The Latest ‘Disability'

It’s a few years ago now since I posted about the latest disability in children, commonly labelled Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). More and more children were diagnosed with this ‘aliment’ and schools encouraged parents to take their children to the GP.  Why?  Schools receive extra funding for children with recognised disabilities and ADHD had become a disability. thus qualifying for benefits.

It’s my firm belief that the lack of quiet time in primary schools goes some way towards children developing ADHD plus the lack of exercise many suffer these days.

Of course ADHD has been around for years.  Thirty years ago a neighbour’s child - a really pleasant wee girl - ran her family and school, ragged.  The parents were into ‘healthy eating’ and the mother thought she could do no wrong, but the wee lassie just couldn’t sit still for more than a minute. So often her mother said “She’s ants in her pants” and laughed.  It was her primary school headmaster who suggested a visit to the GP would be wise and the GP diagnosed Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and the wee girl was given a sedative to help her sleep.  Fortunately the GP didn’t leave it at one visit and a prescription and investigated further. After a basic allergy test it was found the girl was allergic to one of the E colourings in her mother’s favourite orange juice (freshly pressed of course).  There was no talk of ADD being a disability or the taxpayer providing extra funds for the family. 

Of course that was 30 years ago and things have changed.

Now ADD or ADHD is an acceptable disability.  Sadly.  The label provides an excellent opportunity for parents to take no responsibility. Why should they when extra money is coming into the house?  

The latest nonsense is that people who are classed as obese are entitled to disability benefits. Not only is the taxpayer helping overweight folk to eat, we (the taxpayers) are also going to give a reward to GPs who identify the ‘obese’ on their lists.

So, let’s sum this up. If you overeat your GP will class you as obese and therefore you will qualify for disability benefits.  Not only that but your GP’s practice will gain financially.  A win-win situation for those involved - except the poor taxpayer, once again.

Now that obesity is recognised as a disability, expect many more grossly fat people applying for all the relevant benefits while some elderly sit in their cold homes, too embarrassed to admit to anyone they can’t afford to heat and eat.

In the past 30 years I notice my principles and values are insignificant now. Soon they will be non-existant. A roller coaster which has good far too fast to stop.

Tweet

Obesity Increases Global Warming

A study, carried out by a trio of researchers within the Centre for Obesity Research and Epidemiology (CORE) at Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen suggests that if every obese and overweight person in the world lost 1.58 stone, the resulting drop in greenhouse emissions would be the equivalent of 0.2% of the CO2 emitted globally in 2007 (49.560Mt).


The calculation were based on a previous weight loss study that investigated the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on body weight, body composition and resting metabolic rate of obese volunteers with type 2 diabetes.

Dr Catherine Rolland was one of the lead researchers on the study. She explains: "This decrease can be explained by the principles of respiration - the process by which organisms breathe in oxygen, which is then converted to CO(2) and then exhaled.

"CO(2) production is proportionate to body mass and heavier individuals naturally produce more than those of a healthier weight. The global obesity epidemic, therefore, has resulted in humans producing a higher volume of a major greenhouse gas."

What more motivation do we need knowing, that if we all aim to become stick-thin, we will be saving the planet.  Surprisingly the eco-fanatics haven't leapt upon this valuable piece of research as yet, but they will.


Mentioning this to a comfily built friend the other day, the reply was, "I'll stop eating cabbage and that'll be my contribution. Never liked it anyway." A trite response you may think but the man is a retired osteologist so he's sure to know a thing or two about human emissions.


Is it fanciful to foresee a new quango springing into the fake charity box in order to add more pressure upon the obese?  Anyone seriously overweight knows the risks involved but I doubt if many will be inspired to change their eating habits by being told they can save the world. That's probably the least of their concerns.


