Humanities desk
< September 7	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 8

Age of enlistment -- US history

Where can I find a history of the age of enlistment for the US armed forces? Enlistment age by country gives the current age of "18 ... 17 with parental consent" but I wonder how this has changed during the 20^th century and if waivers have ever been officially granted for younger enlistments. I have read articles of enlistees who lied about their age in order to join the military from the civil war to WWII, but I am interested in official policy, including the issuance of waivers. -- 58.147.53.113 (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it changed. As recently as 1904 you could join the U.S. Navy as a "apprentice boy" at age 14.[1] And the age for the draft differed from the age of voluntary enlistment at least at some times. Draft ages were: eighteen to forty-five for the Spanish-American War, twenty-one and thirty for WWI, eighteen to thirty-five for WWII, eighteen-and-a-half and thirty-five for Korean War, eighteen and twenty-six in Vietnam and currently if ever reinstituted. [2] Rmhermen (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- that's a start. I recall reading an article about someone who received a waiver to enlist in the US military at age 16 sometime during the 1970s or 1980s, but I can't find it again. Most of the the search results I find are about age waivers for those above the maximum age. -- (OP)124.157.218.142 (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During the American Civil War, there were several drummer boys who were quite young. John Clem was eleven. I can't find anything on the legalities. Surprisingly, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on drummer boys. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This says the legal age was 18, but doesn't give proof. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best I've found so far is Tom Walsh (politician). Born October 31, 1942, he "enlisted at the age of sixteen in the United States Army as a private." The date is unspecified, but would be sometime in 1958-1959. There is no mention of a waiver, but no mention of him misrepresenting his age either. -- ToE^T 00:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

human mentality after a worst incident

a girl was almost attempted to rape, she was made totally naked by man who thaught her,and proffessionally he was teacher, he just took the advantage of her innocent thinking.., til now he blackmails her and she has become mentally very weak afetr this incidence.., till now she is suffering. can you please suggest how can she regain her strong mentality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raviraj.achari (talk • contribs) 09:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See a psychologist. The police would probably refer her to one, if she talks to them about it - if not, any doctor should be able to refer her confidentially. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you will let us know the name of the country where she lives, we might be able to provide links to local rape crisis centres and similar women's organizations that help women who have been sexually harassed. 70.31.56.23 (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should report it to the police. Fucker needs to go to jail for life. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that Wikipedia doesn't have any mechanism to deliver reliable medical advice - you're just talking to a crowd of anonymous people, probably none of us trained in medical treatment, on a site that disclaims all responsibility if people give you horrendously wrong information. There are even some people at the science desk who make a habit of removing questions like this, out of fears of lawsuits and such, which I think is an unreasonable response - but if it happens, please accept my apologies. Meanwhile, I hope that somewhere among articles like rape trauma syndrome, Stockholm syndrome, and PTSD you might find some inspiration to further action. Note that research is going on actively, and some new treatments like beta blockers differ from the traditional image of psychiatric medication; so don't assume that professionals won't be helpful without giving them a chance. Wnt (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The girl needs to to to someone. It's very important for her to do so. If she has a good relationship with her parents, she should talk to them. A doctor or psychologist is also a very good person to talk to, and she should be able to talk to them in confidence, without fear or embarrassment. Eventually, she may want to talk to the police, because when this man did was illegal, and the blackmailing must stop. But if the girl can't face talking to the police yet, she should talk with her parents, a doctor, or a psychologist first. Many countries also have crisis hotlines to call where they can listen to you and give you help for finding a doctor or a psychologist. Search on Google for "rape crisis hotline" and your country. — 63.138.152.135 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not forget yourself. If you are the one person who knows this and perhaps the one who has been approached by the victim, then you are the best person to Counsel and Console at the beginning. The next step is to Secure a safe environment (place). Then seek professional help. (I work with/for the sick of mind).MacOfJesus (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot tell us which country you are from, have a look at this page here. It contains a list of organisations that fight violence against women, from Afghanistan to Australia. You and the young woman in question are best placed to know whether it would be a good idea to approach her parents: in many countries, that could be dangerous, as this series of articles reminds those of us in more fortunate countries. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20 years to life

