Posts by Richard Llewellyn
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hmmm, can't seem to get my grava-thingy going.
-
"I discovered that Dida's in Jervois Rd stock the Canterbury Cheesemongers range" ...
Cheers - Dida's here we come.
-
Robin/Major - Thanks for letting me know more about palm oil than I ever needed or wanted to know. Luckily I'm an avocado oil man me'self (insert appropriate PR declaration of interest here, as my partner actually works for an avocado oil co). Superior oil.
But of much more interest, where exactly in Auckland can we get some of these wonderful sounding cheeses? (apologies if I missed any previous advice on the matter during this thread, I kind of got side-tracked by Robin's sterling efforts).
As for whiskey, have to admit I don't really understand it - my tastes run more to vodkas - but I thoroughly enjoyed the Iain Banks valentine to whiskey "Raw Spirit", a journey to the heart of the Scottish love affair with the single malt ....... excellent.
-
Paul said - "And yet I'm reliably told I won't get much of a say in the naming. How can I combat this? What have other parents done (the Short List of Acceptable Names? The introducing of pets Already Named?)? What works?"
Paul - an interesting topic. In my experience, the short-list of acceptable names is the best way to go - gives you the opportunity to combat "Princess", "Sunshine", and "Angel" with cooler names of your own like "Jet" and "Flash". Also helps if you can choose the pet gender first ("sorry honey, we can't call a boy 'Princess').
After the name calling, inevtiably comes the problem of dealing with pet death - my 5 year old daughter was quite excited to point out that one of the mantises in her bug-catcher was biting the other over the weekend, I didn't have the heart to point out that the mantis was actually consuming the other.
Oh, and make sure the two guinea-pigs are separate gender, or you'll soon have lots and lots of little fluffies ..... almost like Tribbles.
-
I've also got very fond memories of a series of London dance parties from the early 90's run by a mob called Pushca.
Those people really knew how to pull out all the stops when it came to organising a party ........
-
Marcus: - I suspect you know a little more about my 'trade' than I about yours (whatever that is) .... I speak from a personal view only.
Perhaps I am missing your point - or vice-versa - I don't disagree that one of Pharmacs problems is legitimacy (indeed, I argued on a separate thread some months ago that Pharmac have not been winning - or even engaging - in the battle for hearts and minds, much to the cost of their reputation).
And, indeed, I don't recall advocating 'technocratically rejigging its mix of drugs funded' either. My point was, increasing the participation in decision-making process sounds absolutely great in theory and in principle. I simply don't know if it - in a public agency sense - will deliver a better 'outcome' unless we learn from mistakes made in the past.
Which leads back to the original spot I leapt in at on this thread, as we have seen with the RMA, sometimes well intentioned changes made to due process, for the very reason of increasing consultation and inclusiveness, can over-time become counter-productive.
What can tend to happen in practice is that important decisions enter 'consultation-hell', or the consultation process is conducted for purely compliance/cosmetic/legitimacy reasons. In the end, neither of those outcomes resemble open democracy.
But if 'Citizens Juries' is such a mechanism that can provide a more inclusive as well as functioning process that delivers good outcomes - then heck, lets give 'em a try!.
-
Marcus - would forcing Pharmac to include the public in their decision-making process make them more effective?
Good question. Wish I knew the answer. Again I would be a little wary of adding layers of consultation and process without understanding if it would improve the 'outcome'.
But to take your point, if there is no unambiguous outcome to be had - then maybe the benefits of more inclusive and informed decision-making from a public agency would outweigh the costs.
Sounds reasonable. But if the reality means that funding decisions may take many more years and are subject to constant challenge from affected parties, are we better off?
-
Marcus - I probably didn't explain myself that well, but I would argue that a focus on due process is, in itself, a very fine thing, but worthless if the outcome is poor.
Agree that measuring the best possible outcome, say in the case of the trade-offs that Pharmac has to make, is hellishly difficult, but I personally believe any process should serve outcome, not the other way round.
Mind you, from a political/media perspective, flaws in process are easier to find, and are usually symptomatic of something else worth looking at! :)
-
The RMA is a pretty good analogy.
There are plenty of property developers focused on good outcomes who see the RMA as a well-intentioned but poorly executed piece of legislation (i.e. facilitating lowest common denominator development) and similarly I reckon that most pharma companies are OK with the current health funding mechanism (so long as they are recognised as the sole provider of a specific drug).
While Pharmac is essential for 'equitable' distribution of health budget, it does have some potentially serious downsides; it reduces the choice of drugs available, and it facilitates lowest cost decision-making in health. But I really don't know if there is a better alternative anywhere else.
Like the RMA, the Health funding mechanism should be all about execution, with the major driver being the outcome, not the process.
-
Craig
Well said - regardless of legality, these guys shouldn't be in their jobs just on the basis of professional ethics
Good Herceptin article - I find it interesting that Pharmac have to date been largely silent on the way in which their funding works, leaving themselves open to the emotional media 'hit' and PR lobby of big pharma.
Nice to see another side to the story