When Barak Obama took office last year, there was a great deal of hope of what he could accomplish. Hope was so high that he was nominated for a Nobel Prize within days of taking office and eventually won. He ignored the old adage of speak little and do a lot. Instead he set his top priorities as overhauling the health care system and bringing peace to the Middle East.
On the health care file he has a long way to go. The future of the entire health care system could hinge on the Senate election today in Massachusetts. Unfortunatly Martha Coakley has not taken her campaign seriously and is at risk of losing. The Democrats are at risk of losing a seat they have held for over 3o years. It would also mean they lose the 60 seat threshold which gives them the ability to limit the amount of stalling tactics on any final bills. A major strategy change may be neccesary in order to get a new health care bill on the President's desk before mid-term elections. Best case scenario is to replace the broken health care system and replace it with a broken socialized health care system. The most important components of effective health care have been addressed.
Obama addressed to the Arab world from Cairo. He apologized for passed wrong doings and promised to hold off meddling in the Arab world. At the same time he stepped up the pressure on Israel to agree to Palestinian demands and make them happy. The Americans also took Canada's seat on the UNHRC, in order to fix the broken system from within.
The results have been predicatably embarrasing. The UNHRC continues to be used as a platform for condemning Israel while ignoring human rights from the rest of the world. The silence from the White House was loud and clear as ordinary citizens rallied to show support for Iranian protests against a fraudulent election. Iran is still unhindered in their efforts to build a nuclear bomb. The Palestinian Authority is using American pressure to add new pre-conditions to returning to the bargaining table.
The biggest news stories of the past month create an ironic twist on the White House criticism of Israel. Those two stories would be the attempted terrorist attack on a flight to Detriot and the last week's earth quake in Haiti.
TSA has been an embarrasement for how they operate airport security. Shortly before the attempted attack they accidentally released confidential information about operation procedures. After the attempted attack they scrambled to create all kinds of new protocols to insure safty. Meanwhile, the President was overseeing the national emergency while on vacation. In the mean time the media was turning to Israel to ask how to do security. Israel was recognized as the best in the world at maintaining security. People could see through the TSA changes as just more window dressing to make things appear safer then actually protecting passengers.
The earthquake in Haiti has created a major humanitarian crisis. A Belgium staffed medical team was forced to abandon helping people because of saftey concerns. American staffed hospital units are complaining they don't have the resources to help their patients. They are unable to administer life saving treatment. Israel was the first country to set up a field hospital, beating the Americans by days. All American officials can say about Israel responding faster is that they are doing the best job possible. Sounds a little bit like the disaster relief plan in New Orleans.
"So far, 300 patients have been admitted, 92 surgeries have been performed and 5 babies have been delivered (2 were premature). Because of the advanced medical equipment at the IDF field hospital, the UN coordinator has been sending doctors and nurses from other countries to join the Israeli medical staff. Thus far, 8 Colombian and 9 American USC doctors and nurses and 10 British volunteers have joined the IDF field hospital." -- IDF
What lessons can the White House learn from Israel as the President enters his second year in office? Like all countries Israel has it's own domestic issues. Israel has greater challenges then Americans as wars are fought either close to or on home turf. It is nice to declare that if only Israel did X everything would be perfect. Tactical mistakes from this logic cost lives. Israel takes the hand they are dealt and strives to be the best in the world. An appreciation of what Israel has accomplished with the challenges they face. The change of attitude is absolutely necessary if Obama wants to contribute anything to the region. Hopfully he will be able to learn from the disasters of the last month and use them to have a better 2nd year in office.
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Thursday, May 15, 2008
It's only fair
In January, the Canadian Transport Agency announced the One-Person-One-Fare policy for all domestic flights. People with severe disabilities and require an attendant in order to travel would not have to pay for a second seat. In accordance with previous court rulings, obesity would be considered a disability if a person cannot fit into an airline seat. On Tuesday, the courts upheld the new policy and airlines will have one year to comply.
As can be expected the public reaction was mixed. Some have objected on the basis that flying is a luxury. If someone can't afford to fly for any reason it is their own tough luck. Another group of objectors feel that people with a genuine disability and cannot travel alone should not have to pay. This group also claims that in the majority of cases obesity is the individual's fault. The solution to the two seat problem is that they should simply not be overweight.
Childhood obesity is a growing concern. Video games, cuts to physical education in school, fast food and unhealthy diet choices at a young age have all been blamed for contributing to the problems. In recent years steps have been taken to increase physical activity and teach healthy eating habits to children.
Another growing problem is the rate of eating disorders in teenage girls. Often the blame is directed at societies expectation of beauty and unrealistically thin role models. While there is a willingness to tackle this issue head on, the response by many to this ruling demonstrates a lack of ability to see the flip side. As a society overweight people are treated like second class citizens. Such treatment can lead to low self esteem and depression making it more difficult to adopt healthy life style choices. Is it not reasonable that some eating disorders are caused by young impressionable minds fears of being labelled 'fat' and all the stigma that goes with it? This new policy accepts people as they are no matter what challenges they face. It prevents them from being forced to fit the cookie cutter definition of 'normal'.
It is time that airlines start treating passengers like people instead of cargo. Forcing the airlines to consider different body types when designing planes will lead to more thoughtful and comfortable seating arrangements for all. The US has taken the opposite approach. It is only a matter of time before tickets are sold by weight. Fortunately, Canada has cemented into law that they will not go down that path.
As can be expected the public reaction was mixed. Some have objected on the basis that flying is a luxury. If someone can't afford to fly for any reason it is their own tough luck. Another group of objectors feel that people with a genuine disability and cannot travel alone should not have to pay. This group also claims that in the majority of cases obesity is the individual's fault. The solution to the two seat problem is that they should simply not be overweight.
Childhood obesity is a growing concern. Video games, cuts to physical education in school, fast food and unhealthy diet choices at a young age have all been blamed for contributing to the problems. In recent years steps have been taken to increase physical activity and teach healthy eating habits to children.
Another growing problem is the rate of eating disorders in teenage girls. Often the blame is directed at societies expectation of beauty and unrealistically thin role models. While there is a willingness to tackle this issue head on, the response by many to this ruling demonstrates a lack of ability to see the flip side. As a society overweight people are treated like second class citizens. Such treatment can lead to low self esteem and depression making it more difficult to adopt healthy life style choices. Is it not reasonable that some eating disorders are caused by young impressionable minds fears of being labelled 'fat' and all the stigma that goes with it? This new policy accepts people as they are no matter what challenges they face. It prevents them from being forced to fit the cookie cutter definition of 'normal'.
It is time that airlines start treating passengers like people instead of cargo. Forcing the airlines to consider different body types when designing planes will lead to more thoughtful and comfortable seating arrangements for all. The US has taken the opposite approach. It is only a matter of time before tickets are sold by weight. Fortunately, Canada has cemented into law that they will not go down that path.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Smoking in cars
Previously, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has rejected the idea of banning smoking in cars with children due to the slippery slope argument. A private members bill calling for a fine between $200 - $1000 for those caught smoking in a care with children is gaining support. McGuinty has changed his position to 'neutral' and he is willing to listen to what Ontarians have to say.
The current stigma against smokers is well deserved for all of the negative side effects both social and medical. The government should be commended for most of the steps taken to protect the general public from second hand smoke. Most responsible smokers are aware of the dangers and take steps to avoid exposing their children to second hand smoke.
The problem with this proposed legislation is it expands the powers of the state to control parenting decisions. The Ontario Medical Association states that second hand smoke is 23 times more concentrated then in a small room. The Ontario Lung Association says that enforcing such a law is no different than mandatory seat belt or car seat laws.
There is one major difference. Seat belts only protect motorists while they are in their vehicle. Smoking can take place anywhere and poses a danger to children even if they are not in a car. If a parent is subjecting a child to second hand smoke in a car, they are probably doing the same in the home. A car ban will not protect these children unless the state enforces non-smoking around children in the home. The slippery slope begins.
Where does the government draw the line for protecting children? Due to the health risks trans fats have started being banned from public schools. Will there eventually be legislation banning parents from feeding their children food with trans fats? Could parents who smoke or consume trans fats be declared unfit parents and have their children taken away? Once the government starts establishing the standards of 'acceptable risk' for children the possibilities of how far things can get out of hand are endless.
As long as cigarettes sales remain legal the government must limit how far they are willing to act in the interests of public safety. Non-smokers need to be able to be free to avoid the dangers of second hand smoke. Public education needs to continue to reduce smoking. The government choosing to micro manage family dynamics and which risks are acceptable for children is the first step to creating a police state.
