On Health Promotion on the Internet, Stirling,
Alison[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote:


Alison,

> I just found that the following message from David Seedhouse, replying
> to Blake Poland, had not been successful in getting posted to this list.
> In the spirit of keeping this lively discussion flowing, I am copying it
> here.

I must say I am following this discussion closely and I think I am starting
to understand a lot of my concerns with HP.

Maybe if I lay them out it will help;

School feeding programs as a response to poverty.

They do not feed children in the summer and on week-ends, it does not make
sense to me if people truly believe that people do not have enough food to
feed their children that they also think that children can go with out
steady food.

Then when I read some of the programs I learn that some of the objectives
are to "get mothers in the habit of feeding their children breakfast"

So, these programs are not really meant to address a lack of money but a
lack of skills among parents.  And I wonder if there is any proof that
women who live in poverty have low skills in terms of nutrition or
remembering to feed their children.

Thus for me, David's stuff makes sense, these programs reflect a certain
set of values among the people who support them.  And they are not my
values and beliefs.

Now we have a whole bunch of funded CAPC and Prenatal nutrition programs in
Ontario, really only the Metro Toronto ones have done any work around the
pregnancy supplement in social assistance rates with their local
municipalities.

Why?  Is it that they agree with the government that women waste the money
given them?  Isn't healthy public policy part of the work they do?  Are
they not funded by a totally different level of government and thus secure?

Anyway, please continue the discussion as I am learning a lot, I have
managed to get my hands on a copy of David's book:

Health Promotion - Philosophy, Prejudice and Practice
published by John Wiley and Sons

It makes great reading!

Thanks again,

S


> That isn't the way I see it.  I find that most of the 'voices' are
> equally vague about the purpose of health promotion.

> I think we need to be honest.  I do not believe that conceptual
> fuzziness for political reasons makes any long-term sense.  I think
> we need to make it clear that health promotion is not only disease
> prevention but _is_ to do with work towards 'other social goals'
> and on social conditions that are debilitating for reasons other
> than that they may cause disease.
>
> Please re-read Part Three of my Health Promotion book - and get past
> my criticisms of 'woolly thinking'.  What matters is how we progress
> theoretically and practically - I'd much prefer a debate on positive
> ways forward for health promotion, of which my Fondations Theory is
> one option.
>
> Let's carry on with this.
>
> Thank you Blake
>
> Best wishes
>
>
>
> David


--
Sherrie Tingley
[log in to unmask]