Thursday 1 December 2011
Body Image Advent
Nick (from MGEDT) and Sarah (from Body Gossip) are doing a Body Image Advent Challenge. I've recorded a video for them, and I hope I can encourage you to too. Please get involved on their Tumblr, search for #bodyimageadvent on Twitter ...and donate! Happy December! xo
Thursday 8 September 2011
Vera Drake - 1, Nadine Dorries - 0
Abortion is an emotive issue, which forces women to label themselves absolutely as pro-life or pro-chioce. I identify as a feminist, and if forced as pro-choice; I believe that women should have autonomy over their bodies and their reproductive rights. However, I do not believe an abortion should be viewed lightly. It is a real medical procedure, which can have serious physical and psychological consequences. It should be performed using evidence-based methods and guidelines, and with prior informed consent. What it is not is some form of anti-sacrament that requires religious impetus.
This is what annoyed me when I first read about the Nadine Dorries amendment to the health and social care bill. After her abstinence bill I was ready for another religion-heavy debate. I had a vision of the NHS being destroyed by a pseudo-republican-bible-weilding-pro-life organisation, who spoke of limbo and fire and foetuses gaining their souls at conception (Dorries isn't the only one that can sensationalise). I feel I should state I'm agnostic and believe religion has a lot to contribute to medicine. For example, I believe a chaplain to be a vital support to many at their most vulnerable and the hospice movement is a clear example of what religious communities can contribute. Yet, I was concerned about religion being used as anti-abortion propaganda and women being scared into making the wrong decision for them. My training centres around evidence-based medicine, rather than "Boo! To hell you go" practices.
Then I realised, what annoyed (and still annoys) me most is Dorries' background as a nurse. Most nurses I come across are exceptionally helpful and patient, given that they are very busy and I'm a bumbling health and safety risk on the wards. Dorries is in the minority of the nursing profession, albeit no longer practicing, who is prescriptive in her belief she knows what is in everyone else's best interest (including women she has never met). She is narrow-minded and dogmatic, failing to respect their informed decisions, and discarding current well-researched guidelines.
Her entire amendment seemed to be lacking research and evidence. A mysterious figure of reduction in abortions by a third appeared, with no immediate justification. For a woman that refers to 70% of her blog as fiction, I suspect she has a habit of making things up. This includes her throwing about the claim she is "pro-choice"; she is insistent with this claim, and this too lacks evidence!
Dorries refereed to "soft-marketing techniques" employed by BPAS, comparing deciding to have an abortion to buying wine. It's not soft marketing, it is trying to make a potentially traumatic experience less so; providing a compassionate service for the women claims she is so keen to do the best for. I would also like to stress that having witnessed an ERPC (Evacuation of Retained Products of Conception), a termination and post-missed miscarriage procedure, it is not pleasant to view. Neither is a bowel resection, but I certainly wouldn't want to stop someone with colon cancer having it because it wasn't much fun. ERPC is not witnessed by the woman, as she is either under local or general anaesthetic. One thing that struck me about the procedure was the professionalism and support the staff offered. I know pregnancy itself is not a pathology, but it is more risky than abortion. Also, Care Confidential's training manual (Called to Care) refers to abortion as "a wickedness that grieves God's heart" and "a most grievous sin"(thanks Newsnight!). Yet Dorries fails to mention their view that abortion is the "taking of a human life", when discussing 'independent' organisations. On top of this, the comparison to buying wine is also absurd! Next she'll be proposing prohibition of alcohol because that really would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is not a commodity, driven by consumer anxiety, but a necessity for many women. These are the women who in the past may have died receiving backstreet abortions.
The best way to reduce the number of abortions performed per year is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. This is done through appropriate sex and relationship education and access to contraceptive options. I do not think this will be achieved through Dorries' abstinence bill, which will be voted on in January.
Looking at Dorries' voting record, I noted she voted against same sex couples being allowed access to fertility rights. This prompted me to get worked up again, wave my laptop in front of my partner in disbelief someone could be so backwards on yet another issue and have a cup of tea to calm me back down. A suitably student way to response, I know, but it appears Dorries has her own moral agenda when it comes to reproductive rights. I think this has no place in our health care system or society.
My final complaint is not the scrutiny of the usage of the term 'independent' (but I do want to emphasise that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' guidelines state that advice should be impartial, objective and unbiased - and this is what is subsequently delivered), but that this issue takes away vital attention from the rest of the bill. The bill, which could potentially destroy our NHS, would: increase privatisation; reduce the quality of patient care; increase the inequality between different regions of the country; and make a dent in the total NHS budget (that can ill-afford to be reduced). The entire NHS reform bill lacks evidence! Nadine Dorries came out with the beautiful conspiracy theory that "A former MP who lost his seat in this place [Evan Harris] is blackmailing our prime minister" (doing herself no favours).
I was ecstatic about the vote, rejecting her amendment by 368 votes to 118. I was so happy to hear David Cameron wouldn't offer his backing, due to the fact it would prevent organisations, such as Marie Stopes and British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), from offering counselling. Then I saw the awful clip of him being a petty misogynist again. Small doses of lip-service, do little good when he is so dreadfully patronising to women.
As I said before, abortions carry risks. However, I sincerely believe this amendment carried more risks. It infuriated me she was allowed to propose these dangerous changes through our political system, in her MP role. Then again, would it really be best for her to go back into nursing?
*I apologise how belated this post is. I wanted to comment on the Dorries' amendment, but have only just found the time (and not very much time I'm afraid).
This is what annoyed me when I first read about the Nadine Dorries amendment to the health and social care bill. After her abstinence bill I was ready for another religion-heavy debate. I had a vision of the NHS being destroyed by a pseudo-republican-bible-weilding-pro-life organisation, who spoke of limbo and fire and foetuses gaining their souls at conception (Dorries isn't the only one that can sensationalise). I feel I should state I'm agnostic and believe religion has a lot to contribute to medicine. For example, I believe a chaplain to be a vital support to many at their most vulnerable and the hospice movement is a clear example of what religious communities can contribute. Yet, I was concerned about religion being used as anti-abortion propaganda and women being scared into making the wrong decision for them. My training centres around evidence-based medicine, rather than "Boo! To hell you go" practices.
Then I realised, what annoyed (and still annoys) me most is Dorries' background as a nurse. Most nurses I come across are exceptionally helpful and patient, given that they are very busy and I'm a bumbling health and safety risk on the wards. Dorries is in the minority of the nursing profession, albeit no longer practicing, who is prescriptive in her belief she knows what is in everyone else's best interest (including women she has never met). She is narrow-minded and dogmatic, failing to respect their informed decisions, and discarding current well-researched guidelines.
Her entire amendment seemed to be lacking research and evidence. A mysterious figure of reduction in abortions by a third appeared, with no immediate justification. For a woman that refers to 70% of her blog as fiction, I suspect she has a habit of making things up. This includes her throwing about the claim she is "pro-choice"; she is insistent with this claim, and this too lacks evidence!
Dorries refereed to "soft-marketing techniques" employed by BPAS, comparing deciding to have an abortion to buying wine. It's not soft marketing, it is trying to make a potentially traumatic experience less so; providing a compassionate service for the women claims she is so keen to do the best for. I would also like to stress that having witnessed an ERPC (Evacuation of Retained Products of Conception), a termination and post-missed miscarriage procedure, it is not pleasant to view. Neither is a bowel resection, but I certainly wouldn't want to stop someone with colon cancer having it because it wasn't much fun. ERPC is not witnessed by the woman, as she is either under local or general anaesthetic. One thing that struck me about the procedure was the professionalism and support the staff offered. I know pregnancy itself is not a pathology, but it is more risky than abortion. Also, Care Confidential's training manual (Called to Care) refers to abortion as "a wickedness that grieves God's heart" and "a most grievous sin"(thanks Newsnight!). Yet Dorries fails to mention their view that abortion is the "taking of a human life", when discussing 'independent' organisations. On top of this, the comparison to buying wine is also absurd! Next she'll be proposing prohibition of alcohol because that really would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is not a commodity, driven by consumer anxiety, but a necessity for many women. These are the women who in the past may have died receiving backstreet abortions.
The best way to reduce the number of abortions performed per year is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. This is done through appropriate sex and relationship education and access to contraceptive options. I do not think this will be achieved through Dorries' abstinence bill, which will be voted on in January.
Looking at Dorries' voting record, I noted she voted against same sex couples being allowed access to fertility rights. This prompted me to get worked up again, wave my laptop in front of my partner in disbelief someone could be so backwards on yet another issue and have a cup of tea to calm me back down. A suitably student way to response, I know, but it appears Dorries has her own moral agenda when it comes to reproductive rights. I think this has no place in our health care system or society.
My final complaint is not the scrutiny of the usage of the term 'independent' (but I do want to emphasise that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' guidelines state that advice should be impartial, objective and unbiased - and this is what is subsequently delivered), but that this issue takes away vital attention from the rest of the bill. The bill, which could potentially destroy our NHS, would: increase privatisation; reduce the quality of patient care; increase the inequality between different regions of the country; and make a dent in the total NHS budget (that can ill-afford to be reduced). The entire NHS reform bill lacks evidence! Nadine Dorries came out with the beautiful conspiracy theory that "A former MP who lost his seat in this place [Evan Harris] is blackmailing our prime minister" (doing herself no favours).
