Hi all:
I can't help contributing to this debate...  I very much agree with David
King's comments that the program resources are unbalanced. I think the
women's health movement has wrestled with this dialectic over the years---
and has strongly worked for healthy public policy.
The Women's Health clinic in Winnipeg has had a "women, income and health"
research and education project [which includes billboards, posters etc ---
http://www.womenshealthclinic.org/whats_new.html  -- have examples and the
report itself.
the theme is Poverty is Hazardous to Women's Health
                    Reducing Poverty improves health for everyone.
This is a somewhat difficult concept I grant you but I have found concepts
such the need for equitable income distribution  and a healthy housing plan
a much harder "sell" -- with health professionals than I would have
anticipated. Our Just Income coalition  and minimum wage review had few
endorsements from the many health service organizations or professional
associations.
These messages, and those who bring these messages forward are somewhat
unpopular as they do challenge power relationships and assumptions-- it can
be hazardous in fact!
Madeline

At 03:54 PM 16/12/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Rachel, As a public health nutritionist who studied for six years I would
>expect you to say exactly what you have said. As a result of your personal
>investment in studying and practising nutrition you are bound to say that
>diet is important and should be valued - which it is because so many
>professionals and institutions have invested resources. I would expect
>similar responses from smoking cessation specialists and those specialising
>in promoting physical activity. Sometimes we need to stand back from our own
>professional perspectives in this debate. Whenever the lifestyle vs social
>and economic determinants debate develops on this list (usually twice a
>year) someone will point out that the two positions are not opposed, that
>they should be complimentary, that lifestyle interventions need to take into
>account social and economic factors and adapt their programmes accordingly.
>I agree that the recent debates are not productive, I would love to move the
>debate on to the relative effectiveness of social and economic interventions
>to promote health, however whereas nutrition is an accepted as a legitimate
>area of activity for health services to be engaged in action on the
>determinants of health is not. The relatively low numbers of practitioners
>engaged in this sort of activity and the paucity of relevant research and
>evaluation reports prevents us from having similar debates. Surely the
>debate should be about how we can promote the development of health
>promotion/public health infrastructure based on the broader determinants of
>health so at least the debate about the debates would be more balanced.
>
> > David King



>Madeline Boscoe, R.N

Women's Health Clinic
  419 Graham Ave.
Winnipeg MB  R3C 0M3
Tel (204) 947 1517 or 947 2422 ex 122
Fax (204) 983 3844
E-mail  [log in to unmask]
www. womenshealthclinic.org

To unsubscribe send one line: unsubscribe click4hp to: [log in to unmask] . To view archives or modify subscription see: http://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/click4hp.html