Connect with us

Women’s Health

Coming second in the game of life – Kate Pickett

Published

on

“We don’t want to behead the big poppies,” said Boris Johnson in July. But for Kate Pickett, his “leveling” ambitions will require a flattening of the entire social divide.

The not entirely social winners? – a wedding reception on the Thames (Ian Luck / shutterstock.com)

There was enough athletic competition in the summer to remind us how hard it can be not to be quite the winner. In England there was great excitement when the national soccer team reached the final of the European Championship, only to lose there on penalties to Italy. There was almost immediately a backlash of racism and hatred towards the players who missed those crucial final shots on goal.

At the US Open tennis tournament, the women’s final was played by two talented teenagers who had both done spectacularly to get this far – but the disappointment of runner-up Leylah Fernandez was hard to see. And at the Tokyo Olympics, one competitor after another said to the cameras, ‘I’m not here for second place; I’m not here for silver. ‘

But in life, unlike in sport, is the second one surely good enough? We can’t all be winners, but if we have a good education, a good job, and all of our material needs, is that enough for our health and wellbeing?

In some ways it is true: nobody needs excessive income or wealth to be healthy, and too large an income gap between rich and poor is detrimental to the health of the population and the good functioning of society. But it is also true that, like in sports, being the winner is not that important.

div {padding-right: 0! important; padding-bottom: 10px} .ml-form-formContent.horozintalForm .ml-button-horizontal {width: 100%! important} .ml-form-formContent.horozintalForm .ml-button -horizontal.labelsOn {padding-top: 0! important}}]]> div {padding-bottom: 0! important}}]]>

Stay up to date with the latest comments and analysis on Social Europe

Subscribe to our free newsletter and receive the latest content from Social Europe straight to your inbox.

Thanks very much!

Please check your inbox and click on the link in the confirmation email to complete your newsletter subscription.

Social slopes

Almost all major causes of death and illness show social inequalities. They are not only more common among the poor and the lower classes of society, while they are rare among the rest of the population. Instead, there is a steady gradient in the incidence of various diseases and causes of death between each level of the social ladder. So while morbidity and mortality are certainly highest among the worst-off, if you are not entirely at the top of the income bracket, not entirely in the top social class, or not well educated, there is a risk of poor health. Illness and death are still a little higher than those directly above you.

This is an almost ubiquitous pattern around the world. We see it in life expectancy and infant mortality, in health behaviors like smoking and obesity, chronic diseases, heart attacks, infections, and most cancers. There are one or two exceptions, particularly breast and prostate cancer, but otherwise there are social health gaps everywhere.

In the graph below, the bars show life expectancy for men and women in England, with the population divided into ten groups, from those most deprived on the left to those least deprived on the right. When we look at such charts, we usually notice the differences between the top and the bottom – here a life expectancy of 9.5 years between the most deprived and least deprived men and 7.7 years between the most deprived and least deprived Men least disadvantaged women.

Life expectancy at birth by decile and gender, England 2018

social gradient

But with every step from prosperity to misery, from right to left, both men and women, on average, lose a little bit of life expectancy. Men in the least disadvantaged group live an average of about 82 years, about a year and a half less than men in the least disadvantaged group of all. Women in the second best group live just over 85 years, but women in the top group live about a year longer.

These are surprising penalties for being among the least disadvantaged instead of making it into the top 10 percent. No one in the top 20 percent is denied any material necessity, and no one is likely to lack the knowledge to make healthy decisions. Nevertheless, people in the second decile still die younger and suffer from almost all acute or chronic diseases more often than in the first.

Please help our mission to fuel political debate

Social Europe is a independent publisher and we believe in freely available content. In order for this model to be sustainable, we depend on the solidarity of our loyal readers – we depend on you. Please support our work by becoming a member of Social Europe for less than 5 euros per month. Many thanks for your support!

Become a member of Social Europe

Status matters

What these social gradients tell us is how important the social environment is – it’s status itself that matters. If you have a little less status than the one at the top, you are not doing as well as if you are the highest status. If we are to address health inequalities, we need to level the entire gap, not just try to tackle health problems from the bottom up.

While social gradients are almost ubiquitous in the health sector, the steepness of the gradient varies from place to place. Societies with lower economic inequalities have a widespread tendency to have smaller absolute differences in health. Reducing inequalities in income, wealth, education and social class will help society as a whole – not just the poorest or those in dire need. We would all be winners if the playing field was leveled.

Covid-19 of course also has a social gradient. It was never an “equality disease,” as some claimed early on. It’s too late for the pandemic we are in, but some serious social and economic leveling would help us cope with whatever might come next.

This is a joint publication by Social Europe and IPS-Journal

social gradient

Kate Pickett is Professor of Epidemiology, Associate Director of the Center for Future Health, and Associate Director of the Leverhulme Center for Anthropocene Biodiversity, all at the University of York. She is co-author with Richard Wilkinson on The Spirit Level (2009) and The Inner Level (2018).

