OUR HEALTH POLICY MUST FOCUS ON PEOPLE, NOT ONLY ON DISEASES

Health care is often seen simply as a cost to be minimized. This is totally wrong.

It is not health which is a cost, but rather sickness. 

Figures estimating the costs of some largely avoidable diseases in Europe speak for themselves. The annual financial burden of lung diseases is over one hundred billion euros a year; and cardiovascular disease cost even more.

If the costs of ill health are so high, improving the population´s health must become an economic priority. Many of the diseases that are killing Europeans, anxiety, depression, suicide, cardiovascular disease are linked to a life-style and can be prevented.

Health is never a cost, it is an investment.

Our current health services focus on curing specific conditions. Our future health services must focus on people, not only on diseases. We need need to invest in prevention. We need to adapt health services so that they serve older people, children, all those in need. We have to increase the rights of patients, let them make informed choices. We have to help those who cannot exercice their rights. We have to fight against inequalities of health services.

But we are not alone in this battle. The World Health Organisation and the European Union are also working in the same direction. Their policies can be summarised on these points:

1. Invaluable role of prevention

2. Best care and treatment of sickness and diseases

3. Fight against stigma and discrimination for sick people

4. Importance of improving professional knowledge and public information

I was sad today when I went to a meeting at the Háskola í Reykjavik to discuss health policy and heard nobody talking about the WHO and EU policies and programs on nutrition, sport, mental health and knowledge/information. Only the representative of Samfylkingin mentioned one European principle (bravo!). We are not alone, there are many other professionals working to make these changes happen. Don´t we deserve to hear about their work?

On the other hand, I was happy to confirm that, for most of us, health is far more than an "election" issue. We all want to adopt long-term policies for society, not make quick promises for electoral purposes. 

Working together is the key to improving the system. Working together makes us stronger. Icelandic policy of health is going in the right direction but we need to follow, learn, participate in the international and european forums, discussions, platforms and initiatives whenever it is possible. This is a battle we cannot afford to loose.

Early investment in health reduces subsequent costs for the economy as a whole. The future economic growth and sustainable development of Iceland depends on our investment in health.

Let´s focus on people. Lets invest in health. Let´s not forget.

Þrjár undirstöður laganna

Undirstaða allra lýðræðis- og réttarríka í Vestur Evrópu er lögin. Þau eru trygging fyrir því að stjórnvöld fari ekki með völdin að eigin geðþótta. Borgararnir mega ekki velkjast í vafa um hver lögin eru og verða að vera vissir um að þeir séu allir jafnir fyrir lögum. Ríkisvaldið er einnig bundið af löggjöfinni.Íslenska ríkið veitir ríkisborgararétt samkvæmt lögum þar um. Alþingi getur veitt ríkisborgararétt með lagasetningu. Hvað er þá að í síðasta hneykslinu í málum umhverfisráðherra? 

Frá lagalegum sjónarhóli 

Þótt svo virðist sem rétt hafi verið staðið að framkvæmdinni við veitingu ríkisborgararéttar til verðandi tengdadóttur umhverfisráðherra er svo að sjá að andi laganna og tilgangur þeirra hafi verið afbakaður. Ákvörðun Alþingis ætti að skoða í ljósi kenninga um lagasetningu (sbr. virta fræðimenn eins Hans Kelsen, Norberto Bobbio, Enrico Pattaro).

Til að lög geti kallast lög verður lagasetningin að hvíla á þremur grunnundirstöðum: 

1. Þau verða að vera gild og tekin upp í samræmi við lögformlegan framgangsmáta. 

2. Þau verða að vera réttlát, sanngjörn, siðleg og jafnvel mórölsk í krafti sjálfs sín. 

3. Þau verða að vera lögmæt, áreiðanleg og miða að niðurstöðu sem meirihluti fólksins sættist á. 

Þetta eru svonefndar þrjár undirstöður laganna í klassískri lögheimspeki. Mig uggir að ákvörðunin í þessu máli taki aðeins mið af fyrsta atriðinu.Þegar nefndarmenn eru spurðir svara þau því til að allur framgangsmáti hafi verið réttur svo ákvörðunin sé góð og gild. Hitt er aldrei nefnt að vafi leiki á um sanngirni og einnig lögmætið sjálft. 

Sannleikurinn er sá að tæknileg útfærsla við gildistöku laga er aðeins ein af undirstöðum laganna og getur ein af sjálfri sér ekki réttlætt lagalega ákvörðun.Gildið eitt sem einu rökin fyrir lýðræðislegri og lögformlegri skipan dugir ekki til. Innihaldið er einnig nauðsynlegt. 

Því miður sýnir saga Evrópu á 20. öldinni að þegar sanngirni og lögmæti skortir afbakast lögin í framkvæmd. Eftir að Nuremberg réttarhöldunum lauk var sæst á það í kenningalögfræði að undirstöðuréttindi manna og lögmætan ásetning þyrfti svo hægt væri að réttlæta lagalega skipan. Í Evrópu voru reistar skorður við gerræði og geðþóttaákvörðunum. 

Frá pólitískum sjónarhóli 

Ákvörðunin sem hér er til umfjöllunar hefur valdið ólgu í samfélaginu og skapað fordæmi sem aðrir geta vísað til í umsókn um ríkisborgararéttindi.Hvað gerðist ef fimm eða tíu þúsund manns sæktu um ríkisborgararétt á forsendum þessa máls? Af hverju skyldu þeir ekki gera það? Ekkert bannar það.Hvernig hyggst Alþingi bregðast við því? Á hvaða forsendum ætlar Alþingi að veita eða synja um íslenskan ríkisborgararétt?Ísland er bundið við reglur um að fólki skuli ekki mismunað. 

Frá 28. júní 1995 er í íslensku stjórnarskránni ákvæði sem tryggja á jafnræði þegnanna fyrir lögum og bannar mismunun á grundvelli kyns, trúar, skoðanna, þjóðar, kynþáttar, hörundslitar og skyldleika auk annarra atriða.Þessi regla er einnig staðfest í 11. grein laga nr. 37 frá 1993 um stjórnsýslu. Mannréttindasáttmáli Evrópuráðsins hefur einnig verið felldur inn í íslenska löggjöf með lögum nr. 62 frá 1994 og því má vísa í greinar hans frammi fyrir íslenskum dómstólum sem landslög væru. 

Hvað svo? 

Samantekt 

Rómverjar til forna sögðu: Sá sem beitir bókstaf laganna í trássi við anda þeirra spillir lögunum. Að mínu mati er ákvörðunin um að veita íslenskan ríkisborgararétt einstaklingi sem "sem hafði óþægindi af því að hafa ekki evrópskt vegabréf" og vera undir lög Evrópusambandsins um vegabréfsáritanir og innflytjendur settur við nám erlendis ósiðleg og vissulega ólögmæt. Ekki lágu mannúðarástæður að baki, ekki komu börn við sögu, engin var knýjandi nauðsynin bara einkahagsmunir. Enginn hefur fram að þessu komið með réttmæta réttlætingu á málinu. Við skeytum ekki um hvað þessi einstaklingur hyggst gera fyrir land og þjóð eða hvert framlag hans verður til samfélagsins. 

Lögin þurfa ekki aðeins að vera gild heldur einnig siðleg og lögmæt. Annars verða þau handbendi gerræðislegra valdaákvarðanna. Hefur íslenskum lögum verið umsnúið og tilgangur þeirra afbakaður í þessu máli? Já eða nei? Ef svarið við því er nei hefur þá Alþingi skapað nýtt fordæmi fyrir alla útlendinga til að sækja um íslenskan ríkisborgararétt eftir fimmtán mánaða dvöl í landinu?

Þetta eru spurningarnar sem vakna. 

THE THREE PILLARS OF THE LAW

The rule of law is the principle basic in all democracies and “Reechtstaat” in Western Europe. It is a safeguard against arbitrary governance. Citizens must have the legal certainty what the law is and that they are all equal before the law. Government is no less bound by the rule of law. 

Iceland has the right to give citizenship according to the rules set by the Icelandic Nationality Act. The Althing may grant citizenship by statute. What is then wrong with the last scandal affecting the Minister of Environment?

