I wish more people thought more about what kids are eating
http://www.thestar.com/article/260393
Catering to a healthy lunch idea
Junk food is banned at school for elite athletes where students order from weekly menus
September 26, 2007
Jennifer Bain
food editor
School lunch hysteria is sweeping the city. It must be September.
Big food companies are madly trying to put a kid-friendly lunch spin on their products. (Single-serving caesar salad kits might fly with select teens, but not with the grade schoolers depicted in one recent news release.)
The snack food contingent is crowing about new peanut-free labels – perhaps because their products will no longer be confiscated in lunchrooms? (Sorry, but while Twizzlers are an okay treat, I won’t be serving them for lunch.)
I’ve had one local company send a histrionic email about overweight children and how urgent it is to get their particular vending machines into schools. The samples of “healthy snacks” they sent – cookies, chips and peanut butter protein bars – failed to persuade me.
Some catering companies are clamouring to deliver hot or cold meals directly to schools. (Nutritious and tasty, no doubt – but accessible to the average parent?)
Newspapers are filled with routine stories urging us to do the obvious – ask our kids what they want, get them involved in grocery shopping, buy different-sized plastic storage tubs, pack small portions.
Frankly, I don’t get too fussed about my 10-year-old vegetarian’s lunch. She gets a good breakfast (cereal and milk, fruit and cheese), healthy after-school snacks (mixed nuts, more fruit), and a well-rounded dinner (whole wheat pasta, bean/cheese/rice burritos, veggie burgers, lentil soup, the spectrum of vegetables, that sort of thing).
The reality is that my daughter gets just 25 minutes in her school lunchroom (where she’d usually rather chat than eat) – and the kids don’t get access to a microwave.
These days her lunch is simple – a whole-wheat bagel with cream cheese or soy-based deli slices, cheese and lettuce. A tiny tub of chickpeas or carrots, cucumber slices and grape tomatoes. A water bottle, one juice box (100 per cent juice only) or drinkable yogurt, a compromise snack – fruit chews, granola bars (with peanut-free labels), pretzels, crackers.
Naturally, this menu changes depending on my daughter’s whims and my energy level – I’m a failure in the hot food-into-a-thermos department. But putting together a decent school lunch is not taxing.
And, obviously, there’s no one right way to do it. You must take into account your budget, time constraints, child’s preferences and lunchroom realities. It’s always interesting, though, to hear about schools that are on the right track.
At Premier Elite Athletes’ Collegiate in Downsview Park, managing director Neil Doctorow enlisted a catering company to devise a healthy menu. Students peruse a new, two-page menu each week and select what they want for each day of the following week. The food is delivered each morning in individually labelled brown bags and refrigerated until needed. The lunchroom has multiple microwaves. Students can eat in class, too.
The menu is full of fruit, bagels, salads, sandwiches, wraps, pasta, stews and hot entrées. Most of the bread and pasta is whole wheat. There are veggies aplenty and protein is essential. There are just three desserts – fresh fruit salad, oatmeal raisin cookies and carrot cake. There’s no fried food. Prices are roughly $1.10 to $5.50 per item.
“We know people are going to eat what they eat when they go home,” allows Doctorow, “but while they’re here they’re going to learn how to make proper food choices.”
Doctorow, a kinesiologist, has taught in public schools in Toronto, Scarborough, Markham and Unionville. He grimaces at the memory of one grade schooler whose usual lunch was unwrapped cold cuts and a 2-litre bottle of Coke tossed into a plastic shopping bag.
“That drove me nuts,” he remembers. “I used to buy him lunch.”
Doctorow has a particular disgust for school cafeterias. He remembers one that served little more than pizza, beef patties and a daily special that was “some insane, high-fat concoction.”
So does lunch really have an impact on students? Doctorow describes teaching morning classes as a pleasure, but says afternoons can be a nightmare because of caffeinated, sugar-fuelled kids and the inevitable 2 o’clock crash.
That’s not to say enforcing healthy eating is a cinch anywhere, even at an athletic school. In the past, PEAC students have sneaked out for hot dogs and pizza, and still brazenly try to eat junk food in class. (It’s tossed in the garbage.)
So far, the students seem happy with the flavourful, catered meals.
“You can tell they really want us to be healthy here,” reports hockey player Harrison Newlands, 16.
And, unlike most schools and offices, the pressure is on (at least among staff) to eat even healthier.
Doctorow and I are sampling a couple of catered meals when two teachers wander into the lunchroom – one munching on a peach, the other eating a tub of salad.
“The best thing you can do is surround yourself with people who eat properly,” says Doctorow.
A fantastic evaluation from the Association of Ontario Health Centers
I don’t know what I love more; their conclusion, or their critical evaluation of party responses and ability to cut through the spin. I wish everyone could read and hear politicians’ responses like this.
http://www.aohc.org/aohc/index.aspx?ArticleID=249&lang=en-CA
ONTARIO ELECTION 2007 – What Ontario’s political parties are saying about the Second Stage of Medicare
In August 2007, AOHC issued a 20-point “call to action” to Ontario’s political parties. Building the Second Stage of Medicare: A Call to Action for Ontario’s Political Parties contains 20 priority action steps that the AOHC believes must be taken to improve health and health care in Ontario.
Here are the parties’ detailed responses. Below, a brief comparative analysis is provided.
Ontario Liberal Party — Ontario PC Party — Ontario NDP — Ontario Green Party
AOHC BRIEF ANALYSIS OF PARTY RESPONSES
Green Party fully commits to Second Stage of Medicare action plan; Clearer answers needed from other major parties
The good news: The Ontario Green Party has committed to all 20 action steps that AOHC identified in the action plan to speed up completion of the Second Stage of Medicare.
The bad news: In general, the answers received from other major parties were much less clear. So during the next few weeks of the election campaign we need Ontarians who believe in the benefits of our action plan to question politicians from these parties much more closely.
When candidates come to your door, appear on election call-in shows, or attend all-candidates meetings, ask them for clearer answers.
Liberals and NDP to improve dental care
Except for the Green Party (which said “yes” to all 20 action steps), only one action step – concerning dental care -secured significant commitments from other major parties. AOHC called for publicly-funded dental coverage for all Ontarians not covered by private dental insurance, and publicly-funded oral health care to be provided at all of the province’s CHCs and AHACs. Liberals and NDP both stopped short of publicly funded coverage for all Ontarians. But both parties did commit to funding dental care, with NDP committing to dental care in CHCs.
Who said what on four key issues?
To our other questions AOHC received very general replies from the Liberal, NDP and Progressive Conservative Parties – or no answer at all. Here’s a list of who said what on four of AOHC’s key calls to action.
1. To ensure that every Ontarian who needs access to CHCs and AHACs can secure it, complete a network throughout the province.
*
The Green Party said “yes” and committed to completing a provincial network, beginning with the establishment of 20 new CHCs and AHACs per year for the next four years;
*
The New Democratic Party did use the word “increase” with respect to the number of Community Health Centres and AHACs, but offered no further details. Their reply said: “Community Health Centres and Aboriginal Health Access Centres have a proven track record of providing excellent health care, health promotion and community development in a very cost-effective manner. That’s why our party supports increasing the number of CHCs and AHACS to provide better health care access across the province.”
*
The Liberal Party said that when the recent expansion of CHCs they initiated in their first mandate is complete they will, “in partnerships with the LHINs review to see if there are areas of additional need across the province.”
*
Despite our specific question about CHCs and AHACs, the letter we received from the Progressive Conservative Party made no mention of either kind of Centre. We also looked in PC party platform and found no mention there either.
2. Improve health care for Aboriginal populations, and eliminate the second class status of Aboriginal Health Access Centres (AHACs) by providing $14.6 million in new annualized funding to Ontario’s ten AHACs.
* The Green Party answered with a simple “yes”.
* As noted above, AHACs received no mention in the letter we received from the Progressive Conservative Party.
* The Liberal Party noted that in their first term they allocated $1 million to ensure that AHAC physicians and nurse practitioners are treated equitably. To make further progress, they said “we will review the funding of AHACs.”
* The NDP said “any approach to population health should address these disparities” but offered no specific detail.
3. Improve health care for newly-arrived immigrants by eliminating the 3-month wait period for OHIP that is currently imposed:
* The Green Party answered with another simple “yes”.
* The Liberal Party said: “Since coming to office, we have taken some steps to rethink this policy as seen in our commitment to waive the waiting period for military families. We will review this policy during our second term.”
* The NDP offered no answer to our question.
* The Progressive Conservative Party also offered no answer to our question.
4. To improve Ontarians’ access to health care, remove barriers that prevent Nurse Practitioners from practicing what they are trained and licensed to do.
*
Again, the Green Party answered by saying “yes” and agreed to implement the recommendations of the Nurse Practitioner Taskforce.
*
The Liberal Party said they are waiting for recommendations from the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Committee.
*
In their party platform, the Progressive Conservative Party say they will allow health practitioners to practice to full scope of practice but in their letter to us the party made no mention of how this would be applied to Nurse Practitioners.
*
NDP say they “support expanded roles and fair compensation for health professionals like Nurse Practitioners” but offered no further detail.
Well I see I’m not the only one to feel this way.
http://www.thestar.com/article/258857
The HPV vaccine is about preventing cancer. Period
September 21, 2007
Catholic schools debating moralissue of HPV shot
Sept. 19
In the current public debate about the HPV vaccine, the most crucial issue is getting lost. The HPV vaccine can prevent the cause of cervical cancer. We would like to put the emphasis back on preventing cancer and saving lives. Parents and their daughters need to know the facts before they make a decision about the vaccine.First, there is no evidence linking the initiation of vaccine programs for sexually transmitted infections to increased promiscuity. The human papilloma virus is a common sexually transmitted infection. The majority of sexually active Canadians are infected with HPV at some point. A small proportion of infections will lead to cervical and other cancers and non-cancerous warts.
Cervical cancer is preventable. Yet year after year, about 400 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer and 150 women die from the disease in Ontario. Many future deaths can now be averted through vaccination. However, the vaccine is only effective if given to girls before they are sexually active and exposed to HPV. The vaccine has been widely tested and subjected to the same rigorous evaluation process required of all new drugs in Canada.
HPV immunization is a powerful new tool in the battle against cervical cancer, but it is not a stand-alone prevention strategy. It is not a substitute for cervical cancer screening. Because the vaccine protects against 70 per cent of the cancer-causing HPV types, women still need to receive a regular Pap test to detect changes in the cervix that might turn into cancer. Also, most women have already been exposed to HPV and need to be screened.
By adding HPV immunization to regular cervical screening, we have the potential to put an end to cervical cancer. We encourage parents to get the facts and discuss the HPV vaccine with their children.
Dr. Verna Mai, Director of Screening, Cancer Care Ontario, Torontohttp://www.thestar.com/article/258598
HPV furor a pain for politicians
September 20, 2007
Jim Coyle
This week, the Catholic board in Halton was the latest to wrestle with the HPV vaccination program for female students in Grade 8. It narrowly rejected a motion to ban from its schools a program offered by the province to inoculate against the virus that can cause cervical cancer and genital warts.
The program, opponents said, would promote promiscuity and premarital sex and contradicted Catholic teaching that sex is only appropriate within marriage. One trustee went so far as to suggest students not even be offered counselling or advice on the vaccine.
It’s easy to understand complaints that the program was rushed, or that boards don’t have enough information on the vaccine, or that parents should retain the right to approve such a vaccine.
What’s difficult to grasp is the connection between a properly explained preventive health measure and the transformation of righteous innocents into fornicating citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah.
It seems a bit like arguing against tetanus shots on the grounds that students who receive them will commence recklessly impaling themselves on rusty nails.
It seems unlikely, moreover, that at the pivotal moment, in the back seat of a car or wherever it is adolescents go about such business, the deciding factor in shedding one’s virginity will be what’s recorded on a vaccination card. And the Talibanesque notion of withholding information from youngsters striding into adolescence is as disrespectful as would be sneaking the vaccine into them on the desexualized pretence that it wards off bubonic plague or baldness.
Any faith-based education system fearing its foundations are so flimsy and its teachings so tenuous and its young so intellectually fragile that a lifetime’s ethical instruction can be undone by a couple of jabs with a needle is as good as declaring its own failure.
Good public policy, freed from religious influence, is based on a reasoned understanding of how the human animal actually tends to behave, not some idealized notion of how in a perfect world it should. We hope, after all, that everyone will at all times drive carefully. But we still make them wear seatbelts.
If nothing else, the HPV fooferaw demonstrates how the best laid plans of mice, men and campaigning politicians can go awry.
For a man branded the “Education Premier,” September must have seemed a smashing month to tour. All those school visits. All those fresh faces and fresh starts. Enthusiasm as yet undulled by tedious routine. Then this.
At a stroke, it probably makes clear the potential for neverending turbulence from the proposal by PC Leader John Tory to extend public funding to other faith-based schools. It certainly makes things more awkward for the premier’s defence of a status quo when Catholic board health policy seems sourced more from the Vatican than Queen’s Park.
http://www.thestar.com/article/258470
Girls’ health comes first
September 20, 2007
Catholic schools debating moralissue of HPV shot
Sept. 19
I can only laugh at the naiveté of Catholic school trustees opposed to the HPV vaccine because they think it means children are going to be promiscuous very early in their teenage years. Sexuality is part of a much larger (and natural) learning experience that includes influences from family, peers, schools and the media. I’d hate to think that we believe our children’s entire moral compass on such complex issues could be guided by the mere presence or absence of a vaccine.Although long-term studies should be conducted before we vaccinate an entire generation of Canadian girls, this is just one more issue that leads me to think it’s time to dissolve the Catholic school system instead of expanding faith-based school funding.
Jennifer Lemon, Angus, Ont.From a young age we steep our kids in a culture that glorifies lifelong promiscuity – from the magazines they read to the songs they hear to the TV shows they watch. From “hot” male models on billboards to “JUICY” printed across their bottoms, they’re bombarded with sexually stimulating messages.
To suggest the HPV vaccine will make them think premarital sex is okay is ludicrous. It also does a disservice to the intelligence of our daughters. I am raising my girls to avoid premarital sex, but I told them that I can’t do anything about the HPV status of the man they’ll marry. There’s no way I’ll let them get that gift on their wedding night.
Mia Andrews, TorontoOur public-health officials have determined that the HPV vaccine can save women’s lives. They also concluded that the most effective time to administer the vaccine is at age 13. Schools were the obvious choice for the administration of these vaccines. We now see that Catholic school boards are debating the vaccine on “moral” grounds.
The unwillingness of some Catholic boards to administer the HPV vaccine is yet another reason why faith-based schools should not receive government funding.
Mary Kainer, TorontoThe objections of some Catholic school boards to the HPV vaccination should make clear to voters the implications of Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory’s proposal to expand faith-based school funding. Why are boards spending their time and resources debating what is medically beneficial to children? This is not their job.
Allowing religious principles to guide the education system tragically misinforms students on important issues, stunting their ability to think critically.
Steve de Eyre, Cleveland Heights, OhioRev. David Wilhelm, a trustee on the Halton Catholic District School Board, believes that Catholic schools don’t have the right to deny the HPV vaccine to students, but the reality is they do. Should the public fund an institution that has the right to withhold a vaccine deemed safe by another publicly funded institution?
Few Catholic school graduates will thank their school board or parents for withholding the vaccine when they contract cervical cancer.
Neil Hollands, Torontohttp://www.thestar.com/printArticle/258471
More faith needed in teens
September 20, 2007
Catholic schools debating moralissue of HPV shot
Sept. 19
As a former Catholic elementary school student, I was appalled to read that some Catholic boards are deciding not to let their students and parents make the ultimate decision on whether girls receive the HPV vaccine. It seems kind of contradictory to me, since students receive the vaccine for hepatitis B. Does this not also promote “promiscuity” and/or drug use?Catholic school boards need to look beyond the immediate picture and see that this vaccine is very effective when given to a girl before she starts having sex. Just because she gets the shot does not mean she is going to think she is free and clear from all sexually transmitted diseases and decide to have wild sex.
At the same time, Catholic boards need to put a little more faith in their teens. Since the Catholic Church preaches abstinence, give girls the benefit of the doubt that they will follow their faith.
Sarah Millar, Torontohttp://www.thestar.com/article/258472
A case of ostrich syndrome
September 20, 2007
Catholic schools debating moralissue of HPV shot
Sept. 19
As a Catholic educator, I was both saddened and troubled by the report on the actions of some Catholic school boards. At least one board has delayed the implementation of the new HPV shots on “moral grounds.” The logic goes like this: Giving female teens a shot to prevent a cancer that may be contracted through sexual activity is the same as endorsing premarital sex.Do I want my 14-year-old daughter or son to have sex? Of course not. And I hope that the values they learn at home, church and school will help them decide not to become sexually active as a young teen. However, in 2005, Statistics Canada reported that one in eight 15-year-olds was sexually active. By age 17, that had risen to 28 per cent. So does teaching abstinence work? Clearly not. Or do these boards believe that their students aren’t represented in these statistics?
Do I support celibacy outside marriage? Absolutely. Do I want to see teens denied a simple cure to a deadly disease due to fuzzy logic and a failed plan? Absolutely not.
Peter Monahan, Alliston, Ont.http://www.thestar.com/article/258465
Vaccine is not about sex
September 20, 2007
Catholic schools debating moralissue of HPV shot
Sept. 19
It saddens and horrifies me that someone with as weak a grasp on logic and reality as Huron-Superior Trustee Regis O’Connor has anything at all to do with the education of children. “As a Catholic school board, we are very, very aware that this is a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease and that giving it means children are going to be promiscuous,” he said.Somehow he expects us to believe that protecting our children against four strains of a sexually transmitted disease is going to cause them to run out and have sex, ignoring all of the other consequences. That’s ridiculous and offensive. It’s also offensive to imply that the 400 women who die every year in Canada from cervical cancer are dying because they were promiscuous.
