Fighting For Holidays

grenville-phillips

Submitted by Grenville Phillips II, Leader of Solutions Barbados

Youth violence has always been with us. According to the Biblical account, Cain (Adam and Eve’s first-born son) killed his younger brother, Abel. Even the intervention of God Himself, who counselled Cain to overcome his anger, did not prevent Cain from killing his brother.

Cain was jealous of his younger brother’s success. God explained to him that he would be successful if he simply did what was right. However, Cain saw Abel as his rival, who should be eliminated.

At all times in our lives, there will be those who are: stronger, faster, healthier, smarter, more skilled, and tidier than us, and those who are not. None of them are our rivals.

All of us have our own race to run. Our individual challenge is to become the best that we can be, in whatever circumstances we may find ourselves on our journey. Our only rival is ourselves.

We should never be envious of others’ temporary successes, or covetous of their interim rewards, even if they were obtained illegally. Everyone has the options of running their race well or badly. However, our final judge and rewarder is God.

Sometimes we are invited to compete for interim rewards in: sports, academics, professions, and arts. The rewards are used as incentives for competitors to give their best efforts, sometimes for the entertainment of others. Some think ‘best efforts’ means to damage the competitiveness of ‘rivals’, rather than improve themselves through practise.

Those who see rivals in others may delay their own journey, by pursuing the rewards of their ‘rivals’. These rewards may be: honour in the community, the affection of a potential mate, promotion, etc. When the desire for others’ rewards consumes them, they may try to damage the competitiveness of their ‘rivals’.

This damage can take different forms. In sports, it can be to sabotage their competitors’ training equipment. In professions, it can be to damage their competitors’ professional reputations. In politics, it can be to damage their competitors’ personal reputations. At school, it can be to harm another student.

There are two types of physical fighting, which are defined by their intents. The intent is to either cause, or not to cause permanent harm. I have seen both types of fighting. The vast majority caused no permanent harm, and was like controlled wrestling. In the other type, weapons were used indiscriminately.

I am only aware of one method of effectively addressing fighting at schools. At primary school, the headmaster mercilessly beat any boys who fought without permission. Students who wanted to fight had to sign a register.
On a scheduled day, they were given boxing gloves, a mouth guard and protective head gear, and were allowed to fight an opponent. The headmaster refereed the fights to ensure some fairness.

This method seemed to work, because the threat of a merciless beating far outweighed any desire for unauthorised fighting, and those who wanted to fight had a safe environment to do so. Everyone returned home alive, whether they were flogged, or beaten by a boxing opponent.

In secondary school, the threat of a merciless flogging continued, and a wider range of sporting activities were available. Today, floggings are rare.

The modern consequences of fighting are to either suspend or expel the student. This method of ‘discipline’ only punishes students academically, which can limit their future potential. When they return to school so far behind their peers, they may give up. So, the only thing that students, who may not want to be at school, have to fear, is an extended holiday from school. Brilliant.

Some students have been led to believe, by anti-corporal punishment policies, that the consequences of fighting are not only bearable, but preferred. Once advocates with a blind adherence to a questionable agenda lead government policy, then discussion and reason, which can expose the weaknesses in the agenda, become the rival to be eliminated.

The Government has stated its intention to force through its anti-corporal punishment agenda, to punish students academically rather than physically. Violent students will have little to fear in such a permissive environment. The fear is reserved for all teachers and students, who are vulnerable to harm when violent students lose their tempers with their perceived rivals.

The solution under this agenda-driven experiment on our students, is that students must learn to fear something other than a brief but merciless flogging. Our students should be so interested in learning, that they are afraid to miss a single day at school. That would involve a rearrangement of the school’s curriculum, which we plan to explain next week.

Grenville Phillips II is a Chartered Structural Engineer and President of Solutions Barbados. He can be reached at NextParty246@gmail.com

24 comments

  • David:

    That is a disturbing and misleading graphic. No where am I advocate corporal punishment by teachers, and certainly not delayed learning.

    Corporal punishment should be applied by the Principal only, and only for severe offenses.

    I knew that this is a controversial topic, but it needs to be discussed, especially now.

    Do you prefer the current approach of punishing students academically with suspensions?

    Do you think that punishing students academically is effective, and is in the best interest of the student?

    Are you willing to propose a better solution if you are unwilling to consider going back to flogging – for severe offenses only?

    Like

  • First paragraph should have read: “… certainly not for delayed learning.”

    Like

  • @Grenville

    Do you want people to be provoked to comment or not.