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Women’s Health

Democrats Erase Women Through Budget “Reconciliation”

Published

on

According to the rules of the Senate, a reconciliation package should be limited to budgetary issues. But in 2021, the $ 3.5 trillion tax and spending bill that the Democrats are trying to enforce through the reconciliation process offers an opportunity for radical gender activists to infuse the language and assumptions of their ideology into federal law permit.

For example, the text on ‘Maternal Mortality’ (Part 4 of Subtitle J of Title III) consists of 15 sections providing funding for a range of grants and programs for research and education on women’s health.

And yet, in those sections that discuss mothers who may be confronted with high-risk birth-related illnesses, we find gender-neutral terminology that is repeated 18 times in more than half of the 15 sections: “Pregnant women, breastfeeding women and the puerperium “.

While “individual” or “person” is common in legal documents when the speaker can be male or female, that doesn’t explain what’s going on here. The use of vague, insignificant terms is an attempt to reconcile legal language with an ideology that denies the innate duality of male and female.

The use of the generic “persons” in subtitle J with “pregnant”, “breastfeeding” or “after childbirth” is even different from the rest of the calculation. For example, a separate section on Medicaid refers to “Pregnant and Postpartum Women”. But in such cases the bill refers to past laws that already use the word “women”, such as the 1994 Law on Violence Against Women.

Often these are direct quotations from laws that are already in the books, so gender editors have to keep the “offensive” words.

The career path is unmistakable: Wherever possible, references to women are castrated. We have seen this Congress’s commitment to the radical gender ideology of the awakened left since its inauguration days. In early January, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, made gender-neutral language standard practice for Congress.

This approach remains in place even if the draft law deals exclusively with issues specific to women. In 2021, the decision to refer to a woman as a “pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum person” suggests that someone does not need to be a woman to be pregnant, breastfeeding, or experience postpartum health complications.

That, of course, is exactly the point. For some radical gender activists, being a woman is more a function of education and self-determination than nature and biology. This language reflects that belief.

Unfortunately, this lively language isn’t just kept in federal filing cabinets as an artifact of history. It will drive hundreds of millions of dollars in spending. This direction can be painfully specific.

For example, Part 4 of Subtitle J provides resources that can be used to train America’s healthcare professionals. Section 31046 provides competitive grants of $ 85 million to eligible, accredited medical schools and programs that seek to study the health effects of climate change on maternal mortality.

The scholarship holders must use these funds for curricula and training. These programs need to focus on “identifying and addressing health risks and inequalities related to climate change, providing advice and strategies to mitigate these risks and inequalities”.

But there is an option for those less concerned about the role of changing global temperature averages on lactation. Medical schools can also use the funds to examine “implicit and explicit prejudice, racism and discrimination in the care of pregnant, breastfeeding, postpartum and those intending to become pregnant”.

In abstract terms, funding the development of curricula on discrimination and bias against “pregnant, breastfeeding and postpartum people” may of course sound good. But let’s not be naive about its effect, which is to impose curricula committed to gender ideology through the power of the federal treasury. It would do this under the guise of preventing “discrimination”.

Whether this promotion could improve the well-being of pregnant women or mothers, the inclusion of such gender-neutral language signals that this is about much more than supporting mothers. Rather, it is about smuggling an ideology that destroys women into society from the federal level.

Activists have tried to advance this cause through the comprehensive equality law that enshrines gender ideology in the Civil Rights Act. But they also take every opportunity to erase references to women – from civil society to the classroom to the executive branch.

Cautious lawmakers and legislatures should reject these efforts to gradually advance radical gender ideology – and bring them to light before it finds its way into the language of our laws.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

Continue Reading

Women’s Health

Chuck Daigle will be leaving Ochsner LSU Health to go back home to Baton Rouge

Published

on

Ochsner LSU Health announced Friday afternoon that Charles D. “Chuck” Daigle will be stepping down from his role as Chief Executive Officer as soon as Ochsner Health and LSU Health Shreveport appoint a new head of the health system.

“After living in Shreveport for the past 14 years, I’ve decided to return to my hometown of Baton Rouge for personal and family reasons,” said Daigle. “I’m very interested in the communities in Northern Louisiana and will remain CEO of Ochsner LSU Health while our partners work together to fill the position.

Daigle said the decision was due to personal reasons for moving. He moves to Baton Rouge, where he takes on a management position at Ochsner Health.

In this week:LSU Health Shreveport has discovered a new variant of COVID-19 in Louisiana

He assumes the role of Regional CEO of Ochsner Baton Rouge and Lake Charles and has operational responsibility for hospitals, health centers and emergency care in Greater Baton Rouge, Ochsner CHRISTUS Health Centers in Lake Charles and administrative responsibility for partner relationships including Louisiana Women’s Healthcare.