The current stigma against smokers is well deserved for all of the negative side effects both social and medical. The government should be commended for most of the steps taken to protect the general public from second hand smoke. Most responsible smokers are aware of the dangers and take steps to avoid exposing their children to second hand smoke.
The problem with this proposed legislation is it expands the powers of the state to control parenting decisions. The Ontario Medical Association states that second hand smoke is 23 times more concentrated then in a small room. The Ontario Lung Association says that enforcing such a law is no different than mandatory seat belt or car seat laws.
There is one major difference. Seat belts only protect motorists while they are in their vehicle. Smoking can take place anywhere and poses a danger to children even if they are not in a car. If a parent is subjecting a child to second hand smoke in a car, they are probably doing the same in the home. A car ban will not protect these children unless the state enforces non-smoking around children in the home. The slippery slope begins.
Where does the government draw the line for protecting children? Due to the health risks trans fats have started being banned from public schools. Will there eventually be legislation banning parents from feeding their children food with trans fats? Could parents who smoke or consume trans fats be declared unfit parents and have their children taken away? Once the government starts establishing the standards of 'acceptable risk' for children the possibilities of how far things can get out of hand are endless.
As long as cigarettes sales remain legal the government must limit how far they are willing to act in the interests of public safety. Non-smokers need to be able to be free to avoid the dangers of second hand smoke. Public education needs to continue to reduce smoking. The government choosing to micro manage family dynamics and which risks are acceptable for children is the first step to creating a police state.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Sextuplets
The sextuplets born in B.C. were a big news story again last week. Two of the babies have passed away and the government took temporary custody of three of them in order to administer blood transfusions. The parents are angry. They have requested an apology from the government. They have also launched a Charter challenge under freedom of religion (the parents are Jehovah's Witnesses)
The response from the public seems to be unanimously in favour of the government intervention. When Boo was in the NICU we had a situation where we were told that she had to undergo a particular medical procedure. When we were informed it also required our consent DW and I did our research and determined that it was not in Boo's best interest. We worked out an alternative form of treatment with her medical team. At one point a Fellow thought he knew better and decided to do what he wanted despite our explicit protests. (DW is convinced I was ready to slug the doctor before the nurse practitioner intervened.) With the benefit of hindsight disagreeing with the doctors and standing up for Boo was what was best for her. Parents are the best advocates for their child's best interests.
If the doctors of the sextuplets have worked with the parents to examine all possible options in the best interest of the children I fully support the governments decision. However, if the doctors were unwilling to consider all forms of treatment available, the parents have a right to be angry.
On a seperate point a growing number of countries have passed legislation or adopted policies that make babies born before 27 weeks or under 2500g an automatic DNR. In one of these countries Boo would not have received any medical treatment. The sextuplets would have been in the same boat. Canadians are lining up to condemn these parents, without a second thought to parents in other countries. What happens if the babies who received the blood transfusions don't make it? How much more grief would the parents face in light of an unwanted life saving treatment that didn't work.
The response from the public seems to be unanimously in favour of the government intervention. When Boo was in the NICU we had a situation where we were told that she had to undergo a particular medical procedure. When we were informed it also required our consent DW and I did our research and determined that it was not in Boo's best interest. We worked out an alternative form of treatment with her medical team. At one point a Fellow thought he knew better and decided to do what he wanted despite our explicit protests. (DW is convinced I was ready to slug the doctor before the nurse practitioner intervened.) With the benefit of hindsight disagreeing with the doctors and standing up for Boo was what was best for her. Parents are the best advocates for their child's best interests.
If the doctors of the sextuplets have worked with the parents to examine all possible options in the best interest of the children I fully support the governments decision. However, if the doctors were unwilling to consider all forms of treatment available, the parents have a right to be angry.
On a seperate point a growing number of countries have passed legislation or adopted policies that make babies born before 27 weeks or under 2500g an automatic DNR. In one of these countries Boo would not have received any medical treatment. The sextuplets would have been in the same boat. Canadians are lining up to condemn these parents, without a second thought to parents in other countries. What happens if the babies who received the blood transfusions don't make it? How much more grief would the parents face in light of an unwanted life saving treatment that didn't work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)