From a legal point of view 

Although the proper procedure seems to have been respected, all the other circumstances that surround the citizenship given to the eventual daughter-in-law of the Minister suggest, from a legal theory point of view, that the spirit of the law might have been distorted and its purpose deviated.

The decision of the Althing should be examined according to the  fundamentals of the legal theory (See. classic authors such as Hans Kelsen, Norberto Bobbio, or Enrico Pattaro). In order to become proper laws, all legislative decisions must respect three fundamental pillars:  

1.      They have to be valid, be adopted with due respect of the legal procedures

2.      They have to be just, fair, ethical or even moral by virtue

3.      They have to be legitimate, trustworthy, aim for a result that a majority of the population agrees on.

 

This is called the three pillars of the law in classic legal philosophy. I worry that the decision in this case might respect only the first one. When questioned, the people involved insist that the procedures have been respected so that the decision adopted by statute 1) is valid. What is never mentioned is that 2) it is certainly not fair and 3) it is doubtfully legitimate.

 

The truth is that validity, technical respect of the adoption rules, is only one pillar of the law and cannot justify alone a legislative decision. Validity as a sole argument of any legal democratic order is never enough. Substance is also essential.

 

Unfortunately, European history during XX century has shown that when fairness and legitimacy are missing, the legislative order can be perverted. After the Nuremberg trials, legal theory agreed that natural rights and legitimate purpose were also needed to justify a legal regime. A further safeguard was introduced in Europe.

 

 From a political point of view 

 

This decision has created social conmotion and constitutes a precedent that can be put forward by other people asking for the nationality rights. What if 5000, 10000 applicants ask for the Icelandic nationality on the basis of this case? Why not? Nothing forbids them. What is the Althing then going to do? On what grounds will they grant or deny the nationality to the new applicants? Iceland is bound by the principle of non-discrimination.

 

Since 28 June 1995, the Icelandic Constitution contains a provision which establishes the general principle of equality before the Law, and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, opinion, national origin, race, colour, kinship and other bases. This principle is also established in Article 11 of Act 37/1993 on administrative procedure. The European Convention on Human Rights has also been incorporated into Icelandic law, by Act No. 62/1994 and thus its provisions can be directly invoked in court as domestic legislation.

 

What then?

 

 Conclusion 

 

Romans used to say that “the one who uses the letter of the law to go against its spirit is corrupting the law”. In my opinion, to give the Icelandic nationality to a person for whom “it is inconvenient not to have a European passport” and be bound by the EU rules on immigration and visas when going to study abroad is immoral and surely illegitimate. There were no humanitarian reasons, no children involved, no urgency at all, just a private interest. Nobody has so far given any proper justification on the substance of the case. We ignore what is this person going to do for Iceland, what will be her contribution to our society.

 

Laws must be not only valid, but also ethical and legitimate. Otherwise they can become arbitrary decisions of power. Has the spirit of the Icelandic Nationality Law been distorted and its purpose deviated in this case? Yes or no? If the answer is no, has then the Althing created a new right for all foreigners to ask the nationality after 15 months of residence?

 

These are the questions we have to ask.

Laws vs. arbitrary decisions of power. Fundamentals

The decision of the Althing to grant the Icelandic nationality to a Guatemala girl after only 15 months of residence in this country should be examined according to the  fundamentals of the legal theory. All legislative decisions must respect three fundamental pillars:

1.    They have to be valid, be adopted with due respect of the legal procedures
2.    They have to be just, fair, ethical or even moral by virtue
3.    They have to be legitimate, trustworthy, aim for a result that a majority of the population agrees on.

This is called the three pillars of the law in classic legal philosophy. I worry that the decision in this case might respect only the first one. When questioned, the authorities insist that the procedures have been respected so that the decision 1) is valid. What is never mentioned is that 2) it is certainly not fair and 3) it is doubtfully legitimate. The last two affect the substance of the decision, not its formal aspects.