Since October 1, 2018 as Ochsner LSU Health, the system has been expanded to include several clinic locations and a hospital, the St. Mary Medical Center.

More than 800 employees and 280 doctors have been added to the system. Major capital improvements of more than $ 200 million have been invested in facilities and an advanced electronic health record system has been implemented along with several innovative telemedicine programs that enable people to access quality health care when and where they need it.

Litigation:Employees of Ochsner LSU Health file lawsuit over COVID vaccine mandates

“In our first three years as Ochsner LSU Health, we’ve made tremendous strides in terms of access to care and the expansion of services, dramatic improvements in facilities, quality, technology, telemedicine and more. These are meaningful improvements that save and change lives and I couldn’t be more proud of this partnership and our team, ”said Daigle.

Ochsner LSU Health has also led northern Louisiana through the COVID-19 pandemic, with extensive community testing, expanding intensive care services to handle a surge in hospital patients, and multiple vaccination sites since the vaccines were approved in December.

“Under the direction of Chuck Daigle, we watched these hospitals transform into innovative healthcare systems. The investments and improvements made will result in better and faster care for more patients while expanding medical education by providing more students and residents with an even better learning experience, ”said Dr. David Lewis, Interim Chancellor of LSU Health Shreveport. “Chuck has built a strong leadership team to work with every day, and we remain committed to continued advancement in health care and medical education in Northern Louisiana as we work together to determine his successor.”

Continue Reading

Women’s Health

This Woman On TikTok Ate Too Much Cinnamon And Got Sick

Published

on

A cautionary story that has nothing to do with the cinnamon challenge.

In 2015, 27-year-old Bridgette Garb had a seemingly harmless obsession with cinnamon. “I would put tablespoons (yes tablespoons, plural) in my oatmeal. I would sprinkle it in my coffee grounds, on my fruit, in my yogurt, cinnamon rice, French toast … I would even put it on my scrambled eggs – sounds gross, me knows, ”Bridgette told BuzzFeed.

About a year after her excessive use of the popular spice, Bridgette noticed that her general health was deteriorating. “I often felt dizzy and dizzy. I developed terrible hypoglycemia and kept pulling muscles and injuring myself, ”she said. “I was taking several dance classes at the time and found it difficult to participate and had to sit out a lot. I knew it had to be more than just being ‘overtired’.”

Bridgette’s father – who happens to be a doctor – had noticed her craving for cinnamon and suspected it might be related to her ailments. “He did some research and discovered that cassia cinnamon contains a naturally occurring chemical called coumarin. When consumed in excess, it can cause many of the symptoms I have experienced and others. When I learned this information, I decided it was worth giving up cold turkey to see if that would solve my problems, “she said.

Sure enough – cinnamon was the culprit! “I felt better immediately after cutting out the cinnamon, but it took about a year to get back to normal,” said Bridgette. She recently created a TikTok about her story, which now has over a million views on the platform.

For more information on the potential dangers of cinnamon, BuzzFeed reached out to Dr. Nighat Arif, a UK-based family doctor who specializes in women’s health. Just as Bridgette’s father found out during his research, Dr. Nighat that the main ingredient to look out for is coumarin. “Coumarin is a chemical compound found in several plants, including cinnamon, that can cause liver damage in large doses,” she told BuzzFeed. “The only type of cinnamon that doesn’t contain coumarin is Ceylon, which means it has the wonderful benefits of cinnamon without that disadvantage.”

“In Germany there are even guidelines on how much coumarin is tolerated. The Germans recommend 0.1 milligrams per 2.2 kilograms of body weight.”

Gon� §alo Barriga / Getty Images / Image Source

Dr. Nighat said, as long as you check the label to make sure the cinnamon you buy doesn’t contain coumarin, the spice can be very beneficial for your health. “It helps better [the body’s] Sugar storage, improves insulin sensitivity in the liver and helps with sugar control, ”she said. “It’s also an antioxidant, so it helps neutralize free radicals – and prevents them from damaging cells in the body. It’s a brilliant spice – I use it in my tea, cooking, etc, but only a tiny amount … no teaspoons or tablespoons! “

Searchlight pictures

If you’re someone interested in consuming cinnamon on a regular basis, some experts have suggested using 1/2 to 1 teaspoon (also known as 2-4 grams) of the spice per day.

When asked how her new relationship with cinnamon is going, Bridgette said, “I was afraid of touching foods or products that contained cinnamon for a while, but now I practice moderately but I enjoy a recipe, the one Requires adequate amount of cinnamon. It’s about balance and mindfulness! “

Well there you have it – save the cinnamon folks!

BuzzFeed daily

Stay up to date with the BuzzFeed Daily Newsletter!

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending