Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 9 Jul 1998 18:42:59 +0000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7BIT |
From: |
|
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: Self <Single-user mode>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Further to 'Politics of HP' and prenatal nutrition
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 16:11:57
> > They are very strange assumptions - based on tradition and emotion
> > mostly (few people are prepared to accept starving chiildren - at
> > least those living near us). A coherent health policy could not
> > sustain this illogic - either people are important or they are not!
>
>
> Right, but them as an anti-poverty activist that sees again another cut in
> provincial welfare rates this month with the explanation that this money
> will be given to more programs including child feeding programs, I can not
> help but wonder if people aren't part of the solution then they are part of
> the problem.
>
> When it seems the whole discipline is ready to go off and do the "flavour
> of the week" in terms of government funding and justify it that it is
> health promotion then as a activist I start to question the credibility of
> the discipline. And when they start to talk about evidence based practice
> but seem to allow the idea that feeding a child each school day and not
> week-ends and summers will somehow support that child to "learn better"
> then again, I am concerned for the discipline.
Absolutely - yet another reason why health promotion urgently needs a
sound theoretical base. If health promoters were clear about the
purposes of their work then 'flavour of the week' grants would be
eschewed.
Keep the comments coming.
David
|
|
|