It’s happy hour and I am in the pub writing my blog.
There are two reasons for this. Firstly, I am sure you’ll appreciate my blog more if it’s written in a ‘happy’ environment and, secondly, I find a BOGOF chardonnay helps to scramble the dominant, control freak, part of my brain, allowing my inner comedian a free rein.
But if the BMA gets its way, it’ll be down to Miserable 20 Minutes. Banning drinks promotions, and drinks sponsorship are in the latest plan for curbing binge drinking. That’ll be about as successful as 24-hour licensing, which we were assured was going to cut down drinking. Er, how exactly?
Then there was that marvellous ad campaign, whose ads I used to see driving home. One featured a lovely chilled glass of white, condensation dripping sexily down the glass, on it was printed a large number 3. To me the subliminal message was: ‘When I get home, I really fancy three glasses of chardonnay.’
When I was a nipper, a bottle of wine contained six units, now it contains 66 as far as I can work out. They’ve moved the goal posts, it’s the cholesterol conspiracy all over again.
When I was a medical student, I was taught by a fabulous South American neurologist, who used to say, ‘Een my country, they don’t theenk you’re normal unless you drink at least a bottle of wine every day.’ And those South Americans sure know how to produce wine.
What really makes me sick is that the press constantly refer to the BMA as ‘doctor’s leaders’. I used to sit as a junior rep on the BMA and as the yoof are so fond of saying: it totally did my head in. Mostly a bunch of fuddy-duddy GPs, more interested in themselves than doctors as an entire profession or, God forbid, patients. They certainly don’t have my mandate, on this or almost any other matter.
For such a heavy drinking profession, the hypocrisy is stunning. So stunning, in fact, that I can’t come up with an analogy even with the aid of white wine. People used to say that you were only an alcoholic if you drank more than your doctor, and medical school put your liver through Olympic-levels of training. Having said that, although we went out and got drunk - think ‘black whirlies’ - I am sure none of us set out to get drunk, it was more of a side effect than a prescription.
The way to deal with the bladdered yoof of today is to change their culture and attitude to drink, rather than by penalising the responsible majority. How to do that, I have no idea, so I think I’ll have another glass of wine and get creative.
Even sober I agree with Sarah both about the hypocricy regarding some of our profession regarding alcohol and about the status of our ‘leaders’.
May I nominate her as the founder President of ‘Doctors Against Hypocricy About Alcohol’ ( I couldn’t think of a title with a witty acronym but maybe that is the fault of the sobriety); all meetings to be held in licenced premises.
Locally, the BMA rep is someone who is willing to take the post. I suspect that our district ios not unique. In the last 24 years there has never been a local election and certanily no manifesto. I think that I am in the majority who believe that these representatives are there for that purpose, to ‘represent’ our views, not to lead us. I don’t want leading, I am smart enough to know my own thoughts and currently I am thinking that I don’t like hypocricy.
I think the BMA should stick to representing the profession on employment issues and leave public health to the myriad of societies and charities with more expertise on the issue.
Having said that, I agree with them on the marketing of alcohol. I’m fed up of dealing with piss heads.
The BMA should definitely stick to turning up to hold people’s hand when they are being suspended and renegotiating pay rises. That’s what they’re good at. That’s why we pay up every year.
What is it with the alcohol police? First it was Donaldson telling us we were killing our kids by letting them have a sip of wine at home, now it’s the BMA. I’m off down the pub in dismay. Hic.
Who’s getting in the first round?