RootsBooster Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Roots, go back to my original post (number 13). I'm not arguing that putting tags on dementia patients is the main issue here, I'm arguing that it's just one example of at least 4 cases this week of civil liberties being eroded in favour of increased surveillance and loss of privacy. ...and as part of that you brought up Nazi's killing the disabled as part of your argument, to which I responded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 But you are arguing against it, or at the very least using it as an example of erosion of civil liberties when it is nothing of the sort. From the Alzheimer's Society website: 'In some circumstances and when appropriate consent is given, GPS tracking can enable a person with dementia to remain independent for longer, providing them and their carer with peace of mind. But we must balance the potential advantages to the individual and the protection of a person’s civil liberties. Any tracking system must support and never replace good quality care. http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/press_article.php?pressReleaseID=929 They don't go as far as I do in not wanting it implemented at all, but they certainly recognise that it has an effect upon a person's civil liberties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 From the Alzheimer's Society website: http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/press_article.php?pressReleaseID=929 They don't go as far as I do in not wanting it implemented at all, but they certainly recognise that it has an effect upon a person's civil liberties. I don't think anyone's denied that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 I don't think anyone's denied that Tinfoilhat just did: But you are arguing against it, or at the very least using it as an example of erosion of civil liberties when it is nothing of the sort. Do you have him on ignore or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Tinfoilhat just did: Do you have him on ignore or something? I hope not I don't see it as eroding someone's civil liberties. An Alzheimer's sufferer perceived slight in civil liberties is so out weighed by their own safety it can't be classed as an erosion unless people want to use it to further their own argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Tinfoilhat just did: Do you have him on ignore or something? There's a difference between the words "effect" and "erosion" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 There's a difference between the words "effect" and "erosion" The quote talks about protecting civil liberties- ie preventing them from being eroded- that's the effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 The quote talks about protecting civil liberties- ie preventing them from being eroded- that's the effect. In your opinion. That's not the opinion of the Alzheimer's Society Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 The quote talks about protecting civil liberties- ie preventing them from being eroded- that's the effect. But the most interesting thing is that that's the bit you've made bold. The line after is the most important bit. To be honest the idea of tagging, which as previously stated I have no problem with in theory, is a very short term measure anyway. Either social will need to give far more support to family members or the patient will be better off in good quality residential care, which is patchy at best. That is what the quote you used by the Alzheimer's society is getting at, good quality care, not civil liberties. I think you are using the whole dementia thing where you might be better off using different arguments. This one does you no favours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 But the most interesting thing is that that's the bit you've made bold. The line after is the most important bit. To be honest the idea of tagging, which as previously stated I have no problem with in theory, is a very short term measure anyway. Either social will need to give far more support to family members or the patient will be better off in good quality residential care, which is patchy at best. That is what the quote you used by the Alzheimer's society is getting at, good quality care, not civil liberties. I think you are using the whole dementia thing where you might be better off using different arguments. This one does you no favours. Well, thanks to you and Roots for an interesting debate, it had me thinking quite a bit. I think we all agree that the main focus of dementia care ought to be good quality support. I'll ask you to keep an eye on the civil liberty issue and consider what the future holds for us as surveillance increases and in return I'll try not to get too paranoid about it hehe (PS as I type there's a news article on Sky News about the commercialisation of drone usage- that paranoia thing might be quite difficult to overcome lol). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.