This decision constitutes furthermore a precedent that can be put forward by other people asking for the nationality rights. What if 5000, 10000 applicants ask for the Icelandic nationality on the basis of this case? Why not? Nothing forbids them. What is the Althing then going to do? On what grounds will they grant or deny the nationality to the new applicants? Iceland is bound by the principle of non-discrimination

One of the two. Or this decision is unaceptable on the grounds of its substance or the Althing Commitee has created a new right for all immigrants, Europeans or not, the right to ask the nationality after 15 months of residence. We have the right to know. 

SEE MY ARTICLE ABOVE: THE THREE PILLARS OF THE LAW

Kastljós svarar Jónínu

Miracles still occur! Look at Bilbao Guggenheim Museum

 

THE BILBAO GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM is cause for collective pride. If one lesson can be learned from Bilbao experience in recent years, it is this:

Societies and nations must aim for excellence, dream and aim for the best, not conform to whatever just seems possible.

When a culture, a region or a nation let itself settle for anything less than great, there's no telling how low it will sink. Nor is it easy to recognize the moment when the rot sets in.

Architecture, no less than politics, is the art of the possible.

Skrár tengdar þessari bloggfærslu:

• Photo - Guggenheim Museum. Bilbao

Happy to hear that Icelandic institutions are reacting to the problem of sick workers in Kárahnjúkar!

I was very happy to hear that Landlæknir Matthías Halldórsson has taken a firm role in the issue and will travel to the East to inspect personally the premises where the workers are sent to work.

I trust Matthías very much. He is a very good and committed professional. We worked together for a while in Luxembourg, for the European Commission, at the Public Health Directorate. Just for fun, some people referred to him as Mr. Drugs while I was Ms. Tobacco. Hopefully he will take the necessary measures to stop the abuse of the workers health rights.

I was also happy to see other institutions such as Alþjóðahúsið who have taken a firm stand to seriously defend the rights of the foreign workers. Even the media has been covering this event with proper attention.

It is good to see that some institutions and people in Iceland are taking this problem seriously.

 

Bravo Björk! Við viljum ekki meira álver. Við viljum nýja framtið

Björk hefur skilið allt! Frábært hjá henni!

Congratulations Björk! Thank you for giving us hope!

Björk segir í við tal birt í The Guardian í dag að Ísland sé að breytast. „Nú hafa þeir byggt stærstu stíflu heims á Íslandi og stærsta álverið og á næstu fimm árum ætla þeir að byggja fimm í viðbót. Eftir 5-10 ár verður Ísland, sem áður var stærsta ósnortna víðerni í Evrópu, eins og Frankfurt."

According to Björk "Now they've made the biggest dam in the world and the biggest aluminium factory, and in the next five years, they're going to build five more. So Iceland, that used to be the biggest untouched area in Europe, in the space of five or 10 years is going to be like Frankfurt." It infuriates her. "It seems to me if Iceland wants to make tons of money and wants to work universally, the last thing it should do is destroy its nature. You don't need a genius to work that one out. And yet the first thing they do when they get money and independence is say 'Let's destroy our country!'"

We do not want this future of aluminium smelters all around Iceland! Let´s invest in education, technology, art!

Why do not fight for the best University of Europe, a kind of European Harvard or MIT?

Why do not invest in research and development? computer technology?

Why do not build a kind of marvellous state -of-the-art Museum like it was done in Bilbao? 10 years after its completion 1 million tourist are flying to the city every year....´

 Islandshreyfingin wants this kind of future for Iceland. See the webpage

www.islandshreyfingin.is

 

Björk gremst stóriðjuframkvæmdir á Íslandi

May Day! Red alert! Workers sick and abused in Iceland -Kárahnjúkar

I can hardly believe what I reading! Foreign workers' most elementary rights are violated day after day with the passivity of the Government and Administration. Good that the media is talking about this issue now. Is Kárahnjúkar worth it after all? Is Impregilo ignoring the invaluable prize of human life? Where there is such a silence within the society? Is this a "tabou" nobody wants to talk about?

One of the most elementary human right is the right to be healthy. Human life should not be jeopardized and endangered in this way.  Nobody has the right to send workers to a sure sickness. Icelandic laws and authorities should intervene, not ignore it. Iceland is a member of the Council of Europe and has signed the European Convention of Human Rights.