I was ecstatic about the vote, rejecting her amendment by 368 votes to 118. I was so happy to hear David Cameron wouldn't offer his backing, due to the fact it would prevent organisations, such as Marie Stopes and British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), from offering counselling. Then I saw the awful clip of him being a petty misogynist again. Small doses of lip-service, do little good when he is so dreadfully patronising to women.
As I said before, abortions carry risks. However, I sincerely believe this amendment carried more risks. It infuriated me she was allowed to propose these dangerous changes through our political system, in her MP role. Then again, would it really be best for her to go back into nursing?
Monday 29 August 2011
Maggie Goes on a Diet - the Author's Response
Paul Kramer has kindly responded to my email and I include his response, in its entirety, below:
Hi Lauren,
I am not a physician nor do I claim to be a dietary expert. I am the author of, “Maggie Goes On A Diet.” This book was NOT written to be a diet book. It is a children’s book written in rhyme intended to entertain. One of my major goals was and is to inspire children of all ages to exercise and eat healthy nutritious foods.
By knowing that if they begin an exercise program and modify their eating habits by eating as much healthy and nutritious food as they want, they can build a future foundation for positive eating habits and an improved self image.
I DO NOT maintain that the message in this book is a quick fix or that anyone who goes on a diet will be happier, or will be more popular or become a soccer star.
In this book, 14 year old Maggie decides to take control over her life without being pushed to do so. Her intent was to become more physically fit, which would enable her to run faster, bend more easily, and improve her skills in playing sports. She was also tired of being teased which was unpleasant at best.
You say that you are not against communicating the healthy eating message to children at a young age.
I say that I am in favor of communicating the eating healthy message to children and adults of all ages.
You say that what sits most uncomfortably with you is the cover, you continue on to say the author’s message seems to be, “Judge a book buy its cover”
My response to that is I have been taught that one should NOT judge a book by its cover.
I have struggled with obesity for a good deal of my life and I have also recently begun an exercise program and I am eating healthier more nutritious foods.
It is also my opinion that “DIET” is not a dirty word.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your blog. I hope you put in my entire response.
Thank You,
Respectfully,
Paul M. Kramer
Hi Lauren,
I am not a physician nor do I claim to be a dietary expert. I am the author of, “Maggie Goes On A Diet.” This book was NOT written to be a diet book. It is a children’s book written in rhyme intended to entertain. One of my major goals was and is to inspire children of all ages to exercise and eat healthy nutritious foods.
By knowing that if they begin an exercise program and modify their eating habits by eating as much healthy and nutritious food as they want, they can build a future foundation for positive eating habits and an improved self image.
I DO NOT maintain that the message in this book is a quick fix or that anyone who goes on a diet will be happier, or will be more popular or become a soccer star.
In this book, 14 year old Maggie decides to take control over her life without being pushed to do so. Her intent was to become more physically fit, which would enable her to run faster, bend more easily, and improve her skills in playing sports. She was also tired of being teased which was unpleasant at best.
You say that you are not against communicating the healthy eating message to children at a young age.
I say that I am in favor of communicating the eating healthy message to children and adults of all ages.
You say that what sits most uncomfortably with you is the cover, you continue on to say the author’s message seems to be, “Judge a book buy its cover”
My response to that is I have been taught that one should NOT judge a book by its cover.
I have struggled with obesity for a good deal of my life and I have also recently begun an exercise program and I am eating healthier more nutritious foods.
It is also my opinion that “DIET” is not a dirty word.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your blog. I hope you put in my entire response.
Thank You,
Respectfully,
Paul M. Kramer
Sunday 28 August 2011
Maggie Goes on a Diet
I have never read a diet book. I think they are misguided doctrines, reflecting the cult of celebrity that dominates our society. They focus on an aesthetic quick fix and not a healthy lifestyle that can be maintained. However, as one of the 1.6 million people in the UK with a recorded eating disorder, I've read every book I know to be published on recovering from Bulimia. I would recommend Getting Better Bit(e) by Bit(e) by Ulrike Schmidt and Janet Treasure; a book that highlights the dangers of dieting and helps the user try to find a healthy relationship with food.
This is why I am so concerned by the pending publication of Maggie Goes on a Diet by Paul Kramer, on the 16th of October, a self-published author of children's books such as Booger Bob. Maggie Goes on a Diet tells the story of a 14-year-old "who goes on a diet and is transformed from being extremely overweight and insecure to a normal sized girl who becomes the school soccer star" according to the blurb, and Amazon.com gauges the reading level at 4-8 years old. With B-eat, the eating disorder charity, reporting presentations of eating disorders in children as young as 6 years old, do we really need another source telling children that weight loss equates to success? I trust the tween idols of Disney and Hollywood cover this.