I sincerely hope that not a single daughter of a parent who refuses the vaccine is ever faced with a spouse who had a few youthful indiscretions. I also hope that none of them is ever sexually assaulted by an infected attacker. However, the world being the way it is, both hopes are probably in vain.
Promiscuity is not required to get the human papilloma virus. All that’s required is for one partner to have the virus, and that one partner could be a woman’s husband.
Adrienne Dandy, St. Agatha, Ont. http://www.thestar.com/article/258249
Voices: STD vaccinations
September 19, 2007
We asked you whether you think it is appropriate to vaccinate Grade 8 girls against sexually transmitted diseases. Here’s what you had to say. As sorry as I am to have to say this to the august Bishops of the Catholic Church, we don’t all live in their utopian fantasy world. Denying Catholic children this vaccine will just leave them exposed. A large number of their kids will have sex out of wedlock whether they like it or not. Common sense has to prevail in matters of public health.
Peter Reynolds, Toronto
Seems like this is a great example of why Ontario needs to stop paying for the spread of religious ideals in schools and concentrate on a strong public education system. For the Catholic school boards to interpret the immunization of children against a prevalent strain of cancer as some kind of “immoral undertaking” is as puzzling as it is ignorant. This the health program is about battling cancer.
Brian Carleton, Toronto
For the Catholic school boards to say that they preach against promiscuity and fear that vaccinating teenage girls will promote sexual activity is like saying they preach against dangerous driving and fear that providing seat belts will promote recklessness. Naturally, no parent wants a promiscuous daughter but to deny them a potentially life saving vaccine is, in my view, irresponsible.
Jonathan O’Mara, Whitby
At a cost of $400 per person, perhaps our health-care dollars can be better spent on increasing the number of hospital beds or rebated from health premiums. This vaccination is a luxury item as HPV is only transmitted sexually. I think we should be putting health-care dollars to diseases in which people have little control over.
Trevor Carneiro, Toronto
As parents in this day and age, are we really naive enough to think that our children, during their teenage years, are never going to have any intimate contact? It is our responsibility as parents to protect our children from anything we can possibly protect them from. I only wish there had been that same vaccine about 14 years ago, when I was young.
Christina Leighton, Ajax
I knew this was going to come up sooner or later. High school kids – Catholic or not – are likely to have pre-marital sex no matter what the schools are telling them is the right thing to do. Giving them the option to have this vaccine is preventative and it’s definitely a good thing. Get off your high horses, Catholic schools.
Kerry Chan, Markham
A vaccination does not promote sexual promiscuity. Perhaps a more comprehensive education would help to dispel the myths surrounding the use of vaccinations as well as the influence of media and the pre-existing human disposition for sexual relations.
Bianca Williams, Toronto
I think it’s horrible that Catholic school boards are taking away the chance for these girls to be protected from HPV due to the fact that it promotes promiscuity. It’s ridiculous. A girl who may remain abstinent until marriage could contract the HPV virus through her spouse and then be at greater risk for cervical cancer. Even if the school boards do not support the HPV vaccine, ultimately it should be up to the parents and the girls.
Melanie Coulas, Ottawa
While cervical cancer may not be as prevalent as breast cancer, any preventative course is the only responsible act a person can take. Explain to your child as she lies dying of cervical cancer that it is her fault for being a loose woman. While a woman may be abstinent prior to marriage, her future husband might not be.
Tanya Quaestor, Toronto
If the concern over the HPV injection is side effects or safety, that is reasonable. To assume that Catholic teens are any less sexually active than any other group of teens is naive. You can be sure the Church won’t pick up the tab for the medical care of these girls if they get cancer in the future, nor will it provide financial support for the children they may leave behind.
Kim Darby, Burlington
Abstinence is only as good as both parties agree. Some girls will wait until marriage, but did their partners? This disease is preventable with this vaccine. It is abusive to deny any girl the right to prevent cancer in her body.
Brenda DelPozo, Toronto
This vaccine is approved for use in females aged 9 to 26 years. I don’t think this is advocating sexual activity in prepubescents. Regardless of when you think it is appropriate to allow your child to be vaccinated, the onset of sexual activity is something you can neither predict nor control. Shouldn’t the overriding concern be to prevent a disease that may one day harm or kill your child?
Christine Lyons, Toronto
I am firmly opposed to this vaccination both on moral and on fiscal/political grounds. It seems to me that an awful lot of money is going to be wasted so that Merck can line their pockets with our tax dollars. Compare this with this incidence of prostate cancer in this country. It is a major adult male killer and yet the $25-35 test is not deemed worthy to be covered by provincial health care. Parents who wish to protect their pre-sexually active daughters against a largely unknown virus by using a largely unknown and untested vaccine should do so out of their own pocket (at their own risk) and not the public purse.
Nestor Komar, St. Catharines
The fact that moves are being made within Roman Catholic school boards to suppress this important public health initiative on grounds of religious morality is compelling evidence — if any more were needed — of why public money should not be used to finance faith-based schooling of any kind.
David Mayerovitch, Ottawa
It’s extremely difficult to fathom anyone putting a young girl’s future health status at risk for the sake of making a dogma-based non-sensical moral argument. Parents need to decide whether they want to follow their Church’s teachings or save their daughters from experiencing a preventable cancer. The choice seems rather simple.
Robin Kelly, Toronto
It isn’t the vaccines which promote promiscuity, its raging teenage hormones and the lack of education and open discussion inside the Catholic school boards. By restricting discussion to abstinence you mystify and poorly prepare youth for life.
Geoffrey Peart, Milton, Ont.
In this day and age, everyone needs to be educated against STDs and anything that can help in the spread of them helps. I have some concerns about the long-term effects though. Do we know enough? That being said, STDs are for the most part preventable with education.
Charlene Smith, Woodstock, Ont.
The truth is, at some point, teenagers will be having sex. Not every Grade 8 girl is off to the nunnery. The larger issue is just how much do mom and dad know what their precious little kids are doing? It’s a safe bet that many kids are only telling part of the story to mom and dad, and they are probably not talking about the one thing that does promote promiscuity: alcohol.
Trevor Wedgewood, Toronto
Yes, it is appropriate to vaccinate young girls against sexually transmitted diseases. Young women (and young men) will make their own decisions about whether or not they want to wait for marriage to become sexually active. A jab in the arm doesn’t suddenly make people want to do something they didn’t want to do before. Getting your tetanus shot doesn’t encourage you to go step on rusty nails, does it?
Jeff Zarnett, Toronto
Is it morally appropriate not to prevent our future generations from a virus that afflicts so many women in this country?
Sha Skel, Toronto
A wicked and perverse generation should be preaching the virtues of abstinence, rather than promoting another “condom” for the number of risks associated with premarital sex.
Robert Baker, Toronto
Huron-Superior trustee Regis O’Connor’s comment that “…we are very, very aware that this a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease and that giving it means children are going to be promiscuous” is insulting to say the least. Even if the girls (for they are the ones at risk, not the boys) meet his standards and are chaste until marriage, who is to say their future husbands have been? Should these girls have to pay for their husbands’ sexual partner’s disease? Mr. O’Connor – and apparently the Halton-Superior school board – must have very little faith in the success of their teachings with girls (and boys too, I guess). Perhaps their program needs to be changed, but this is a health issue, not a morals issue.
Cynthia Lagueux, Uxbridge, Ont.
Finally, our medical system has a vaccination that prevents cancer. Cervical cancer is now a totally preventable disease yet some people have their heads buried in the sand thinking their “teens” aren’t sexually active. Would there be this many outcries if there was a vaccination against colon, or breast cancer? I doubt it. It is because of the perception that HPV is solely contracted through promiscuity that people are opposing it.
Mike Eliadis, Toronto
As a health care professional I don’t see how this vaccine is any different than the Hep B vaccines being provided to students already. How else do they feel teenagers are exposed to Hep B? Blood transfusions? Sharing needles? Let’s be honest, if Hep B is being acquired by teenagers these days it’s most likely through sexual exposure.
Danielle Porter, Newmarket
After reading the article in The Star, I am amazed at the narrow-minded view of the Catholic members that providing a vaccination program will promote promiscuity. It is time the members of the Catholic Society realize that humans will have sex before, during and after marriage. It is our nature and should not be illustrated as something evil or unnatural. If someone chooses to abstain then they should also be respected for their decision. The decision of the HPV vaccination should and must rest with the parents, not a religious doctrine.
David Kowch, Courtice, Ont.
It is entirely appropriate to vaccinate girls against this disease. If this was for a disease that affected men only, the Catholic Church wouldn’t be saying a word.
Ian Graylish, Scarborough
This is so infuriating.
Why are Catholic school boards even allowed to debate something like this? Religious beliefs should not affect decisions of public health. What these people don’t realize is that this vaccine should be given to grade 8 girls, not because they may be sexually active, but because medically speaking, it is the most effective time in a woman’s life to receive the vaccine. A woman may not have sex until she is married, and her husband may pass on this virus to her. If she has been vaccinated, then she won’t get cervical cancer. Seems pretty simple, and yet the ignorance that comes out during this debate is astounding. My favorite line is from Huron-Superior trustee Regis O’Connor, “As a Catholic school board, we are very, very aware that this a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease and that giving it means children are going to be promiscuous” Is he insane? That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. As if a girl, in the heat of the moment, would base her decision on whether or not she has been vaccinated. It is truly frightening that this man has anything to do with educating children.
This is simply another reason why the government should not be funding faith-based schools.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/258142
Catholic schools debating moral issue of HPV shot
Catholic school boards across the province are facing growing complaints that the HPV vaccination program promotes promiscuity.
Last night, the Halton Catholic District School Board narrowly rejected a motion to ban the program from its schools this year and the Toronto Catholic District School Board is to vote tonight.
The Huron-Superior Catholic District School Board decided unanimously last week to delay the program in its schools until it receives more information from the Ministry of Health.
The board believes the vaccine will give students a signal of support for premarital sex and the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops notes in a Sept. 13 letter to parents that sex is “only appropriate within marriage.”
Absolutely absurd.
The vote by the Halton board, after lengthy debate, was four to three in favour of retaining the vaccine program to protect girls from cervical cancer.
Oakville Trustee Anthony Danko, whose motion had sought to ban the program, had also asked the board not to offer counselling or advice to students regarding the vaccine on school property during the 2007-08 school year.
Why is this man involved in teaching children when he is advocating ignorance for students?
Another trustee, Rev. David Wilhelm from Milton, spoke out against Danko’s motion, saying it was too strong and that parents should have the ultimate decision to decide whether their children would have the vaccine.
“We don’t have the right to take that away,” Wilhelm said.
Three Halton student trustees weighed in against the program, although they were not allowed to vote.
One was Erin Gamble, 16, from Oakville, who spoke in favour of Danko’s original motion.
“I’m taught every day to save myself for marriage and practise abstinence,” she said. “Giving the vaccine to Grade 8 girls contradicts what I have been taught.”
Drink some more kool-aid, Erin.
Trustees in favour of Danko’s motion said they were concerned the province implemented the vaccination program too quickly before there was enough research to prove the vaccine was safe and effective.
They were also concerned students would be able to opt for the vaccine against their parents’ wishes. But Rev. Wilhelm printed the letter from the Ontario Bishops, which said the parents had the right and the responsibility to decide whether their daughters should have the vaccine.
“And I don’t think any of us have the right to take that away as difficult as that may be,” the priest said.
After the narrow vote defeating Danko’s motion, Burlington Trustee Bob Van de Vrande proposed that the regional health unit also provide an information package to parents and that it include a letter from Hamilton bishop Rev. Anthony Tonnos.
Van de Vrande’s motion also wanted the region to ensure the vaccine will not be administered to a student unless parental consent is obtained in writing.
The board carried Van de Vrande’s motion by a five to one vote.
The Ontario bishops ask that parents remember that “infection with HPV or other sexually transmitted diseases can occur only through sexual activity, which carries with it profound risks to a young person’s spiritual, emotional, moral, and physical health.”
The Huron-Superior trustees have reservations about allowing the vaccine in their schools, said trustee Regis O’Connor.
“As a Catholic school board, we are very, very aware that this a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease and that giving it means children are going to be promiscuous,” he said.
“We teach abstinence outside marriage.”
Even if the school board receives more information from the Ministry of Health, O’Connor said he is unlikely to vote for the HPV vaccine.
Again, how stupid do you have to be before you are no longer allowed to affect education policy? O’Conner and his board have asked the Ministry of Health to provide more information on this vaccine, at taxpayer expense, and he is saying ahead of time that even if he gets the information, he’s already made up his mind and will be voting against it. There is just so much wrong with this one statement that it nearly makes my head explode.
In July, the Ontario government announced that all Grade 8 girls in the province would have free access to Gardasil, a $400 three-shot vaccine that can prevent HPV types 16 and 18, which are responsible for 70 per cent of cervical cancer cases. Nearly 400 Canadian women die of the disease each year.