Lets´respond to the red alert launched by Doctor Þorsteinn Njálsson. Otherwise we become all complices of the most immoral behaviour, the "slavery" of other human beings. Please, let's launch the May Day Alert!

Íslandshreyfingin wants to stop this kind of abuse of foreign workers. See our webpage

www.islandshreyfingin.is

Alerta Roja!!!!!! May Day!!!! Abuso inmoral de los trabajadores extranjeros en Kárahnjúkar - Islandia

Los derechos más fundamentales de los trabajadores violados por la empresa Impregilo con el silencio cómplice de las autoridades y la pasividad de la población????? Por favor, que alguien me diga que no esto no es una pesadilla. Nadie puede ser enviado a la enfermedad cada día que va a trabajar. 180 hombre enfermos no es casualidad. Islandia es parte del Consejo de Europa y ha firmado el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos.

Respondamos todos a la alarma lanzada por el Doctor Þorsteinn Njálsson. En otro caso seremos cómplices del abuso.

Íslandshreyfingin quiere acabar con este tipo de abusos de los trabajadores extranjeros. Más información en la página

www.islandshreyfingin.is

 

News published by mbl.is today:

Of seint gripið til aðgerða í göngum við Kárahnjúka

Eftir Steinunni Ásmundsdóttur [e-mail]

Þorsteinn Njálsson, yfirlæknir við Kárahnjúka, afhenti í gær Vinnueftirlitinu lista með nöfnum yfir 180 starfsmanna Impregilo sem unnið hafa í aðrennslisgöngum virkjunarinnar sl. tvær vikur og veikst af völdum loftmengunar og/eða af matareitrun vegna aðstöðuleysis og laks umbúnaðar matvæla í göngunum.

Fjórtán km kafla ganganna milli aðganga 2 og 3 á Fljótsdalsheiði var lokað af Vinnueftirlitinu um hádegi í fyrradag og verður ekki opnaður aftur fyrr en sérfræðingar eftirlitsins hafa staðfest fullnægjandi umbætur.

Úttekt á ástandinu verður gerð í dag, en í gær var af hálfu Impregilo byrjað að koma fyrir öflugum blásurum og öðrum viðbótarbúnaði til að loftræsta göngin betur.

"Í dag er 21. öldin og við getum ekki sætt okkur við að farið sé svona með menn á Íslandi," sagði Þorsteinn við Morgunblaðið í gærkvöldi. Hann undrast að Impregilo skuli draga listann með nöfnum þeirra sem veiktust í efa og þykir hart að menn bregðist við með því að fara í vörn og gera lítið úr þeim alvarlegu aðstæðum sem uppi hafa verið. Tveir menn hafi verið hætt komnir og þrír þurft að leggjast á sjúkrahús vegna eitrunareinkenna. Flestir mannanna séu nú búnir að jafna sig, en nokkrir hafi þó enn lungnaeinkenni.

"Impregilo og framkvæmdaeftirlitið hafa vitað af þessu í tvær vikur og því var þá ekki hægt á verkinu miklu fyrr, rétt á meðan þessu var kippt í lag svo menn þyrftu ekki að vinna við þessar nöturlegu og hættulegu aðstæður?" spyr Þorsteinn.

Oddur Friðriksson, yfirtrúnaðarmaður við Kárahnjúkavirkjun gagnrýnir harðlega viðbrögð Vinnueftirlits ríkisins þar sem menn þykist koma af fjöllum varðandi ástandið í göngunum. Stofnunin hafi auðveldlega getað fylgst með málum. "Grípa hefði átt inn í fyrr en nú er verið að vinna vel í að leysa úr málum."

 

 

Of seint gripið til aðgerða í göngum við Kárahnjúka

Áfram Íslandshreyfingin!

Íslandshreyfingin mælist með 4,2% atkvæða í í Reykjavíkurkjördæmi suður í skoðanakönnun sem Stöð 2 birti í kvöld.

The Icelandic Movement got 4,2% of the vote intentions in the district of South Reykjavík according to the polls that were broadcasted today by the channel Stöð 2.

El Movimiento Islandés obtuvo el 4,2% de las intenciones de voto en el distrito Reykjavík sur según la encuesta que la cadena Stöð 2 publicó esta noche.

