France's health minister admits up to 5,000 could have died in heat wave[UPDATE]

[a13antichrist]

How can one person die from inaction of government caused by a natural event? Isn't that what natural selection is all about. Before you ask, yes I was equally disgusted by the cries after the Chicago heatwave a couple of years ago. If people don't have enough sense to move to a more suitable location, so be it.

What else is government for if not to protect people from their own incompetence? You can blame the people if you like but the government is elected precisely to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens.

The major point the government is getting flak for is that they didn't pre-empt the shortage of hospital staff at a critical period of the year, and in particular in light of the foreseen heatwave. A lot of these staff were also on holiday so that when hundreds of elderly people flooded in, there simply weren't the resources to cope with it.

Oh and 104 is an understatement. Three days in a row we had temperatures in Paris of 42°C - 108F. Perhaps more critical were the nights that often didn't drop below 25° (77F).

 

[Gonz]

What else is government for if not to protect people from their own incompetence?

That is where you & I, as well as others on this board, seperate. If people are incompetent & it hurts others, then it's their job to step in & present a rememdy. If people are so stupid they can't help themselves, too bad.

A governments job is to protect its citizens from outside interference (ie-war acts) as well as looking out for the common good (ie-roads). It's the individual, as well as their family, to act in the best interest of the individual.

 

[a13antichrist]

A governments [sic] job is to protect its citizens from outside interference (ie-war acts) as well as looking out for the common good (ie-roads). It's the individual, as well as their family, to act in the best interest of the individual.

That may be your belief on what a government SHOULD be responsible for, but that certainly ISN'T the case with any government I know of. I don't think too many people would be very happy if parties started announcing, as part of their policy, "protecting citizens from outside interference (ie-war acts) as well as looking out for the common good (ie-roads), but leaving the individual, as well as their family, to act in the best interest of the individual". Try it if you think it'd work better, let me know how you get on...

 

[ris]

extremes of weather such as that could be considered something under the remit of protection of citizens from external inteference. if not then other objects of protection from extremes of weather that protect people [such as lighthouses, sea barriers, earthquakes, etc] would also be under the remit of the private individual, something i think many people would be uncomfortable with.

 

[Gonz]

Try it if you think it'd work better, let me know how you get on...

24/7/365. Never asked for government help nor handouts & never will. If it hadn't been for my dad working for the state I'd have never set foot in a governmental office. (beside the drivers license branch)

 

[a13antichrist]

24/7/365. Never asked for government help nor handouts & never will. If it hadn't been for my dad working for the state I'd have never set foot in a governmental office. (beside the drivers license branch)

No, I was talking about running an election campaign based on that principle.

The simple fact is taht people NEED to be protected from themselves, which is why we have government and also religion. People expect to be protected and looked after by their government, and if they're not, thy're going to be unhappy. Whether it's better taht way or not is a different issue, but in this case more effective action from the gorvernment certainly would have prevented a large number of those deaths. I would imagine preventing the deaths of its citizens would be a rather high priority for ANY government.