> Joanne,
>
> Thanks for your views, I wanted to explore the prenatal nutrition programs
> because I am not sure I really understand them.
>
> > From: Joanne Roulston <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > - This separation is also counter-productive to population health
> > goals.  To have a healthy baby, a woman must be adequately nourished
> > when she conceives.  Good nutrition that begins after pregnancy is
> > detected is a help, but nowhere near as good as beginning one's
> > pregnancy in good health.
>
> Right, but all the programs concerned with healthy outcomes never do
> anything about the fact that many people do not have enough money to buy
> food.  So again based on David's view, does that not imply values?
> >
> > - Feeding poor women when they are pregnant, then cutting them off once
> > they have passed the lactation stage is a fairly explicit expression of
> > misogyny in public policy that recognizes women as baby-producers, not
> > citizens with rights of their own to adequate food and some dignity.

I don't wish to hog too much cyber space but this is another good
example of the need for theory.  What you describe makes no sense,
but is typical of the 'health policies' of many governments.  For
various reasons one govt. after another makes gestures of support for
the least well off people, and then cuts the support off quite
arbitrarily.

If infants are important then two year olds must be equally
important - or else govt. must have some good reasons why not.  If
school children are important then so are school-leavers.  If it is
important to save badly injured accident victims at public expense
then it must - logically - be equally important to ensure that they
can live worthwhile lives after they recover (but we often don't do
this).  If it is worth training psychiatrists and buying expensive
medicines to treat mental illness then it must be worth supporting
mentally vulnerable people to go on and live productive lives - but
we don't always do this either.

One of the reasons for this crazy thinking is that we cannot counter
the dominance of a tradition of medicine and conservative social
planning with positive, theoretically sustainable practical
alternatives (but we must).

We should value people for all those good things that they can do and
all those good things that they might go on to do, given the chance.
Presumably this is one reason why govts. want to protect small
children - but there is no sensible reason to stop then, if anything
there is all the more reason to carry on.

>
> I have never seem any outcome data for these programs, they all point to
> the Montreal Diet Dispensary, but it was a much different program with a
> much different population.  So if we truly believe that these programs work
> and pregnancy is only 10 months long and we have thousands of these
> programs across the country then we should have these great outcomes to
> talk about.
>
> Our local program kicks women off if they are not breast feeding at 3 mos,
> if they are breast feeding then at 6 months.  Again, duhh, how does this
> make sense, I breastfed my son for three years, course he did start solids
> at around 6 months, but did not attempt cow's milk until he was around 12
> months.
>
> Right in this country we are willing to see pregnant women and children be
> fed, but that is it.  Both levels of government are willing to see child
> feeding programs expand.
>
> Again, what are the assumptions and values and is this what we should be
> doing?
>

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!

David