----------
> From: David Seedhouse <[log in to unmask]>

>
> 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.

And with all the child programs that create cultures of risk and create
assumptions of single parents  and poor people's abilities to both parent
and not abuse their children, I question if not more harm is done then
good.

And what is the role of advocacy?  It is pretty clear cut in Ontario that
we could easily challenge the cutting of the pregnancy benefit under the
human rights code, but very few of the programs work with legal advocates.
Again why not, it is another strategy for change and health.

S

>
> David