Reply With QuoteIs there any point being just kept alive and safe by the state? It's easy to see how peoole in such a situation, kept like zoo animals, turn to drugs.
I think things are getting very interesting around the concepts of want versus need and are likely to get more interesting still.
There are two competing pressures in Social Care, the pressure to provide choice, placing the service user and their wishes at the centre of planning versus the pressure to budget and share access to help fairly and objectively. I think the same is happening in health, but I don't work in health so I'll stick to social care for ease.
We had a days training yesterday on the FACS (Fair Access to Care Services) system and in a room full of people who all use the system daily almost no consensus was reached re levels of need (quantified in FACS as the level of risk if no service is offered). The biggest issue that blocked agreement was the discrimination between want and need. We're given a heads up on need by applying 7 outcomes, which in effect we are told in advance count as need. For interest here are the 7 outcomes:
Interesting children have 5 outcomes, lopping off (understandably to a point) Choice and control but also Freedom from harassment and dignity and respect which scares the bjazus out of me. They have one over adults which is to enjoy and achieve although in adults the same sub headings are used in Improving quality of life so it's there, just different!
- Improved health & emotional well-being
- Improved quality of life
- Exercise of choice and control
- Making a positive contribution
- Freedom from discrimination or harassment
- Economic well being
- Personal dignity & respect
Those 7 outcomes represent our democracy's assessment of what functionally counts as need over want when in comes to who gets a piece of the help pie! It's not the complete picture because it's weighed against the level of risk from critical to low and in those definitions there some important points and groupings, not least of which is that a threat to life trumps all over risk BUT after that top one is taken care of the others are supposedly equal.
Sorry if you've fallen asleep....
So - what would you define as need? Bearing in mind it's not just about the individual, it's about the society we want and some very real knock on effects.
As an add on, just a bit of a curiosity, I had a friend who's language didn't define between want and need at all - one word for both! After learning some English he would use want or need completely interchangably which had an interesting effect on english speaking listeners. As he'd asked me to tell him if he made language mistakes the above was top of the list - it led to hours of discussion with almost no headway as he firmly believed it was impossible to accurately use one or the other therefore it was pointless to try! He continued to say 'I want to go this way' when going 'that' way was actually impossible or would risk life and limb and say I need when asking if he could be given a cigarette - obviously through chance half the time it was the right way round but the other half caused such bloody problems!
Is there any point being just kept alive and safe by the state? It's easy to see how peoole in such a situation, kept like zoo animals, turn to drugs.
Eh?
You've lost me Mulder - who's kept like a zoo animal? Or are you saying there should be zero state input?
We all pay in taxes for the services delivered on the basis of need, surely it's worth a cursory thought about what constitutes need?
Wants and needs: if you supply someone's needs then they will stay alive and be safe. But if they are unable to get any iof their 'wants' then they will be like zoo animals - alive but hardly living.
If the state keeps people alive but no more, it shouldn't be surprised when they devise their own 'entertainment'. I'm not saying the state SHOULD do any more than supply needs but, if it neglects people's wants, it must accept the consequences.
One has to I think differentiate between physical needs (food, warmth, shelter) and emotional/mental well being needs. The latter makes it difficult, since these needs vary between individuals and allow some to criticize your choices - e.g. Daily Mail
The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. Voltaire
Ok - humour me, try the most basic needs to maintain life as an outcome. It's not as easy as it first seems. (I'm guessing the list above was just an example rather than a complete list).
Needs depend on outcomes and there's 7 up there which extend well beyond maintenance of life. We all pay for them, I assess them for a living so it's only natural to want to see how the concept is wrangled by folk using objectivity and critical thought.
Wow, I couldn't do a job like that! Respect!Originally Posted by Floppit
So would it be fair to say that you're basing need as what maintains life and want as what maintains pleasure? Even at that level I think it gets more interesting than it first appears.Wants and needs: if you supply someone's needs then they will stay alive and be safe. But if they are unable to get any iof their 'wants' then they will be like zoo animals - alive but hardly living.
I love my job, it hurts my brain sometimes, it makes me think daily but I meet the most amazing people and tax payers allow me to nearly always do something helpful. I meet people over a 100yrs old sometimes, that in itself is a huge honour. I'm genuinely grateful for the amount people put into the social pot.
Yes indeed. I know some people regard TVs as 'essential' these days but I have several friends who are happy enough without them. Even a TV, and similar luxuries, aren't really enough for people these days.
The problem is, everyone compares their lives with those around them. I've found that a sure route to misery so I don't bother with it any more. Persuading others to be as philosophical is not easy.
Your job would definitely hurt my brain. I have problems with excessive 'structure'.
I agree with the observations but even when you can pick where to stick the bar between want and need it still gets messy (sometimes literally!). We use the words want and need in language with great confidence and yet there's little to say what counts as which and why. I doubt you'll get what I mean until someone has a stab at essential needs.
Why don't you make a list and we'll vote on which is need and want?
If someone would do that then I might feel able to make a meaningful contribution to the thread.
Although I do also recognise the blur between them. After all, we have instincts, behavioural patterns, etc. Some people like to collect things, go shopping, listen to music or whatever. To eliminate all of these things would make life worthless, so there must be a need to have at least one want. Erm...
'Croydon' Bob Newman. The ladies call him "Thrush" - as he's an irritating cunt.
Well here's someoen's list of Fundamental-Human-NeedsTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_human_needs
Subsistence
Protection
Affection
Understanding
Participation
Leisure
Creation
Identity
Freedom
In that order I'd say Need, Need, Want, Want, Want, Want, Want, Want, Need
need all the rest are want
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks