health fascism???

In most western countries today the most insidious threat to personal freedom is that of "health fascism". This a body of ideas and attitudes which has great influence on public opinion in general and, what is more significant, on the political elite in particular. The putative nature of these ideas gives them an undeserved status and immunity from criticism which, coupled with their influence, means that they exert a profound and malign influence on public policy. The ideas of "health fascism" are put forward by many powerful and influential organisations, notably the medical profession, but also by a plethora of overlapping interconnected pressure groups. The ideas themselves, however, are not new but have rather existed as a coherent body with an associated programme of action for about a hundred and fifty years. The precise content of the arguments and the consequential programme have varied from time to time; today the focus is on diet, smoking, and alcohol whereas it has previously been on such matters as "feeblemindedness" and "moral delinquency" but there is a continuity at a deeper level of fundamental assumptions and modes of argument. The debates over health and public policy which happen today are in essence concerned with the same issues as earlier ones. The study of these earlier debates and their outcome helps us to understand better the nature of contemporary health pressure groups and both what is at stake and how best to resist the "health fascists".

What, though, are the underlying ideas of "health fascism"? The basic premise is that the health of a population is determined primarily by social rather than environmental or inherent factors. That is, the health of both particular individuals and aggregate populations is determined by such matters as diets, customary practices, lifestyles, patterns of work, social structures such as household organisation, the class system. This implies that we can best assure the health of individuals and of society at large by attempting to control these social factors rather than by using therapeutic medicine.



http://www.forces.org/articles/forest/fascism.htm

Fascinating...stuff..

n this new "gene age" in which large amounts of research funds are used for studies on the genetics of such complex social traits as alcoholism, criminality or obesity, for example, Garland E. Allen, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, says the climate is ripe for a "re-packaged" eugenics in American society.

http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/792.html


But Steve Landsburg makes another, less obvious point in his book The Armchair Economist. Landsburg argues that vices like smoking, for example, enable health insurers to designate high-risk consumers from low-risk consumers. Same with motorcycle helmets. Insurers assume -- and with good statistical evidence -- that people who take such obvious risks are likely to take other risks, too. It's a sorting mechanism.

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/023914.php

In this section we illustrate the long-in-the-making, but just "exploded" war on fat. This is the next chapter of the most profitable business enterprise America ever undertook: health activism.

Inert, passive, indifferent, Americans let the health cartel control their lives in a much deeper way than any other country on Earth. Have Americans surrendered their individualism and freedom in favour of paternalism and frauds, and in exchange for the perception of "protection?"

Judging by the behaviour of the masses, the answer is yes.

http://www.forces.org/articles/eaters.htm

Because
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/11/24/AR2005033110261.html
http://www.nursingworld.org/readroom/position/ethics/etdisrac.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=388001&in_page_id=1774
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9901EED6143DF932A35756C0A9629C8B63
http://www.linz.at/Archiv/sammelband/goldberger_e.html
It isn't just me..noticing it.

most people feel crummy a lot of the time- much more than their parents and grandparents did at their age. And I think a lot of it has to do with environmental pollution and changes in food production (hormones, antibiotics, GMO, what have you.) And it's a lot easier and cheaper for the government to advocate dieting- after all, when the diet fails, you can blame the dieter- than to significantly address the working conditions, inadequate housing, pollution and contamination of the food supply which make people sick in the first place.

In this way, I think "fascism" while hyperbolic is still basically accurate. The Nazis used racism as a distraction from the corporate takeover of the state and the rape of the environment and the workers, the current regime uses diet and exercise.

The basic premise is that the health of a population is determined primarily by social rather than environmental or inherent factors. That is, the health of both particular individuals and aggregate populations is determined by such matters as diets, customary practices, lifestyles, patterns of work, social structures such as household organisation, the class system. This implies that we can best assure the health of individuals and of society at large by attempting to control these social factors rather than by using therapeutic medicine.

You mention working conditions, inadequate housing & pollution. That makes YOU a "fascist." The idiots at that site want medicine to "fix" everything--when some sicknesses can be prevented.

The OP is certainly distracted from more important things happening in the world. How many threads will she start that accuse people of being Nazis? When have Bush & his minions come out in favor of diet & exercise? What's WRONG with diet & exercise? I don't mean "dieting"--I mean paying attention to the quality & quantity of what we eat.

but I have heard of no other country, and certainly not mine.

NT

Britain has got rid of junk food in schools. The whole of Europe are terrified of GMOs.

I think the original post was correct in that aspect.

Study Finds English Are Healthier than Americans

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5377794

Also, as to your one of your Washington Post links, why shouldn't EVERY women be taking vitamin (and especially folic acid) supplements?

You might want to educate yourself about neural tube defects (spina bifida) before using that as one of your examples.

See, e.g.:

FERTILE WOMEN NEED TO TAKE MULTIVITAMINS WITH FOLIC ACID (MVF)

CENTER FOR DISEASE PREVENTION & EPIDEMIOLOGY • OREGON HEALTH DIVISION
December 19, 2000

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/cdsummary/2000/ohd4926.pdf

Us Useless Uteruses* as well as Sacred Sperm Producers** benefit from folic acid as well; it helps heart function. Why is it just preached to Perpetually Pre-Pregnant?


* women of childbearing age who refuse to bear children by surgical sterilization, immediate abortion or other means as well as post-menopausal women
** men of all ages

And they have to target populations who are at risk and in need.

Read the CD Summary:

ND's (neural tube defects) occur just 3-4 weeks after conception usually before pregnancy is confirmed;

Half of all pregnancies are unplanned;

(some of which occur through unintentional misuse of birth control)

100-200 additional birth defects would be prevented each year if all Oregon women who got pregnant were taking folic acid supplements.

That's one small state-

So, because of people's whack conspiracy theories- they're willing to condemn these kids to a preventable deformity- and a life of pain?

That's just appalling to me...

A visit once a year for the BC prescription? Maybe a Pap smear? The article that caused all the problems indicated that this approach was a way to ensure the insurance companies paid for "routine" office visits. Controlling diabetes was also mentioned--beneficial in the long run even if no pregnancy ever happens.

Not EVERY woman will abort EVERY unplanned pregnancy. In fact, many won't--even if they want that option open to them.

Our health is valuable only as ambulatory gestational chambers (as evidenced by the Google ads popping up offering to sell any unwanted babies we might have). Even nicer to know I'm spitting in their faces by just existing. Makes me want to get sterilized yet again - but at this point, that'd mean a hysterectomy, which I don't want.

I'm post-menopausal myself. But I don't obsess about not having been a mother. I don't measure my worth by the state of my Fallopian tubes. What happens to my uterus is my own business. I consider my brain to be more important.

And I don't feel demeaned because women who might become mothers are being encouraged to take better care of themselves.

that I'm outraged that YOU'RE not being encouraged to take care of yourself. Not you personally - I wouldn't know you if I ran over you - but older women like you who are being treated as though they are of no value because they can no longer breed. I'm outraged that women are only being considered as worthy as being looked after because they might become the container of a precious preborn poppet, and because of that, they must keep their vessels pure. No stressful jobs, honey - you might miscarry before you even know you're pregnant! Screw the rest of you - let your diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma and other chronic conditions go unchecked. There's something wrong with that, because included in those being ignored are the pre-breeding-stock aged daughters (and sons) these women may someday have, as well as their aging parents.

I know where you're going by trying to personalize this, and that's so so so sweet of you, but there's a much larger issue out there. It's ALL women, who should be valued for their brains, their value beyond their ability to whelp.

And if you remained childless by choice, there's no need to be modest. For women of the generation before mine, that was a major accomplishment in the face of tremendous societal pressure, and you deserve to be commended for sticking to your guns! :thumbsup:


on edit - oops! too many words in header!

Even if you'd rather run over me than "encourage" me. And I know about the problems of older women--for about 20 years, I was the main care-giver for my late mother.

You take this personally, yourself, but call me "so so so sweet"? I know some pretty bright women who've had children. I'm not against motherhood--it just wasn't in the picture for me.

Women don't "whelp"--bitches do.

Women don't "whelp"--bitches do.

Yes indeed. We are women - not breeding stock. We shouldn't be treated as such. Thank you for agreeing with me.

I'm glad you had the benefit of your education, experience and internet connection - now if we can just make sure that every woman in the US has the equivalent, we're on the right path!

Women are human beings with a God-given free will. We are not bitches who have no choice other than to pop out pups at the behest of our masters.

When will those macho pricks get it? When hell freezes over?

Of course people in public health would like everyone to receive primary and preventative care-

No one is arguing that. Yet we also know that it cannot be done- especially not in the current political climate.

THE FACT which you dispense with (contemtuously?) is that many women DO get pregnant when they're not planning to- and they DO end up having kids with preventable birth defects BECAUSE so many are not taking a simple supplement.

THAT'S one of the big reasons WHY public health efforts target women of childbearing age. The issue has NOTHING AT ALL to do with people's feelings (or fears?) about being considered some sort of "ambulatory uterus."

Try to take the chip off your shoulder and look at the bigger picture. Try to see this as a small but significant win/win.

Such as "pharmacist conscience laws," so-called abstintence-only sex-education, cutting of funds for women's health, denying BC coverage in group insurance policies ...

Sure. Preventing birth defects is neat. Treating women as breeding stock is repulsive. There's no excuse for not changing the folic acid campaign to "Everyone needs folic acid in their diets - it can prevent the #1 cause of death (heart disease) and help prevent a hideous birth defect as well." If you don't get that, well, you're never going to get it. If you like being defined by your gonads, go for it.

I hope that all women get good health care--whether or not you consider some of them "breeding stock."

Sorry, I don't agree with you.

My goodness. Someone's either being terribly, terribly disingenuous or just isn't reading well this morning. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, because you're such a darling and want me to have good self-esteem. Plus, you're bitter and barren - just like me, sister! Gotta stick together!

I bet if you think real real hard, you can figure out why I used the words I did. I know you can! I believe in you, sister!

Especially for today, kids more and more play video games and eat fast "food".

Our "culture" sets all this as the norm. WHy not? It generates profit.

There is no "health fascism".

It's a feeble attempt to counter the fascism of wanting to play that cool new video game, to adapt to an insanely paced world that's only getting faster, and to be apart from others.

And they're using your fear to attack the irrefutable benefit of PUBLIC HEALTH. Don't be fooled.

Can't you find a better cause? Why are you so angry? OK--you're what some would consider overweight. I know large people who manage to get on with their lives; they have other interests.

The link you provided is one of the more brain-dead I've seen. I have no problem at all with smoking bans. And I don't think that concerns about public health are "fascist."

Of course, I could be wrong, but just as one doesn't have to be G/B/L/T to be against the so-called DOMA, one doesn't have to be fat to be against discrimination based on body size.

Of course media stars are mostly size 2! I'm not--so what?

I know women considerably larger than I who have families & good jobs. They don't consider every public health measure to be "fascist." They are too busy living their lives.

I could say I know plenty of plus-size men and women who face real discrimination eevery day, and my stories would mean as much as yours.

Sure, lots of people are so busy just trying to get by they don't have the strength and energy to even realize everything that's out there, let alone take a stand. That's why there'll always be people who think the war is going great, global warming doesn't affect them, and that there is no scapegoating of fat people. Everyone picks their battles. This one isn't yours ... so move on!

But please feel free to tell us any relevant anecdotes.

Sorry, but I don't think that those dying in Iraq are less important than those who shop in the Women's Department. (Spoken as one who shops at the large end of the rack in Misses.)

But you know that - just as saying "but I know plenty of people who are xyz and have no problems..." is useless in a debate.

The BMI as the sole determinant to see who's overweight is also to blame. The Body Mass Index doesn't take into account people who are large boned, muscular, or both. Nor does it factor in percentage of body fat. So, Shaquille O'Neal is regarded as obese when in fact he has a meager percentage of body fat. The BMI actually fosters an ideal body image that in fact is very underweight and unhealthy if you have a large frame.

When the * regime went from body fat percentage index to BMI, they were not just looking for a simplistic, cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all non-solution to the complex issue of overweight and obesity; they were looking for an excuse to pad the percentage of overweight Americans to force people to go to paid-off doctors who'd prescribe their heavily advertised weight loss drugs of questionable safety. The junk science of the BMI filled that bill.

What we need to do is to go back to real science: bring back the percentage of body fat as the determinant of overweight and/or obesity, which does factor in skeletal size and lean mass percentage. The math may be a bit more complicated, but it's scientifically accurate, as opposed to the pseudoscience of BMI.

:hi:

Thank you for bringing this up. This is an excellent point. Muscle weighs more than fat; logically, the BMI makes no sense.

It's not a body mass index. It's what your weight should be for your height and it takes absolutely no other factors into consideration. It's bullshit.

BMI does not correlate well to health problems and a better gauge of present health is Waist Hip Ratio.

This is a measurement of the circumference of the hip and of the waist arounf the belly button. For men it should be near 0.85 and for women it should be 0.70. The easiest way to see this is to see if someone has a pot belly.

Women in particular will suffer from infertility (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome or PCOS) and breast cancer if they have this body shape.

is often the cause rather than the symptom, I know b/c I have it and wasn't always heavy around the middle. But I agree WHR is a better predictor than BMI.

Both PCOS and a high WHR have an underlying cause. One may show up without the other being present.

Having a WHR of 0.80 for a woman will double the risk of having Diabetes and 0.80 is barely noticable.

He had to lose 30 lbs over the course of the season.

I agree with you but I'm just being a smart-ass.