Burn baby, burn

We all know the dangers of tanning either by way of natural UV light or use of solariums. We all know the inherent risks of exposing ourselves to rays in the pursuit of vanity. Whether or not we choose to heed those warnings is entirely an individual choice. Not only is it an individual choice, but it's a yet another choice that certain organisations would like our government to take away from us.

The Queensland Institute of Medical Research have ESTIMATED the number of cancer diagnoses that they SUSPECT are caused by the use of solariums. Evidently the research they've conducted is "based on a British mathematical model" (whatever the hell that means). What is this model? A model of what? Why use a British anything to run statistics in Australia? Logic would define that if this "model" is at all accurate in Britain it won't be accurate for Australia's purposes given the difference in climate. Have they used this model because it resulted in the most terrifying statistics? Why not use a NZ model, a Canadian model, an American model or like everything else in Australia an Indian model? Until I know what the hell the model actually is, I can only assume it's scare-mongering.

So the QIMR has proposed changes in the Federal Govt regulations with the preference to completely ban the use of solariums. Pretty bloody rude I reckon. But how keen will the government be to implement such changes? I reckon they'll be fanging for the opportunity because it means less government money going to the public health system to treat skin cancers. It's exactly the same reason (or half of it) that they increase the price of cigarettes every five minutes.

As much as they hate treating the problems associated with smoking, they LOVE collecting the billions of dollars in tobacco tax generated each year from tobacco sales. So my guess is that one of two things will happen:

1) the proposals will be given serious consideration because unlike cigarettes, skin cancer treatment costs the govt money but they can't collect any skim from tanning unless...

2) they impose a tax on solariums which is probably the way it will actually go. They'll see another opportunity to collect from the people, ten times more so than the amount they will fund (approx $3M according to Dr Louisa Gordons' contribution to the Medical Journal of Australia) towards treating the problems coming from it.

I'm actually really surprised that the Howard Government never spotted that opportunity given their penchant from sticking their grubby hands in our pockets.

Back to my point. Professor Simon Chapman, from the University of Sydney's School of Public Health is pushing for a complete ban on solarium use and cites the death of Claire Oliver in 2007 resulting from excessive tanning. I've said before that I absolutely empathise with the plight of Claire Oliver but by the same token, she made EDUCATED choices as to her tanning habits. She was a woman who, by her own admission, spent countless hours laying in the sun OR at the solarium. Claire started tanning at 19 and died at 26. Again, very sad but she ignored the warnings that were issued even back then in the pursuit of narcissistic satisfaction that we all indulge from time to time. I'm as guilty as anybody, I know the risks and I make my choices.

And that's the bottom line. Choices. I make choices and I know what the consequences are. Why then, should my choice be made for me? If people who develop conditions from risky behaviour and the treatment for those conditions is a strain on the public health system, why do we not have waivers included in memberships to solariums making an individual seriously consider the choice they're about to make?

And what's next? Will we have the cancer council suggesting the criminalisation of women having sex (yay...more man on man action) to decrease the risk of cervical cancer or avoiding exercise to decrease the risk of breast cancer? Telling men to avoid ageing so as to decrease the risk of developing breast cancer?

Such things may be a stretch of the imagination, but nothing would suprise me from successive governments whose agenda to extract more money from it's constituents is evidenced by it's contradictions of it's own public health "commitments". When you take into account the alleged bribery and corruption that surrounds the state governments contracts and "investigations" of companies like X-Strata who now face a class action lawsuit from residents of Mt Isa following the exposure of the companies disregard for public health and subsequently high levels of pollution.

The governments who presume to be able to make better choices for us are the same entities who know which companies are poisoning us and our children for the sake of the kickbacks that we have long suspected they are in receipt of. So no, we as the general public don't have the right to make choices. With each new day there is a new idea being formulated and presented to government that will take some rights away from somebody somewhere in the country.

Anarchy anyone?