ban on smoking in public places/workplaces (1,376 responses), more smoking cessation services/primary care interventions (232) and information provision (180).

 

 

 

ALL the above points were a starting point for investigation and after the Labour Manifesto promises it still seemed that ‘restrictions’ only were to be the outcome. The electorate try to believe what they’re told and expected the new Government to provide an equitable and workable solution to modify the perceived problems.

SO what did the Health Committee do?  – There was another Consultation with its customary imbalance (an enlightening list, from the DoH, of stakeholders etc provided with the consultation document can be found at the bottom of http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/nearlydone/Articles/hewittemail.htm )

------------------------------------------------------------------

The history of the Health Bill compares badly with the most basic requirements laid upon any problem-solving situation. A GCSE examiner would have difficulty justifying even the lowest grade to the finished work.

The below relates to a practical subject but simple logic can apply the criteria to the practicalities of producing an appropriate solution to the perceived situation.

 

Grade G                    Criteria

Examiner comment
  1. gathered minimal research information;
 One source, the health lobby, was given preference over any other. A visit to Ireland also confirmed their wish to see the outcome of the Irish ban through the eyes of the ‘banners’.
  1. provided little evidence of analysis of task or research;
 Little research. Analysis by others was accepted as accurate
  1. produced a simple specification;
 The committee focused upon only one solution. Given the variety of possible partial solutions little time was spent discussing them
  1. produced a solution with rudimentary forward planning;
 The solution failed to specify detailed regulations yet did state that these details should be made clear before the bill was voted on in Parliament.
  1. attempted a superficial evaluation of the outcome of their work;
 The simple solution over-rode the opinions of many people working within affected areas, assumed the solution was all important and ignores damage. Even smoking trends in Ireland appear to have been ignored
  1. demonstrated very little communication, graphical and ICT skills;
 Communication is severely lacking due to the dictatorial nature of the communication although the ICT presentation skills are enlightening.
  1. provided little or no evidence of having considered industrial practices and systems and control.
 As in 5. The Committee took little notice of the actuality of current commercial practices. The nature of the ‘materials’ involved and the need for careful crafting was ignored. Persuasion came a poor second to a sledgehammer technique.  

Grade A

  
  1. Used a variety of appropriate sources to gather relevant research information;
 In this situation it would be appropriate to gain the broadest range of information about every aspect of the situation. In this case only the health aspects defined by groups funded by the DoH were accepted. There was a token acknowledgement of trade opinion. At no time does it appear that the opinion of smokers was sought. This would have revealed the role of traditional institutions in the lives of smokers and the perceived role of smoking in their lives.

A study of responses should have raised concern about bias and whether the Cabinet Office code of practice had been adhered to. Any short-comings should have been addressed at this stage with further appropriate research
  1. analysed the task and the research material logically, thoroughly and effectively
 Once the initial research material was gathered the committee failed as above but continued to place undue weight on the information available. From this point on no appropriate or proportionate solution could be available.
  1. produced a detailed specification which focuses closely on the analysis;
The specification should echo the perceived value of the PMs statements of ‘small changes’ and the manifesto promise of ‘restrictions’. They did not.
  1. produced a wide range of distinct proposals which satisfy the specification;
Only one solution was proposed, that of a total ban in the workplace. Other further restrictions were then mooted about ‘enclosed spaces’ with the doors left open for further intrusive action.
  1. used one or more of their proposals and relevant knowledge of techniques, manufacturing and working characteristics to develop a detailed and coherent design solution;
 The proposal was a total ban in every workplace and an existing model from Ireland was the basis of the design. Many flaws were highlighted but the Committee accepted evidence biased by a conflict of political interest to underpin success and gave little regard to alternative evidence.
  1. produced a correct sequence of activities which shows where, why and how practical production decisions were made;
 The Committee Reports show a sequence of activity but this highlights the weaknesses of their decisions and underscores the lack of concern for ‘production failures’ or damage. All practicalities of creating a workable and appropriate solution were ignored.
  1. selected and skilfully used a wide range of communication, graphical and ICT skills which have helped clarify their thinking and are sufficient to convey ideas to themselves and others effectively and precisely;
 This is an area where ICT skills were used effectively but only to show selective and in some case unsafe reasoning. This weakness allows even untrained individuals to see the weaknesses and bias of the Committee, the lack of thorough research and a misplaced trust in expert opinion.
  1. provided evidence that they have considered and taken account of relevant issues, industrial practices and systems & control.
 So much could be written in response to this requirement. There is evidence of severe intransigence and an unwillingness to consider any solution other that emanating from their own ‘experts’. Opinion from alternative business and technical areas that undermined the Committees preferred and pre-defined solutions were decried by acceptable health experts with insecure business, commercial or technical knowledge.

 

In an educational setting there would be little damage from this solution but this is a real-life situation that affects the lives of real people