    Like

  • RE Those who see rivals in others may delay their own journey, by pursuing the rewards of their ‘rivals’. These rewards may be: honour in the community, the affection of a potential mate, promotion, etc. When the desire for others’ rewards consumes them, they may try to damage the competitiveness of their ‘rivals’.

    This damage can take different forms. In sports, it can be to sabotage their competitors’ training equipment. In professions, it can be to damage their competitors’ professional reputations. In politics, it can be to damage their competitors’ personal reputations. At school, it can be to harm another student.

    ARE YOU SAYING THAT THOSE WHO STATE THAT YOU AND YOUR ONE MAN PARTY HAS NO SOLUTIONS FOR BARBADOS ARE TRYING TO damage the competitiveness of YOU AS A RIVAL?

    WHY DONT YOU TRY TO PROVE THIS BELIEF WRONG INSTEAD OF WHINING LIKE A WIMP AND MAKING THESE PUERILE PITHY PITIFUL POSTS? ’

    ARE YOU SAYING THAT THOSE WHO STATE THAT YOU AND YOUR ONE MAN PARTY HAS NO SOLUTIONS FOR BARBADOS ARE TRYING .TO DAMAGE YOUR PROFESSIONAL OR PERSONAL REPUTATION.

    SINCERE QUESTION HAVE YOU SHOWN WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT YOU REALLY DO HAVE REAL VIABLE CONCRETE SOLUTIONS FOR BARBADOS?

    WUH LAST WEEK RIGHT HERE PUN BU SIMPLE SIMON OUTSHONE YOU BY HER ANSWERS TO A FEW QUESTIONS PUT TO YOU. AND SHE IS NOT SEEKING TO LEAD BARBADOS.

    MAN YOU GOT ME CORN-FUSED.

    WHY DONT YOU PRESENT PERTINENT PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS INSTEAD OF POSTING YOUR UERILE PITHY PITIFUL POSTS? ’

    DAVID CAN TRY TO PROTECT YOU HERE. BUT HE CANT SAVE YOU IN THE COMMUNITY uh lie?

    Like

  • RE The Government has stated its intention to force through its anti-corporal punishment agenda, to punish students academically rather than physically.

    WHERE HAS THE GOVERNMENT SAID THIS?

    RE Violent students will have little to fear in such a permissive environment. The fear is reserved for all teachers and students, who are vulnerable to harm when violent students lose their tempers with their perceived rivals.

    THIS IS A NONSEQUITUR.

    RE The solution under this agenda-driven experiment on our students, is that students must learn to fear something other than a brief but merciless flogging.

    HOW EXACTLY WILL THEY DO THIS?

    RE Our students should be so interested in learning, that they are afraid to miss a single day at school. That would involve a rearrangement of the school’s curriculum, which we plan to explain next week.

    HOW ON EARTH WILL CHANGING THE CURRICULUM CAUSE CHILDREN TO WANT TO LOVE SCHOOL OR LEARN?

    Liked by 1 person

  • David:

    Understood. Hopefully people will read the article before commenting.

    Like

  • FOR LOVERS OF THE WORD, I WILL GIVE HERE A FEW NOTES ON THE STORY CITED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS BLOG ABOUT CAIN AND ABEL

    RE RE God explained to him that he would be successful if he simply did what was right.

    ACTUALLY THIS IS WHAT GENESIS 4:7 SAYS

    If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.

    God thought that Cain could repent, and begged him to do so, and gave him another promise in the warning, “If thou doest not well, sin lieth (or croucheth) at the door. This promise may mean that sin and its author, like a roaring lion is waiting to engulf him if he is not wary (See 1 Peter 5:8). God might also have been saying “Sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it! Chose the right way!” Sadly, Cain’s disposition turned from bad to worse, even murdering Abel (Genesis 4:8).

    Scofield posits that “In Hebrew the same word is used for “sin” and “sin offering,” thus emphasizing in a remarkable way the complete identification of the believer’s sin with his sin offering (cp John 3:14 with 2 Corinthians 5:21). Here both meanings are brought together. “Sin lieth at the door,” but also “a sin offering croucheth at the [tent] door. It is “ where sin abounded” that “grace did much more abound ”(Romans 5:20).

    Gray suggests that the use of the same Hebrew word for “sin” and “sin offering,” may mean that God was calling Cain’s attention to the fact that hope of acceptance remained if he would but only avail himself of the opportunity before him. The lamb, the sin offering is at hand, it lieth just outside the door. Why not humbly lay hold of it and present it as Abel did. This promise or invitation is a most beautiful illustration of accessibility of Christ for every sinner.

    That Cain did not accept this is evident from the record in Genesis 4:8, and the New Testament scriptures on this matter. Sadly, Cain’s disposition turned from bad to worse, resulting in his murdering of Abel and his expulsion “from the presence of the Lord” as “a fugitive and wanderer on the earth (4:12-16). Cain’s posterity as described in Genesis 4 19-24 reveals that “these antediluvians, in the line of Cain at least, seem to have done everything to make their life in sin as comfortable as possible in contrast to any desire to be delivered from it in God’s way”. What is clear is that Cain and Abel both had a remarkable understanding of the promise of Genesis 3:15. However, as we say today, Cain blew it!

    THIS IS A QUOTATION FROM MY DMin THESIS

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ GP

    @ @ GPII

    Are there any other perspectives on this parable of Cain and Abel? Why was Cain envious of Abel? Are there any other lessons with a heavenly meaning that we,Gods children, can learn about parenting ?

    Like

  • The story of Cain and Abel IS NOT A PARABLE

    Here are some more notes from my DMin THESIS on this subject written in 2000 about this period in the Bible

    The main characters of this era were Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Enoch and Noah and his family.

    The main events were the offerings of Cain and Abel, Enoch’s translation, the mixing of the godly and ungodly lines, God’s warning, the building of the ark by Noah and the flood. Many of these characters and events are mentioned with out any explanation in the New Testament.

    Without a proper understanding of their importance in their context and Old Testament setting, the New Testament references to them will be unintelligible. Cain for example is mentioned in Hebrews 11: 4 as presenting an unacceptable sacrifice, in I John 3:12 as “of that wicked one” who slew his brother, ” because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous”, and in Jude 11 to be associated with a way to which woe is attached. With out a proper understanding of the story in Genesis 4 these three references have little significance, and the lesson which the New Testament writer is seeking to teach is lost. We can only properly learn and appreciate the spiritual lessons taught in the New Testament, if we properly understand this simple Old Testament story from Genesis chapter 4.

    The ungodly line began with Cain who “went out from the presence of the Lord” (Genesis 4:16). His parents were thrust out of the Garden but remained in God’s presence, but Cain, like all who follow him, chose to be excluded further. Simultaneously, the pervading influence of sin began to accelerate mankind’s general degeneration. When we further compare Cain’s sin with the original sin of Adam and Eve, it is noticeable that Cain committed murder with pre-meditation after being warned by God in Genesis 4:7. After murdering his brother, he showed no remorse, but rather defiantly asked God “Am I my brothers keeper?” He later asked God to place a sign upon him so that others would not murder him in turn. He was not concerned with the fact that he murdered his brother, he was only afraid of being murdered himself. His behavior is certainly typical of the behavior predicted for the last days in 2 Timothy 3:17.

    Cain can definitely be categorized as proud, covetous, a lover of self, disobedient to parents, unholy, unthankful, incontinent, fierce, a despiser of those that are good, heady, high minded, a lover of pleasure more than a lover of God, and to have a form of godliness although denying its power. Cain’s attitude emphasizes the intensifying character of sin even at this early time. This attitude of those sold out to sin has prevailed and sinners live still in the world without God and without hope (Ephesians 2:12), but even this will be exceeded in the day mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, when, at Jesus’ second advent, God will wreak vengeance on the ungodly who disobey the gospel. However, at this time of Jesus’ glorification the ungodly will be punished eternally by being banished from God’s presence and glory. This is the sinner’s fate in time and eternity.

    But why did Cain choose this way of rebellion? Apparently, just as Adam and Eve in the first dispensation had received an amoral commandment, so Cain and Abel received an amoral commandment. Apparently both Cain and Abel were taught (Genesis. 4:4) that it was necessary to offer animal sacrifices to God in which an animal was slain and its blood shed. ‘Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin’ seems to be a salvation principle which was taught by God to their parents at the time of the fall, and transmitted to them. By faith Abel offered to God what He had specified, but Cain substituted “the fruit of the ground” (Genesis. 4:3). Cain, thus chose to disobey and offered a sacrifice of the produce of his labors.

    Since it is sinful for a human to change any of God’s commands, either moral or amoral, Cain and his offerings were rejected (Genesis 4:5). Cain’s offering was deemed unacceptable to God because it was representative of his works, rather than his faith. Since Cain had not done what was right, and his worship was thus evil (Genesis 4:7; 1 John 3:12), God rejected his offering; but accepted his brother’s, because it was brought in obedience and faith. Thus it is that Cain is mentioned in Hebrews 11: 4 as presenting an unacceptable sacrifice, in contrast to Abel’s offering, which God considered “a more excellent sacrifice than Cain’s” by which Abel obtained witness that he was righteous, God accepted his gifts”. God accepted Abel’s gift because it was brought in obedience and faith, but Cain’s attitude and disobedience was the wrong way. He apostatized- that is he took a stand away (apos+hemi) from a teaching or order from God which he once clearly knew to be the right way. He chose his own way.

    Scofield argues that “Abel’s offering implies a previous instruction (cp Genesis 3:1), for it was by faith (Hebrews 11:4), and faith is taking God at His word; so that Cain’s un-bloody offering was a refusal of the divine way.”

    Many opine that God adjudicated harshly in this case. However, God had given a command to Cain and Abel concerning what was required in worship. If he had given no command, it is impossible and unreasonable to think that a fair and loving God would accept what Abel decided to offer and to reject Cain for what he decided to offer. On the other hand, if God only told Abel what to offer and not Cain, and yet he expected Cain to offer the same thing, it is impossible to say that God was fair and loving to Cain. It follows, therefore, since God is love, and a God of truth and without iniquity, that He gave one and the same command for an animal offering both to Cain and to Abel. Cain did not have enough faith to obey God, to take God at his word, to do what God said simply because God said it. On the other hand, Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than did Cain, God bearing witness about his gifts, and through it he yet speaks, though he is dead (Hebrews. 11:4). Here is clearly seen the result of the two basic ways that a man can respond to the promises of God. He can believe and act in obedience to them, or he can doubt or reject them and respond accordingly and pay sin’s price.

    Later on, God required of the Israelites that the “first of the first¬fruits” be given to him (Exodus. 23:19), which shows that nothing in itself was sinful in Cain’s offering. The sin was that he was making his own rules, at that time.

    In Hebrews 11:4, the author cites Abel rather than Cain as an example of persons who obeyed God because of his faith or belief in what God had said. God accepted Abel’s gift because it was brought in obedience and faith, but Cain’s attitude and disobedience was the wrong way. He apostatized- that is he took a stand away (apos+hemi) from a teaching or order from God which he once clearly knew to be the right way. He chose his own way.

    In Jude 11, Jude refers to Cain in his lesson on the history of apostates from the beginning of time to our day as an apostate- a person who chooses his (the wrong) way rather than God’s way, knowing fully that he was erring. He describes Cain as being associated with a way to which woe is attached.

    Finally in 1 John 3:12 Cain is described as “of that wicked one” who slew his brother, “because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous”. Here the apostle cites Cain as an example of one who manifests by his action and behavior of murdering his brother, because of his brother’s obedience that he was exhibiting the phenotype which he inherited from his spiritual father-the devil who was always a murderer. In this passage John is teaching that people have one of two spiritual genotypes- they have a spiritual gene pool from God the Father which results in them behaving godly or their have a spiritual gene pool from the devil which demonstrates itself by evil deeds such as murder, and the various lusts described in Titus 3:3.

    Even though Cain willfully sinned, God still loved him, and made a last appeal to him to bring the required offering as He tried to get Cain to repent and do what was right (Genesis 4:7). Divine love brought God to a one on one meeting with the sinful backslider, with a loving exhortation of promise in the questions of verse 7, “If thou doest well shalt thou not be accepted or shall thy countenance not be lifted up? We know that when a man sins, he cannot look God in the face. This was so for Adam and Cain. John warns us in 1 John 2:28 not to let it be so for us. He assures that we can be confident, rather than ashamed at Christ’s return.

    We see here the emergence of two spiritual courses within the human race: the line of Cain, which was sucked down into the vortex of sin, and the line of Seth, which still believed in the promise. Seth’s line ultimately produced our Lord Jesus Christ, whereas the line of Cain became “great city-builders”. From them originated city life which is characterized by a lack of the sense of sin and wrongdoing, the utilization of music and musical instruments to celebrate, and extol sin in song and dance, the pervasiveness of polygamy, and possibility the consorting of human women with demons (Genesis. 6:2-4); or at least the involvement with the occult and various forms of demonism. Thus it was that cities became cesspools of unbridled sin. Genesis 4 thus presents the origin of cities. Later in this chapter we will describe the end of city life as reported in Revelation 17-18.

    hope this helps

    Like

  • As GP stated, it is not a parable.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ nextparty 246 at 10:58 PM

    But Georgie Porgie refers to it as a story in the above response. Parable = story with a moral lesson.

    @ GPII

    What lesson do you think Cain learnt from God’s refusal of his offering?

    Like

  • If you had read my commentary above properly, and if you read the Biblical account of the event in Genesis 4 properly, it should ve very clear that Cain learnt ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from God’s refusal of his offering.

    In my notes above I have given the commentary of every parallel passage in scripture on Genesis 4.

    Those who hear the gospel message without the Holy Spirit have no chance to understand it. First of all, faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:17).

    For those who have been born again “these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual” (1 Cor 2:10-13)

    but “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14).

    The conclusion is that no one can understand the Word of God, including the meaning of the parables, without the Holy Spirit and those who are not saved see this as “folly” or foolishness as some translations state. It takes the Spirit of God, mixed with the Word of God, proclaimed by a servant of God to make the children of God.

    With even one of these three missing, the gospel will seem like foolishness to them for they are blinded to the gospel message and “it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor 4:3-4).

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ GP at 12:39 PM

    Precisely. We are questioning your assertion that you are guided by the Holy Spirit of God.

    Like

  • spoken like the true bible illiterate you are
    they are many who know me and have heard me teach that wont agree with you
    only bone fide bu bible illiterates share your view

    i say again
    If you had read my commentary above properly, and if you read the Biblical account of the event in Genesis 4 properly, it should have very clear that Cain learnt ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from God’s refusal of his offering.

    In my notes above I have given the commentary of every parallel passage in scripture on Genesis 4.

    Those who hear the gospel message without the Holy Spirit have no chance to understand it. First of all, faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:17).

    Characteristically bone fide bu bible illiterates like you have no chance to understand the Word

    Like

  • BU BIBLE ILLITERATES WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORD, AND CAN NOT COMMENT ON IT WITH ANY CLARITY ALWAYS RESORT TO AD HOMINEMS AND SNARKY COMMENTS

    BUT THEN THEY ARE UPSET WHEN I MOCK THEM WHEN I RESPOND

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ GP
    As usual you are correct.

    Like

  • SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife

    @I am only aware of one method of effectively addressing fighting at schools. At primary school, the headmaster mercilessly beat any boys who fought without permission. Students who wanted to fight had to sign a register. On a scheduled day, they were given boxing gloves, a mouth guard and protective head gear, and were allowed to fight an opponent. The headmaster refereed the fights to ensure some fairness. This method seemed to work, because the threat of a merciless beating far outweighed any desire for unauthorised fighting, and those who wanted to fight had a safe environment to do so. Everyone returned home alive, whether they were flogged, or beaten by a boxing opponent. In secondary school, the threat of a merciless flogging continued.”

    Dear Grenville: I am sorry to hear that you were exposed to and endured such brutality while at primary and secondary school. However please do not be mislead to think that your experience is universal. I too was educated in Barbados up to BCC level. I went to a small (135 pupils) rural mixed primary school with a headmistress, and a deputy head also female. In addition there were a number of male teachers. I don’t recall ANY fighting at school, even though children sometime fought on their way to and from school. I don’t recall that fighting was forbidden, I just recall that it did not happen at all. I then went out of my village to another rural primary school, the senior school which educated children up to 13/14 years old. This school, also a mixed school had a headmaster and both female and male teachers, again no fighting although children may sometimes have shoved or nudged one another. At secondary school no fighting either. The secondary school was all girls with a headmistress and both male and female teachers. The headmistress who was not Bajan did not permit the teachers to spank or hit the children. I was horrified many years later to learn that a Bajan male headmaster had instituted spanking/hitting. All of my schools were rural, working class public (not private) Bajan schools.

    I believe that because you witnessed so much brutality in your youth you have come to believe that it is normal to brutalise children.

    Brutalising children, and encouraging children to brutalise each other is NOT normal. It was not normal when I entered primary school in the late 50’s and it is not normal now. Your headmaster was WRONG.

    Violence, especially violence against children only begets more violence, because the children grown up believing that it is normal to violate your peers. It is NOT normal.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Grenville…here is a project for you, now that the marijuana one fell through, bear in mind all of us will be in this situation some day. Some sooner than others. See what u make of it, see what you can do to change the greed and lack of care.

    “Good afternoon SIR EVERTON …
    It pains me to report on the following incident that was brought to my attention yesterday… a sad state of affairs that won’t be seen in the news anywhere.
    Forty-eight hours ago my friend Sir Everton Weekes was lying on a gurney in a hallway of the Bayview Hospital in Barbados in need of urgent medical care. I will not go into the nature of his illness or the extent of the emergency but, suffice it to say, he was in extreme pain and discomfort.
    For those who are not acquainted with Bayview, it is a private facility affordable to few and is generally considered a better alternative to Queen Elizabeth Hospital for a number of reasons.
    Sir Everton, who is 94 and lives alone collapsed in his home and unable to move was rushed by ambulance to Bayview with the assistance of a mutual friend. My friend who accompanied Sir Everton in the ambulance was told by the receptionist that in order to be admitted he would need to come up with $9000 or at minimum a deposit of $3000. I can’t imagine any hospital making that kind of demand on the spot from an emergency patient let alone someone with the name recognition of Sir Everton. Everyone in Barbados over the age of 40 should be familiar with this cricketing giant that did much more than most to put Barbados on the map during the heyday of WI cricket. In any case he didn’t have that amount of cash or even a checkbook in his possession at the time. So, sadly, he was left lying on a stretcher in the corridor of Bayview in pain because the hospital insisted on the $9000 or an immediate deposit of $3000 which was not readily available.
    After a while he had to be transferred to the QE Hospital and after a long wait in Emergency was given a private room at two in the morning. To add insult to injury Sir Everton never got to see a doctor until five in the afternoon.”

    Like

  • “For those who are not acquainted with Bayview, it is a private facility affordable to few and is generally considered a better alternative to Queen Elizabeth Hospital for a number of reasons.”

    Everyone should be asking BOTH former ministers of health…Donville and Jerome…WHY IS THAT……they both still…SUCK ON TAXPAYER’S DOLLARS…

    Like

  • SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife

    Actually all emergency cases, especially emergencies involving the extremely old and frail should first go to the QEH. And it is best that 94 year olds not live alone, even when they insist on living alone.

    FAMILY?????

    Liked by 1 person

  • This story about Sir Everton is disturbing at many levels. That Bayview would deny a national icon treatment with an expectation and resolve financial issues later.

    Like

  • The segregation of Barbadian society. It has ever been thus; now to bring in more wealthy ethnics will only make things worse. Money and social class trumps health in the new Barbados.
    Is the President going to make a public statement about this? IKs the DLP going to make a public statement about this awful experience? Is Solutions going to make a public statement abut this social fascism? Is the doctors’ union going to speak out about this? We urgently need a patients’ advocacy organisation.

    Like

  • RE This story about Sir Everton is disturbing at many levels.
    WHICH LEVELS?

    RE That Bayview would deny a national icon treatment with an expectation and resolve financial issues later.

    Bayview IS A PRIVATE HOSPITAL

    THEY HAVE ACTED AS PRIVATE HOSPITALS DO EVERYWHERE

    PRIVATE HOSPITALS EVERYWHERE DO NOT resolve financial issues later. THEY DO IT UPFRONT

    Sir Everton SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO THE QEH, AND THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR ALL THIS DISCUSSION

    WE NEED TO SET UP KNOWN PROTOCOLS ABOUT THESE MATTERS

    RE Is the doctors’ union going to speak out about this? WHY WOULD THIS BE AN ISSUE FOR A DR’S UNION?
    DOES BAYVIEW HAVE AN EMERGENCY ROOM? OR EMERGENCY SERVICE?

    ARE THEIR ADMISSIONS NOT MADE BY PRIOR ARRANGEMENT WITH THE INDIVIDUAL DRS WHO ARE ESSENTIALLY TENANTS OF THE PRIVATE HOSPITAL?

    RE Is Solutions going to make a public statement abut this social fascism? SO SOLUTIONS IS SUPPOSED TO SAY WHAT EXACTLY ABOUT EXISTING ESTABLISHED HOSPITAL PROTOCOLS

    SHOULD SIR EVERTON BEEN TREATED BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE BECAUSE HE PLAYED GOOD CRICKET FOR ABOUT TEN YEARS? OR SHOULD EVERYONE GET THE SAME TREATMENT? I.E SHOULD WE NOT HAVE THE SAME TREATMENT FOR EVERYONE

    SIR EVERTON WILL APPARENTLY BE LOOKED AFTER BY THE BCA. IS THAT NOT GOOD ENOUGH?

    Liked by 1 person

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s