My understanding is that a sentence of "20 years to life" means that the prisoner has been sentenced to life imprisonment but that they become eligible to apply for parole after 20 years. They would then be released if they have shown good behaviour and are deemed unlikely to reoffend. (a) is this right? (b) should wp have an article on this - if so called what - and are there any good references which define this? I've only found a discussion: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=656624 . -- SGBailey (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The table in Life imprisonment makes it clear that for life imprisonment there are minimum years before eligibility for parole (which is what the 20 years means). As for being granted parole, it's a complicated thing. Good behavior and likeliness to not reoffend play big roles, but so do requests of the victims and their families, how high profile the case is, things like that. And of course you know that parole is not quite the same thing as being "released" out and out — there are all sorts of requirements they have to fulfill or else they can be re-incarcerated. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from the point of view of justice, why should the wishes of the victims or the visibility of the case make any impact at all? Googlemeister (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the decision is clearly subjective, and in some cases, political. And anyway, at no point is the justice system actually very good at meting out perfect justice. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it can not be perfect, but it should at least make the attempt. Googlemeister (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soapboxing collapsed

There's no "point of view of justice" regarding imprisonment. It is a cultural rite, which does as much to spread crime (through prison gangs) as it does to deter it. Countries like the U.S. imprison ten times more than others, with no discernable decrease in crime rate. Perfect justice, as the Christians have advocated, is to forgive, but that is a hard path; yet there is no perfect safety, even if you resort to on the spot execution, because who would guard you from the guardians? Wnt (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection and care of the community

The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, section 6 (4), prescribes: "Every mother shall be entitled to the protection and care of the community." ("Jede Mutter hat Anspruch auf den Schutz und die Fürsorge der Gemeinschaft.")

What does the "community" refer to? A conjugal community (cohabiting with her husband) or a maternal community (living with her child) or else?

Does the section mean that the mother must be protected from domestic violence and must receive proper care from the family?

—— Clumsily • Talk | 2010.09.08, 17:34 (ICT)

Most of the contents of the articles 1 to 19 of the Basic Law doesn't apply directly to private citizens. It is more of an outline about what the legislature has to consider when making laws, and of course it sets limits about what can be legislated.

Now, the "communtiy" in the paragraph you mentioned refers to society in general and to the government. The paragraph is the base for laws about protection of pregnant women and women with (small) children. No mother can, for example, sue her relatives for violating the paragraph; but if the government would abolish maternity leave, she could complain before the Constitutional Court because this would be in violation of this paragraph. (I'm no lawyer or constitutional expert.) -- Bgfx (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

classical sheetmusic

Where can I find free classical sheet music for piano or organ? Preferably mid 18th C composers. Googlemeister (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, google is usually the first step. I see from searching for "free classical sheet music for piano or organ" there's a host of sites offering what you what. Perhaps you should try living up to your username. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am boycotting google. Googlemeister (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And so you want other people to do the Googling for you? Bing Cuil. 63.138.152.135 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See our articles. There are lots of links like this one. Oda Mari (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like 8notes.com. Ka renjc 16:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://free-scores.com is all right, but I also love what my conductor calls "Wikipedia for music": http://imslp.org/wiki . sonia♫ 23:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The that last one is great! Thanks. Googlemeister (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When is someone considered to be "running for office" in the US, legally?

Hi all,

I have a bet going about whether someone will run for a state or federal office, and I want to know the best way to determine when they are running.

I know that, for instance, the the FEC requires candidates to file reports disclosing the money they raise from donations and PACs and stuff. Who exactly is required to file reports? If Joe Schmo says to his neighbors "I'm running for alderman" or "I'm running for president," if he at that point "running" and therefore subject to election law? Or is there some paper work that you file before you are considered to be running for office?