No doubt the gut man will correct me if I'm wrong.


source

Tweet

Pill-Popping Isn't The Answer

Portrait of a Pregnant Woman

Raphael c1506

Obese women are likely to have larger babies and rates of caesarians are much higher as are births with forceps and other very serious complications.  Some years ago I worked with a young woman who was obese yet her desire for children transformed her, over a year, into a bonny woman half her original size, with a more contented outlook and a confidence which hadn't been visible previously.

Unfortunately her efforts to conceive were non-productive and her husband and herself saved hard to pay for IVF treatment (it wasn't available on the NHS then).  During her second IVF attempt they emigrated to Canada and we lost touch but I've often wondered if they had a family.

However, society has changed and now obese pregnant women are to be given drugs to stop their babies becoming overweight.

More than 500 pregnant women go to the Liverpool Women's Hospital every year with a body mass index (BMI) of more than 40, meaning they are severely obese and now 100 of them are to be given the drug Metformin, which is usually given to diabetics to reduce blood sugar levels.

The medic involved in running the trial said, "The difficulty comes when you have been living in a particularly way for years that is not healthy.  To suddenly change to a different lifestyle is not easy to do.  Lifestyle change takes time and we would always encourage this as well but the use of Metformin gives us another option when the other is not realistic."

Metformin is a strong drug which may ensure a smaller baby and therefore less risk during delivery, but what effect will it have on the newborn is not known.  I expect this is the reason for the trial but isn't it sad that, in these well-informed times, there are so many grossly overweight women happy to become pregnant in the full knowledge of the risks to their unborn child's health.

Is pill-popping the answer?  I don't think so.

source

Tweet

Children Aren't At Fault

It hasn't been a good couple of weeks for Britain's children and youth. We were told the UK's education systems are failing (although it's since been reported that Scottish figures are static), the student/pupil protest failed to change the minds of those insulated in the Palace of Westminster, in Scotland intimate details of our lives are being 'monitored' and shared by public bodies without our knowledge and now child obesity is getting worse in Scotland.

One in 12 children were classed as obese, one in 25 were severely obese and the proportion of children who were already calculated to be overweight has increased by 0.6% in the last year.  Boys were more likely than girls to be overweight, as were children who live in poorer areas.  The study - of nearly 4000 people - was undertaken using children aged 5 in their first year of primary school - possibly with the use of the plan mentioned here.

In the 50s and 60s I can't remember any of my peers being called fat.  We walked to school, some ran home at lunchtime, others ran around in the playground to aid digestion after a school dinner and we had an afternoon playtime too in those days.  As soon as homework was completed outside we dashed, in all weathers, to play some game.  Kick the can was one I remember but I've forgotten the rules.  It did involve raking through bins for an empty tin to kick and also running like a whippet to hide before you were sighted.

I digress.  Families then lived on very tight budgets.  There was little money for treats although once a month or so my brother and myself were treated to a bottle of American Cream Soda and one scoop of ice cream to make ice drinks.  It was always on a Sunday evening.  We never dared suggest it or even drop the slightest hint, the decision was usually our father's and he would trundle up to the Hilltown to buy the ingredients for what I thought was the most exotic drink on earth.

So often I read it's children from poor homes who suffer.  Why, in this century when there are so many outlets for children's excess energy, is this happening?  I can only think the responsibility must lie with some parents.

Part of the problem started many years ago when Britain imported the American fast-food style. Then we imported more and more, until nearly every street in every town has a fast food outlet open long past the time children should be asleep.  In the 50s we only had chip shops and a fish supper was another special treat.

Not so long ago I was speaking to an acquaintance who told me she spends a couple of afternoons a month, on a voluntary basis, teaching mums to make soup. Lentils, split peas and barley were unknown to them when they started.  How very sad.  That problem belongs to my generation who, in trying to give our children a 'better' quality of life, we forgot to teach them the basics of good cooking.