Dr. Bob Nosal, Halton’s Medical Officer of Health, said the bishops’ letter is factual in its description of how HPV is transmitted and points out it is a voluntary program.
“This is a safe, effective vaccine that works,” said Nosal. “This will – and should be – offered to all Grade 8 girls and it’s up to parents and to the child themselves whether she has it.”
Halton launched the vaccination program in public schools this week, offering it to the region’s some 3,000 Grade 8 girls.
Halton’s Grade 7 students take part in the immunization program for Hepatitis B, a disease that can be sexually transmitted.
“I’m struck by how I don’t get a hue and cry about the hep B vaccine, but I’m hearing about the HPV vaccine,” he said.
“For those who want to be protected from at least two strains that cause 70 per cent of cancers, this vaccine works.”
Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty said the government would like to conduct the vaccination program through the schools because of convenience for parents and children.
“But if we run into a lot of resistance from a particular school board, we’ve already thought this through – we can do it through public health,” he said.
“We have to wait and see how many boards are going to say no before we pin it on one particular board, but … my advice to the board is the single most important issue here is the health of our young women.”
Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory said he hoped all Ontario schools, including Catholic ones, adopt the new program.
“I would like to hope all school boards will co-operate in making sure these vaccines are available and that if there’s anybody that doesn’t want to have the vaccine, that’s a parental decision,” he said.
This really should not be news….
…it should just be normal policy. The fact that this is news is very telling in itself.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070915.QUEBECSCHOOLS15/TPStory/?query=quebec
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Quebec schools ban French fries in effort to cut child-obesity rates
MONTREAL — French fries, soft drinks and other types of junk food will soon be gone from Quebec schools as the province joins other jurisdictions in Canada taking aim at childhood obesity.
Premier Jean Charest announced yesterday that food with little nutritional value will stop being offered in pre-, elementary and high schools starting in January of 2008.
The policy is already being implemented in many school across the province, which Mr. Charest acknowledged will help the policy gain traction.
“Many schools and school boards have preceded us in this policy,” he said while announcing the policy at a local school. “We’re not starting from zero today.”
School vending machines will have sugary sweets replaced by healthier fare, such as yogurt, fruit and juice.
Quebec’s Education Minister said the government’s policy should have an impact on student performance.
“A child who is well fed, that has a balanced diet, increases their capacity to concentrate, increases their intellectual capacity to absorb information and certainly improves their memory,” Michelle Courchesne said.
But Mr. Charest also pointed out that the policy has its limits, given that 80 per cent of students bring a lunch from home.
Mr. Charest said in order to attack what he called an obesity problem, schools not only have to offer healthy food and exercise but parents need information to make the right choices for their children.
The Premier also moved to correct the perception that cutting junk food from the province’s schools will come at a cost.
“It’s not true that it costs more,” Mr. Charest said.
However, officials with Quebec’s Education Department admitted that while healthier options may cost slightly more in certain cases, parents have expressed their willingness to take the hit for the sake of their children’s diet.
The Liberal government will add $11-million to an existing $5-million program to allow schools to develop programs for exercise and healthy food choices.
Schools in British Columbia and Nova Scotia are among those to have already instituted similar policies.
The city as a massive gym…I love the concept…
http://www.energybulletin.net/34162.html
City Dwellers Live Longer, Save More by Driving Less
Erica Barnett, WorldChanging
New York City, long seen as a mecca of hedonism and self-destructive indulgence, has witnessed a startling transformation over the past few years: life expectancy has increased dramatically to 78.6 years, nine months longer than the life expectancy in the rest of the US. Even more surprisingly, New York City’s life expectancy is increasing at a faster rate than in other parts of the country; in 2004 alone, New Yorkers gained five months of life on average, far outpacing the national average increase of a month or two a year.
What accounts for this longevity?
… researchers believe that New York City residents may simply be healthier than other Americans, in large part because — unlike many other Americans — they walk almost everywhere. As New York Magazine notes,
New York is literally designed to force people to walk, to climb stairs — and to do it quickly. Driving in the city is maddening, pushing us onto the sidewalks and up and down the stairs to the subways. What’s more, our social contract dictates that you should move your ass when you’re on the sidewalk, so as not to annoy your fellow walkers.
…[T]he very structure of the city coerces us to exercise far more than people elsewhere in the U.S., in a way that is strongly correlated with a far-better life expectancy. Every city block doubles as a racewalking track, every subway station, a StairMaster. Seen this way, the whole city looks like a massive exercise machine dedicated to improving our health while we run errands.
The city as a massive gym? It’s not as implausible as it sounds.
(30 August 2007)
