Alcohol labels fool nobody
Sir, – The logic behind placing warning labels on bottles of alcohol seems to be that the product can cause health and other problems and, therefore, people must be told.
Apart from the fact that this is condescending – people already know that – it is unwise to take the same approach to alcohol as has been adopted towards tobacco.
Alcohol only causes problems in excess, while most people use it in moderation. Last Saturday, for example, in the Drinks section of The Irish Times, there was an article headlined 'Wine shops moonlighting as bars are saving the neighbourhood'.
On the opposite page were the four recommended tipples of the week.
READ MORE
Should that, too, be banned as it encourages dangerous behaviour? There is no evidence that warning labels will have any effect, in particular on problem drinkers.
Labelling a bottle of wine 'This could kill you' is an irrelevant message for most people and will be regarded as laughable and therefore ignored.
The obvious measure to take is to properly fund addiction treatment and services. That takes time, money and political will.
Slapping warning labels on bottles is an exercise in 'Something must be seen to be done. Here is something'. – Yours, etc,
DAVE SLATER,
Co Kildare.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
4 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Esther McCarthy: As my nephew waits for a kidney donor, a chat today is worth a life tomorrow
He doesn't go to soccer training anymore, even though he was player of the year for Kanturk AFC, not so long ago. He doesn't bother trying to get tickets for the hurling semi-final between Cork and Dublin, even though he'd LOVE to see his county get through to the All-Ireland. He knows he can't go. He's stopped asking his mam if he can go to the local disco. The answer will be no. He doesn't worry about end-of-school exams; he didn't even get to sit them, he was too tired to make it into school. My nephew Kieran is 16. He's on the kidney donor list. And all the things that he used to take for granted are out of his reach now. Kieran suffered complete renal failure, out of the blue, in March last year. Since then, he's gone from travelling from Bweeng with his mam to Temple Street three times a week, to transferring to CUH when he turned 16 in October. But his mam couldn't go in with him for his treatment any more, there's no space, and in medical terms, he's an adult now. So when the nurse asks how he is, he just says fine, even when he's not. He's too embarrassed to say he was vomiting for hours that day. Or that he was scared watching a resuscitation team try to save the man on the bed next to him with a crash cart. He can't find the words to say he's worried the line into his heart is infected. So Kieran and his mam got trained to do dialysis themselves at home this month. Four times a day, every four hours. While his friends are talking about discos and penos, Kieran is practising tying off lines and helping order an IV pole online. Learning how to disinfect and insert things he shouldn't know about. And they never have any reprieve or break, because every day is parcelled into sickness slots; getting ready for dialysis, hooking up to the machine; cleaning up and disposing the waste, then prepping to do it all again, hoping they're doing it right, because one mistake could be deadly. He's one teenager who won't be given out to about having his phone on him all the time, he's watching, hoping, for an unknown number, his bag is packed, ready by the front door. Waiting for the unimaginable to happen to another family, for their loss to be his salvation. It's a tough thing for a 16-year-old to manage. And for his brother. And his dad. And man-oh-man, it's hard for his mam. Kieran Harkins from Bweeng Co Cork in June 2023 when he won Player of the Year at Kanturk AFC. Kieran is waiting for a kidney donation after suffering renal failure in March 2024. Life is different now. The constant fatigue — he can't get out of bed the whole day sometimes. The restricted diet — he's either starving or can't eat at all. The upset stomach. The fear of going anywhere where there are crowds — if he gets a simple bug, his compromised immune system won't cope. The complications around toileting. The missing out on simple, silly things, like just hanging around with his friends. We can talk about these things. He has a great sense of humour, he doesn't complain, he's a sunny, funny kid. We don't talk about the fear. The concrete block in the stomach. We don't talk about the worry. The constant, gnawing, tumbling thoughts that don't turn off. What if? What if? The legislation that kicked in this month simply means everyone over 18 in Ireland is now automatically presumed to consent to donate their heart, lungs, liver, pancreas, or kidney — unless they specifically opt out. And that's their prerogative. Of course it is. But please, do know that even under the new system, donation can't proceed if your family objects. A designated person still must confirm there's no known objection from the deceased. Kieran never got to meet his maternal grandfather, but we often tell him the story about his fake eye. He had a tumour when he was in his 50s, but the eye itself was perfect, and he donated the cornea and the sclera, so two people benefited from his loss. We, as a family, were proud of that; we always had a donor card in our wallets. I know none of us wants to talk about our own death. It's not easy. But it could be the most important conversation you have today. Just let your family know your thoughts on it all. If your legacy might be giving someone a chance at life, isn't that worth a chat? Kieran is one of 500 or so people in Ireland waiting for a kidney transplant. And of course, legislation is just one piece of a much larger, complex puzzle involving trained staff, hospital processes, and the health system logistics. So when you hear about the law, don't let it drift past like just another headline. Think of the boy with the bag by the front door. The one who ties medical lines instead of lacing boots for training. Who doesn't ask to go out anymore, because he already knows the answer. Think of Kieran — and the hundreds like him — whose lives are held in place, quietly, painfully, while they wait for that call. All this law asks is that we talk. That we tell the people we love what we would want, should the unthinkable happen. One conversation — it won't cost you anything. But to Kieran, it could mean absolutely everything. Please visit for more info
Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
Alcohol labels fool nobody
Sir, – The logic behind placing warning labels on bottles of alcohol seems to be that the product can cause health and other problems and, therefore, people must be told. Apart from the fact that this is condescending – people already know that – it is unwise to take the same approach to alcohol as has been adopted towards tobacco. Alcohol only causes problems in excess, while most people use it in moderation. Last Saturday, for example, in the Drinks section of The Irish Times, there was an article headlined 'Wine shops moonlighting as bars are saving the neighbourhood'. On the opposite page were the four recommended tipples of the week. READ MORE Should that, too, be banned as it encourages dangerous behaviour? There is no evidence that warning labels will have any effect, in particular on problem drinkers. Labelling a bottle of wine 'This could kill you' is an irrelevant message for most people and will be regarded as laughable and therefore ignored. The obvious measure to take is to properly fund addiction treatment and services. That takes time, money and political will. Slapping warning labels on bottles is an exercise in 'Something must be seen to be done. Here is something'. – Yours, etc, DAVE SLATER, Co Kildare.
Irish Times
15 hours ago
- Irish Times
Woman allegedly suffered stroke after taking migraine medication bought from Boots pharmacy
A woman who claimed she suffered a brain bleed and stroke after taking migraine medication she bought at a Boots outlet has settled a High Court action against the pharmacy giant. Ms Justice Denise Brett was told on the third day of Sigrid O'Meara's action that the case had been settled without an admission of liability. In the proceedings, it was claimed the medication was inappropriately sold to Ms O'Meara (63) and there was an alleged failure to advise her the migraine medication is contraindicated with an anti-antidepressant she was taking. This is due to a significant interaction between the two medications which, it was claimed, can lead to significant increase in blood pressure and stroke, the court heard. READ MORE All of the claims were denied by Boots. The company says protocol dictates that anyone purchasing the migraine medication in question is referred to a pharmacist. Ms O'Meara claimed she took the migraine medication when she woke with a headache on March 26th, 2020. She took two tablets she had purchased from a Boots pharmacy in Longford the previous October. It was contended that she felt dizzy, collapsed and had to be brought by ambulance to hospital. A scan showed she had a brain bleed and she was transferred to a Dublin hospital. Ms O'Meara, from Ballincurry, Co Longford , was discharged from hospital a month later and was recorded as having severe left leg weakness and difficulties with her left arm. She had to go for rehabilitation. She sued Boots Retail (Ireland) Ltd, with a registered address at Citywest Business Campus, Citywest, Dublin. She claims she bought the migraine medication at Boots Pharmacy, Ballymahon Street, Longford. It was claimed that that Ms O'Meara was caused to suffer a haemorrhagic stroke in March 2020 which, it was contended, was precipitated by her ingestion of a migraine medication allegedly inappropriately sold without the advice that it was contraindicated to a prescribed drug she was already taking. It was claimed she was told at the pharmacy that the migraine medication she required was no longer available in Ireland and an alternative medication for migraines and cluster headaches was allegedly offered. Ms O'Meara purchased a blister pack of two tablets and it was alleged the pharmacist was not consulted. Boots disputed this and said while they did not remember Ms O'Meara, protocol requires that anybody buying the migraine medicine has to be referred to the pharmacist. In the proceedings, it was claimed that a product which allegedly could impose a hazard to Ms O'Meara's health was supplied and there was an alleged failure by the pharmacy sales assistant at the time to ensure the pharmacist was advised that the supply of the particular migraine medication may be considered. It was further claimed there was an alleged failure by the pharmacist to ascertain that the woman's headache had never been diagnosed as migraine by a doctor. It was contended, in such circumstances, the migraine medication she purchased should not have been supplied. All of the claims were denied. Boots said Ms O'Meara was aware the medication purchased at the pharmacy had never been deemed as suitable for her and she had a significant history of migraines, and other medical issues, which Boots claims was her responsibility to notify and seek advice on. Boots said it had no other way of being aware Ms O'Meara was taking a form of medication which was likely to interact negatively with a variety of different medication. Ms O'Meara, Boots contended, was the author of her own misfortune. It claimed there was alleged contributory negligence on her part in failing to disclose that she was taking another particular drug and failing to seek advice on the choice of medicines.