So let's not blame it on the children or the young people.  Most very young children will eat what they are given.  If obesity is a problem today it's the fault of adults, yet most of those whose children are overweight refuse to acknowledge the fact.  They have to take responsibility for their children's health and plan their children's free time. The nanny state hasn't been effective because it removed the parental responsibility.  Is it not time to withdraw support, except in exceptional situations, and then perhaps parents would begin to accept they are the cause of their child being called 'fatty' and do something about it.  No parent wants their child to be fat but if the parent is overweight themselves then it will be so much easier for them to ignore the weight of their children.

The cost of living in rising and income is not. Could this be the catalyst for parents to realise good food can be cheaper than fast foods?  Instead of preaching the 'five-a-day' and 'healthy eating' mantras, how about having a television programme which shows how to make a pot of soup or a plate of mince and tatties?  A couple of years ago I vaguely remember some television chef doing an interactive programme about cooking a meal and it was a great success.  A similar format could encourage parents and older children to give cooking a try and in the privacy of their own homes without being assessed by the professionals.

Tweet

It's the Pantomime Season

A few days after I wrote this post, it's reported McDonald's and PepsiCo are to help write UK health policy.  To be fair Kelloggs, Unilever, Mars and Diago are also at the heart of writing the government's policy on obesity.  Health secretary Andrew Lansley has set up five 'responsibility deal' networks with business, co-chaired by ministers, to come up with policies.  Of course these businesses will be completely altruistic.

Then the Daily Mail, (ok, ok), say MPs have employed a food adviser to the Commons administration committee because they are furious about Commons food. They regard it as 'overpriced' and 'literally uneatable'.  Bob Ainsworth is asking for Commons catering to be privatised as 'it could not be worse'. A bacon roll in Portcullis House used to cost £1.30 and is now £1.90 and the MPs aren't impressed - to put it mildly - with the new ' all or as little as you eat' £15 flat fee for up to three courses which was introduced in the MPs' dining room recently.

A spokesman for the Commons administration committee insisted it was normal for Commons select committees to draft in expert outside advice.  The new MPs' food tzar is expected to be paid around £500 a day, but then surely he's worth it.  After all Jon Hewitt is an expert with considerable experience in the industrial catering trade. He must have thought it was Christmas when he was invited to undertake this investigation. It will be interesting to read his evaluation but I doubt if it will ever be published.

Then we have the pantomime Happiness Patrol which aims to measure our happiness levels. I'm speechless.

'They're behind you.'  'No they're not.'  'Yes they are.'  You'd better believe it.

Tweet

The Power of the Blogosphere

Firstly, this post is not about smokers and smoking, it's about our freedom to choose being lawfully denied each and every one of us.

Secondly, I must record my gratitude to Anna Raccoon and Old Holborn who have fought feverishly raise the money to pay Nick Hogan's fine and return him to his family. Nick, you may remember, is the ex-landlord who was fined £11,600 for permitting two people to smoke in his pub - even though he was not present in the building at the time. He was able to pay £1,600 but was unable to lay his hands on £10,000 and the judge decided such a failing required 6 months in prison.

The blogosphere raised the £11,600 to show that this was not justice and OH delivered it to the prison today.

Each and every one of us ought to be aware that the smoking policy is just the beginning of government's complete control over our freedom to choose.

Any one of us is at risk. If you come under any of the following headings: over 65, slightly overweight, drink alcohol, want the best school for your children, drive the 'wrong' car, take a photograph of a police officer - the list is endless - you are at risk.

What does concern me in the over 65 issue. It's well recorded over 65s don't matter. They don't give enough money to the Treasury although what they do give is on money which has already been taxed. The recent report on Stafford Hospital stated most patients were over 65 - obviously passed their usefulness date. Finally it's being reported that 60% of inspected hospitals in England were not accurately assessing their own performance.

Please consider this, if a landlord is fined/imprisoned for 'permitting' two people to smoke on his premises when he wasn't even present, do you feel that the justice system will deal with you fairly even though your 'offence' is nothing to do with smoking?

The smoking issue is the tip of a very large iceberg. You'd better believe it. Only we can change this and we must take some responsibility for allowing a government to destroy our beliefs of fairness and justice.

Tweet