Having had a turbulent relationship with food, I am a big fan of Jamie Oliver's work in schools. I am not against communicating the healthy eating message at a young age. I applaud those who provide vital well-researched public health messages on obesity. Yet I find it difficult to believe that this book, with 'Diet' clearly in the title (in a cosmetic context), conveys the same ethos. I must state I do not know the author's intentions, this is most likely a well-meaning ill-judged attempt to curb America’s obesity crisis. However, just as we have Jamie Oliver, the USA have Michelle Obama. She has both the media platform and the well-toned arms to make a dent in the seventeen percent of children and adolescents who are obese in the States.
I think what sits most uncomfortably with me is the cover. The author's message seems to be 'judge a book buy its cover', so I shall do the same (literally). It contains a typical dysmorphic image of a girl looking into a mirror and seeing a reflection that is not her own. In the mirror she does not see a successful soccer star, but a skinny girl with a small pink dress; a look not a lifestyle she aspires to. It is also a pet peeve of mine the dress is pink, but I don’t think I can hold that against the author or illustrator.
Joanne Ikeda, a nutritionist emeritus at University of California-Berkley, was interviewed by ABC News without reading the book. She stressed that highlighting imperfections in a child's body "does not empower a child to adopt good eating habits" and that "body dissatisfaction is a major risk for eating disorders in children all the way up through adulthood". I am cautious of any material with this potential.
I must stress that Paul Kramer is not a paediatrician, a psychologist or a nutritionist. I cannot help thinking, that given the nature of this book, he should have consulted with one or more of these professions before starting writing. There are many customers on Amazon requesting they withdraw it from sale. I must say I agree, as I am fearful for vulnerable children seeking an unhealthy solution to their poor self-esteem being inspired by this book in the wrong way.
*I have emailed a copy of the original blog post to Paul Kramer so he can correct any factual inaccuracies and I have welcomed him to give his own opinion. At present I have received no response. I encourage you too to contact Paul Kramer and voice your concerns about this book.
This is why I am so concerned by the pending publication of Maggie Goes on a Diet by Paul Kramer, on the 16th of October, a self-published author of children's books such as Booger Bob. Maggie Goes on a Diet tells the story of a 14-year-old "who goes on a diet and is transformed from being extremely overweight and insecure to a normal sized girl who becomes the school soccer star" according to the blurb, and Amazon.com gauges the reading level at 4-8 years old. With B-eat, the eating disorder charity, reporting presentations of eating disorders in children as young as 6 years old, do we really need another source telling children that weight loss equates to success? I trust the tween idols of Disney and Hollywood cover this.
Having had a turbulent relationship with food, I am a big fan of Jamie Oliver's work in schools. I am not against communicating the healthy eating message at a young age. I applaud those who provide vital well-researched public health messages on obesity. Yet I find it difficult to believe that this book, with 'Diet' clearly in the title (in a cosmetic context), conveys the same ethos. I must state I do not know the author's intentions, this is most likely a well-meaning ill-judged attempt to curb America’s obesity crisis. However, just as we have Jamie Oliver, the USA have Michelle Obama. She has both the media platform and the well-toned arms to make a dent in the seventeen percent of children and adolescents who are obese in the States.
I think what sits most uncomfortably with me is the cover. The author's message seems to be 'judge a book buy its cover', so I shall do the same (literally). It contains a typical dysmorphic image of a girl looking into a mirror and seeing a reflection that is not her own. In the mirror she does not see a successful soccer star, but a skinny girl with a small pink dress; a look not a lifestyle she aspires to. It is also a pet peeve of mine the dress is pink, but I don’t think I can hold that against the author or illustrator.
Joanne Ikeda, a nutritionist emeritus at University of California-Berkley, was interviewed by ABC News without reading the book. She stressed that highlighting imperfections in a child's body "does not empower a child to adopt good eating habits" and that "body dissatisfaction is a major risk for eating disorders in children all the way up through adulthood". I am cautious of any material with this potential.
I must stress that Paul Kramer is not a paediatrician, a psychologist or a nutritionist. I cannot help thinking, that given the nature of this book, he should have consulted with one or more of these professions before starting writing. There are many customers on Amazon requesting they withdraw it from sale. I must say I agree, as I am fearful for vulnerable children seeking an unhealthy solution to their poor self-esteem being inspired by this book in the wrong way.
*I have emailed a copy of the original blog post to Paul Kramer so he can correct any factual inaccuracies and I have welcomed him to give his own opinion. At present I have received no response. I encourage you too to contact Paul Kramer and voice your concerns about this book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)