More information about Íslandshreyfingin-lifandi land at this website.

Más información sobre el nuevo partido político Movimiento Islandés- Tierra Viva en esta página web

www.islandshreyfingin.is

VG bætir við sig í Reykjavík suður samkvæmt könnun

The European dream: the only possible answer to the challenges of the 21st century

Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman are regarded as the main architects of European unity. Monnet dreamed of a European federation. His first speech dates from 1943:

"There will be no peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty... The countries of Europe are too small to guarantee their peoples the necessary prosperity and social development. The European states must constitute themselves into a federation..."

The federation that Jean Monnet wanted was different than the classical cooperation between states assured by international alliances and eventually international law. He dreamt of "building a Union among people", knowing that “nothing is possible without men and, at the same time, nothing is lasting without institutions”. As a visionary he was convinced that “there was no future for the people of Europe other than in union”. Monnet dreamed of a union for the people.

Inspired by him, Robert Schuman, made some years later a historic declaration on May 9, 1950. The declaration's goal was to build a lasting peace in Europe. It led to the creation of the European Communities in 1951 and 1957 and later to the the European Union, which aims 'to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe'.  Schuman realised the union of the Europeans would not come easily. As Schuman said:

"Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity."

Monnet and Schuman had a dream of a united Europe and their vision became true. May 9 has been declared by the European Union the “Europe Day”. Now, 50 years later, what comes next? What will happen with the European dream? Will Icelanders decide freely to join in that dream?

It is impossible to think about the future of Iceland without knowing how the European Union will evolve in the next years. It is fact Europe, or the process of dynamic integration of now 27 countries, that will affect our future and our policies, far more than any other factor that we may think of.  Lets not forget that at least 25% of our legislation is coming now from the European Union through the European Economic Area Agreement. Whatever it may happen, Icelanders should have at least the right to be fully informed about the European integration.

The European Union is an extraordinary supranational structure without any other parallel in history. It is the first transnational political space of the world. For the first time being a collective group of people dares to think outside the box, beyond the nation, outside the traditional boundaries of the inherited state structures. But the European integration is never an easy project.

Europe is now at a crossroad. It is facing very important challenges that will even decide its future survival. The challenges come from a new 21st century. Whether we like or not, Europe must find its voice within the new geopolitical order, must fight for the preservation of the environment and our planet Earth, must react to adapt to the globalisation of the economy, must have a plan to adapt to the decline of its population, must have an integration policy for the new Europeans, must solve the problems derived from world inequality which cause massive immmigrations ways from Africa, South America and Asia, must find a balance between economic growth and its welfare state. And above all, Europe must become a role model in the world scenario so that its example of peace and supranational cooperation can inspire other regions….

I am not a “naïf” person. I foresee the problems, the obstacles, the prejudices, the fights, the hipocresies, the compromises to be made. I hear the voices that criticise even the European dream. But what I know for sure is that if this Europe does not work, if the European Union is unable to fight for its own project face to the new world challenges, if Europe stays simply as it is, we will loose all of us.

The European dream started as a new supranational experiment. 50 years down the road, the European dream has now given way to a European way of life. Despite our differences (we live after all in the region with the most diverse cultures of the world), there is a European common vision.

To pursue the European dream may not be now the favourite project of our political elites but the pressure is coming from below, from the real people who want to change their world and make this dream come true. Unlikely as it might have seemed, true “Europeans” have emerged, among generations of children, now adults, who have been educated to see the world through a non-nationalistic lens. Icelanders themselves seem to have been affected somehow by the European “virus” as the latest polls suggest.

The process of European unification is now irreversible. The European Union must continue its mission, step by step, through any formulas it might find suitable, with or without the tensions and debates it always provoques. It is the most remarquable goal of human mankind to preserve the wealth and the pacific cohabitation of more than 500 million of inhabitants of different languages, origin, beliefs, cultures and traditions. Lets go on dreaming. Lets ask our politicians to fight for Europe, for the only possible answer to the challenges of the 21st century.

 

See Conclusions and Recomendations of the Committee on Europe - Iceland - March 2007 at this website

 

http://forsaetisraduneyti.is/utgefid-efni/nr/2558