Thanks! — Sam 63.138.152.135 (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are rules for getting on the ballot or if you want to do fund raising, or are spending a lot on ads but you can certainly do a small write in campaign without registering. Googlemeister (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that doesn't answer my question about what the rules are. — Sam 63.138.152.135 (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is obvious that no paperwork needs to be done for a small write in campaign. If you want specifics, it would be helpful to know what state (and perhaps specific location if running for alderman) the election is in. Also, different rules apply for if the person is running as a major party, or as an independent. Googlemeister (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't really see the point in answers that don't actually further the knowledge of the person asking the question in any way. Yes it is obvious that "there are rules for getting on the ballot," and that probably no one cares if my write-in campaign is just targeted at my wife, so probably that's not what I'm asking. I wasn't hoping for generalities about there "being laws," I was hoping to know when, legally, someone is considered to be "running for office." For simplicity, we can just say at the federal level. Thanks! — Sam 63.138.152.135 (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Election law varies from state to state, and nomination of candidates for federal offices generally is determined by state law. In general, the proper paperwork must be filed with a state or local office, such as the Secretary of State or the County Clerk. If you call your local County Clerk, they should be able to tell you the deadline, or tell you what office to call if theirs is not the correct one. Then you can simply call again the day after the deadline and find out if your person ran. John M Baker (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be in Massachusetts. Here is a "how to run for office" brochure for statewide elections in that state. It's dated 2006 but appears to be the most current version of the brochure. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP needs to be aware that there is no one broad answer to the question, other than to say, "He/she is running for office when he/she declares that he/she is running for office." The U.S. Constitution leaves it up to the states to determine their election rules. The Feds intervene on certain matters such as states trying to disenfranchise minorities and the like, and they specify the date for the federal elections in November of even years, and some other details. But generally it's state-by-state for all elections, and there is no one specific answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we want to get into providing the rules for every state, but this document provides the rules for Pennsylvania. As has been stated, election requirements are set by the states, not the federal government. — Michael J 22:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear OP: you seem to be somewhat aware that the definition of "running for office" isn't fixed, so you might exercise patience with replies that don't seem to address what you were thinking of, rather than what you actually asked. "Running for office" is not a legal term, and so as others have pointed out, there isn't an agreed-upon way to say whether someone's running. Take the case of the street people who are ostensibly candidates for the Green Party in Arizona. The linked report makes clear that some people don't see them as legitimate candidates, while others do. So when did these people start running (if they're running at all)--when they downloaded the write-in requirements from the Arizona secretary of state? When they filed the affadavit of qualification? Further, if my candidacy is a gesture or a ploy, am I in fact running? The desire for a clear answer doesn't mean there is a clear answer. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In California, in order to be a write in candidate, you must register. If you don't, votes for you won't get counted. I don't know if the campaign rules are different for official vs. write in candidacies. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so in Pennsylvania. All write-in votes count. However, should a write-in candidate actually win (it does happen in some local elections), he or she must then file the necessary paperwork that they would have had to before the election, or they will not be eligible to assume office. — Michael J 13:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angels in the Bible

Where's a list of all named angels in the Bible? --70.129.190.74 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archangel Michael, Gabriel, Satan. That's all. (Possibly also Lucifer and Belial according to some interpreters) Rmhermen (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satan is, in fact, Lucifer. Just another name. → ROUX ₪ 14:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Tobit, in The Bible: Ch. 12 v. 15: "I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand ever ready to enter the presence of the glory of the Lord". (Only three are named in the Bible: Gabriel, Michael, Raphael). These are Archangels. {Ref: JB }. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Tobit is not universally acknowledged as being part of the Biblical canon, either by Jews or Christians. 71.228.185.250 (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are really interested in the subject, the book Dictionary of Angels is a a good source. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Abaddon (Exterminans), the fifth angel. Wnt (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do note; not everyone accepts the existence of angels, Christian and Jew. [See, for example: The many references to Angels in the Bible] - [Particularly see: Acts 23 v. 6-11, where the difference of belief in angels is expressed] - MacOfJesus (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that not everyone does, though all four gospels mention them, and in each gospel Jesus refers to angels (e.g., Matthew 26:53, Mark 13:27, Luke 15:10, John 1:51). Could have been metaphorical, as with the references to resting in Abraham's bosom. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is very hard to explain-away the angel sent to stay Abraham's hand before he slayed his son. In fact you have an up-hill journey if you are trying to establish a dis-belief in angels. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems surprising to me that modern society is so willing to accept the existence of recently proposed incorporeal entities (memes, blood libels, derivative works, corporations, morale) yet so unwilling to allow any place or meaning for more traditional expressions regarding angels, spirits, and demons. Wnt (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I remember reading some theory (ages ago - can't remember where I saw it) which held that outré objects and experiences exist in all times and cultures, they are merely interpreted in terms of each culture's most prominent paradigm. thus, angels and demons get translated into UFOs and memes, tribes united by a common god become nations united by common heritage become states united by common sociopolitical ideologies. people need something to explain things they can't expalin - that's the only universal. --Ludwigs2 16:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This woman had a bit of ex-palining to do, but it didn't do her any good in the end. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is well known, that in the popular music, a song about angels gets an immediate spring-board to the top ten. But I am not going to be as upset as the people in Acts 23 v 6-11, who were prepared to riot over it! MacOfJesus (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Jewish “Prayer before going to sleep at night” the names of angels are mentioned, “… may Michael be at my right hand, Gabriel at my left, before me Uriel and behind me Rafael and above my head the Divine presence.” The source for this is the Zohar parashat Bamidbar, “Michael mimina”. The angels Michael and Gabriel are also mentioned in the liturgical poetry recited at the afternoon service on Yom Kippur, “Michael on the right hand utters praise and on the left Gabriel declares …” Simonschaim (talk)

Since the question was, "Where's a list' of all named angels in the Bible?," whether or not anyone believes in the accuracy of the Bible, or what their religious beliefs might (not) happen to be is entirely irrelevant. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did that; listing where and names, from the Bible. (The first to reply. You will find my entry with references, too) - MacOfJesus (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask instead what you can do for your country.

So I have a bit extra money and want to pay some of it back to my country (UK) in return for all that they have given me during my life. If I send it to the Government it will get lost in the system and I don't believe it will do any good as Departments will continue to spend their centrally funded budgets to the max. If I tear the banknotes into tiny pieces the government will probably not notice and will continue to print the notes they had already intended to anyway. If I give the money to a government sponsored, or any other charity, it will make no difference to the UK economy. So how can I pay something back that will actually make a beneficial difference to the UK economy (NB - NOT the Government - I mean quite specifically, the country)? 92.30.12.103 (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give it to me, and I will inject it into the economy for you by spending it. 92.15.20.52 (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sponsored charities that need funds. Prince Charle's Fund. Also, Diana's sons continue with her charity. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to stimulate the economy, just use the money to buy something you wouldn't ordinarily buy, at a small, locally-owned business. For example, lots and lots of baked goods for your friends and loved ones. Everyone loves pie, and your money will help the bakery not only stay open but also spend more themselves- perhaps on hiring a new pie-baker, or adding peach pie to their menu. And viola- the pie-baker or peach-farmer and their families have more money, which they go on to spend at the theatre, which takes it and hires a carpenter... it's the beautiful circle of capitalism. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the middle of an economically difficult time in 1921, Stanley Baldwin contrived to give a quarter of his wealth to the nation. He bought up a large amount of Government Bonds, and then burned the certificates so that they could never be redeemed. Baldwin then described what he had done in a letter to The Times; he signed it only 'FST' which meant that he did it anonymously while also making sure everyone knew it was him. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with the charity side of things, and that really depends on what interests you. There are a range of cancer charities for example with McMillan and Cancer research being pretty flush and others, such as Orchid, being less well off. Shelter perhaps, one of the childrens or animals charities, employment or development charities.

One thing to note is that the sum you're thinking about influences the best way to donate. The majority of charities prefer regular payments as it influences their cash flow. Large sums they'll use as part of their investment strategy but that tends to be more aimed towards bequests. Note that a charitable donation is also quite tax efficient, most can now exploit the gift-aid legislation and recover the basic rate tax on the donation.

All that said, I also agree with FQ. Spending the money in your local economy is an option, although I'm not quite so rose-tinted about the system :)

ALR (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to find out the ratio of expences/actual charity relief that your £1 will actually go to in the organization you donate to. Some have reported only 10P in the £1. MacOfJesus (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due diligence around these things is always beneficial, but a fairly simple measure like that isn't all that illustrative of how useful the money is. Some charities include operational costs in the measure, some only include actual delivered end result so it's difficult to compare like with like. Moving away from a national specific charity to the international domain, Oxfam include their cost of logistics and cost of people in the charity OpCost, so they have quite a poor delivery/ cost ratio. Another charity that I won't name actively markets itself on a better ratio, but includes the cost of logistics into the delivery figure for that activity. In both cases they're paying for freighting, taxes, storage etc, but they communicate that cost differently.

The other thing to look at is how the money is managed. Some people object to charities using professional accountants and financial advisors although personally I see these things as businesses and they should be run as such. It's up to the individual to determine what appetite they have for that. different charities are at different places in their lifecycle. Going back to Orchid, about 4 years ago they went through a transition with respect to their founder and his role. as they got quite a lot bigger and neede properly managed he had to step back and take on a more promotional and evangelising role, letting other people run the charity.

ALR (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locate a focus for your gift. Some activity, charitable enterprise, etc. that works in the area of your focus. Contact hte enterprise/charity direct and ask what exactly they could do with X amount. Then donate the money specifically for the opportunity that seems, to you, the best value. Thus your funds are not lost, they assist a specific attainment.95.176.67.194 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)l'ancien[reply]

Unfortunately, the kind of sum that will make a real "beneficial difference to the UK economy" runs into the millions or even billions. Unless you are one of the World's wealthiest people you are probably looking at smaller scale philanthropy (that's a strangely US-centric article). For most people that means charitable donations. As other people have pointed out, charitable donations are quite tax efficient (you would have to particularly mean to not let the charity not take advantage of the gift aid), and charities usually have the experience and infrastructure to make the best of your donation. Astronaut (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest giving it to a deserving school, although I don't know if any bueaucratic rules would prevent them from accepting it. 92.15.3.53 (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I suggested The Prince Charles' Fund and Princess Diana's Charities, as your money is more likely to make a difference, as others are committed and already started them. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to stimulate the UK economy, and there's no service or thing you want to buy, pick a charity that is likely to spend the money in the UK: you're both donating to a worthy cause, and stimulating the economy. If we're naming favourite cash-strapped charities, I'll throw the Cystic Fibrosis Trust out there. They're currently working on some promising gene therapy, but funding shortages are severely slowing progress and putting it at risk. They've run a single-dose trial, and are planning a multi-dose trial. Money sent to them not only will help a good cause especially relevant to this country, but could help British scientists carry out ground-breaking work. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go-it-alone, then find out who is living in an area in the UK who cannot get the expensive treatment they need and are contimplating re-mortgaging in order to pay the treatment. The NHS will not pay as too expensive. The BBC may help here. Your Chemist, too. MacOfJesus (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give any specific instance of this happening please, with actual names of people? I thought you were Australian - I may be wrong. 92.29.121.183 (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a facility for British people to give financial gifts to the nation, a practice which is usually called 'conscience money' (referring in particular to people who have accidentally defrauded the Exchequer and want to salve their conscience). If you simply give the money to the nation it is paid into the Consolidated Fund where it gets lost amid the general spending. However it is possible to specify that your gift goes to repay the national debt, in which case it is directed to the National Debt Office. I came across this when researching the story of I'm Backing Britain; there is a file in the National Archives recording the gifts by members of the public. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could buy something nice locally and give it to the queen. Googlemeister (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The royals have warehouses full of stuff sent to them as gifts by the public. Some years ago there was controversy when the practice of Prince Charles gining away things to his staff was exposed. 92.29.121.183 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The BBC ran a number of accounts of this. Some local NHS areas refuse to pay for some Onconogy treatments as the drugs are too expensive, yet a few miles down the road it was acceptable. The OP specifically mentiones UK. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links to specific articles please? 92.15.0.50 (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two factors involved, one being the recommendation by NICE of the value for money of specific pharmaceuticals, and the other being the commissioning decision of individual Primary Care Trusts. there are a number of cases where the recommendation from NICE becomes a short term cause celebre in the media, a recent one was about a treatment for bowel cancer that could extend life by around six weeks.

The PCT commissioning issue is described as the postcode lottery, essentially different trusts prioritise their spending in different ways, and sometimes that means that one PCT will not fund a treatment that a neighbouring PCT does. that's a classic centralisation/ localism tension.

In practical terms a pharmacist would be in breach of both their own code of practice and privacy legislation.

ALR (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was a news item aired, probably on Panorama, but it was some time ago (approx. 2 months). BBC (020) 7224 2000. They will, probably, not have those details now on their active Internet Page. I will look. Panorama by E-Mail only: panorama@BBC.co.uk - Also News desk: (0208) 743 8000. MacOfJesus (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your Chemist is willing, and these and other situations are known to him/her you might be able to (behind the scenes) aid the funding of these very expensive treatments. He/she will not discuss names. Or indeed the Pharmacutical Society may be willing to do this. Don't be put-off. There is a way. I can enquire.MacOfJesus (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot see any links to specific articles, or any named cases, yet. 92.28.252.63 (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just "Google": "BBC tv", and at the appropriate box put in "Panorama", but speaking to someone in BBC is best, you do have to do some work here! MacOfJesus (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google: "Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain"; then you will find: 1, Lambeth High St., London, SE1 7JN, Tel: (0207-735 9141), and a seperate add. for Scotland. E-Mail: enquiries@rpsgb.org - Hope this helps. MacOfJesus (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not provided any links to evidence. I cannot see how the Pharm. Soc. GB or the website of a tv series could be considered evidence. 92.29.119.29 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless those names have been published by BBC or others, then even if I knew could not give. I am only giving this information to aid someone giving to a good-cause. MacOfJesus (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that you truely do not understand that I am asking for evidence for your assertions. You have repeatedly provided no evidence, therefore I doubt your assertions. 92.15.25.239 (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A UK-based initiative called Giving What We Can describes themselves as an unaffiliated "society of concerned people, who have made a commitment to give what we can to help those much less fortunate than ourselves". They investigate the relative efficacy of various charities (how much bang for one's buck) and make suggestions accordingly. Many of its members have pledged to give 10% of their income to international development charities. Its founder, Toby Ord, estimates that over the course of his life of giving, he will "save around 500,000 years of healthy life". It puts things in perspective. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have given precise links to Panorama, News desk of BBC, and the Pharmacutical Soc., with their active tel. nos. So, if you are serious in giving to a good cause that you appear to be, you will be able to do the rest. Others have come in here to verify what I've been saying. For me to go further, your name would help. MacOfJesus (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I add one last point: After raising funds for charities and seeing how funds are used in some cases, I have noticed one charity that I've seen really works. The fast-food chain "Mac Donalds" promotes; "Ronald Mc Donald House". These are Houses/Hotel-Hostels built close to Hospitals that deal with sick children. These houses are like hotels for the sick children convalescing and their immediate families. Otherwise, they and their families would have to go to hotels with the inevitable impossible costs. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]