The use of health care service differs with sexuality according to new research in Canada.
The study looked into medical care such as having a regular doctor, and how often certain procedures are made available to patients. About 346,000 adults identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual in the survey, and overall it suggested that the use of health-care services differs by sexuality independent of other factors such as age, income, education and health status.
It also found that “gay men were much more likely than heterosexual men to have consulted medical specialists or mental-health service providers such as social workers and that Lesbians were less likely than heterosexual women to have seen a family doctor during the same period or to have undergone a pap test” According to The Canadian Press.
Summarizing his findings, the study’s author, Michael Tjepkema, quoted on a Health Disparities Blog: "It is true that gays, lesbians, bisexual men and women do access different types of the health-care system differently from heterosexual Canadians"
The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) community have also picked up on the difference, claiming that LGBT cancer patients are treated with less services than heterosexual patients.
So what does this mean for the gay community?
Our ideologies that we live in an open-minded and fair society are still very much misconceived it would seem. And this is certainly not the first time health issues have been raised due to sexuality.
Staying focused on Canada, “The Canadian Red Cross (CRC) donor screening application is homophobic and gender exclusive.” According to a LiveJournal entry entitled “Gay and Bi Male Blood Ban”.
It also goes on to say: “According to Canadian gay rights groups, specifically question 15, which asks donors if they have participated in any of the following activities since 1977, " if male, Having sex with another male, even once; receiving regular Treatment with blood or blood products; accepting money or drugs In exchange for sex; being the sexual partner of someone who has taken part in any of the above activities or who had contracted AIDS or has tested positive for AIDS". Some Students’ Associations have taken the step of banning the CRC from their campuses.”
It would appear obvious that in Canada, homosexuality is still frowned upon. But even so, it wasn’t all that long ago that the debate was discussed here in the UK.
Thinking Difference Blog claims that the fact that “men who have engaged in sex with other men in the past 25 years cannot donate blood” is “shocking”.
The author then asks why this is, when “as far as I know, most of the other STDs are quite common in heterosexual relations as well.”
This in mind, it is easy to claim we would not have any qualms if it were known we were receiving a homosexuals blood in a transfusion, but it is a different matter actually going through with it. With statistics flying around that a homosexual’s blood is at an extremely higher risk of being HIV positive, it is difficult not to be concerned.
However, it could also be argued that a simple test beforehand could overcome this debate and prejudice. So then, why has it not been introduced already? Perhaps if homosexuals were aided with more health-care, this would not be an issue.
Toothpaste has been in the news this week, after claims that it is toxic, dangerous and no benefit for our oral health.
BlogGreen in an article asking “Is your toothpaste a health risk?” claims that “ingested fluoride can contribute to osteoporosis and it is poisonous. In fact, there is enough flouride in one tube of “family” toothpaste to kill a small child.”
Parents have taken the matter into consideration on a forum with the same title. Some parents dismiss the claim that toothpaste can harm a child, “I’ve bought my lad some toothpaste and this is what it says on the back......Warnings. Keep out of reach of children under 6 yrs of age. If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Centre immediately.....Its a 1oz tube of toothpaste, how dangerous could it really be if he ate it all?” ...whilst others have taken the matter more seriously: “I bet the shop don't even know it says that. This is when I agree with grocery labeling. I would be kicking off with whoever sold me that if it is a kiddie’s product.”
Some have argued that it is merely about educating a consumer about what they are buying, rather than avoiding products altogether. “The problem with most toothpaste is that it contains something called sodium lauryl sulphate, which is also used in shampoo, shower gel, bubble bath, washing powder etc. If you google it - you'll find a lot of research on the side effects and irritant factors.”
Whereas a blog on crisis spins reported that certain products are too toxic to be sold and can be a criminal offense to be in stores: “It was discovered that toxic toothpaste made in China was being sold in the U.S.. The New York Times explained that the chinese-made toothpaste contained the poison diethylene glycol, used in some antifreeze. Although no one was harmed, the U.S. was not the first country to realize it's dangerous contents within the nations border.”
A Dental webpage states : “If you go on the OraMD program, it is recommended that you give up brushing your teeth with toothpaste altogether. Read the label on any major brand toothpaste or mouthwash. You’ll see they are loaded with toxins.”
Because so many of us are concenerned about toxins in our food, organic products have shot through the roof in the past year, and toothpaste is now jumping on the bandwagon.
VideoJug.com has released a video on how to make your own organic toothpaste, but whether anyone will go to such lengths is another matter. After all, toothpaste has been around for a while now and so far so good.
New Government plans are said to allow more freedom for mothers-to-be in the decision of how they wish to give birth. Not only has the Government promised that “by the end of next year, all women will be able to choose where and how they give birth”, but this is despite the fact that “a midwifery staffing crisis means many believe it will fail to keep its pledge.”Mervi Jokinen of The Royal College of Midwives even goes as far to say "We just can't see it happening"
Although the powers that be may think home birth in particular is hugely beneficial, this could be fuelled by the crippling NHS costs dedicated to births every year. According to an NHS Blog Doctor, celebrities are encouraging the change. “Of course the government is all in favour. Home births are cheaper than hospital births. A collection of “B” list celebrities are always promoting home births.”
The Independent also argues this point using Charlotte Church, Davina McCall, Thandie Newton and Maggie Gyllenhaal as “inspiring celebrities” adding to the “record number of mums-to-be having their babies at home.”
But the NHS blogger also adds that those in the spotlight are not necessarily ones to be looked up to.“Davina found it “empowering, beautiful and spiritual” to have a home birth just as earlier in her life she probably found it “empowering, beautiful and spiritual” to take heroin, cocaine and ecstasy.”
Of course, it is the woman’s decision at the end of the day and many childbirth websites are available for advice and information. A Childbirth Consultation website shows graphic images of a woman giving birth to her child in her own home. The narrator added encouraging commentary underneath the main image despite it’s real and graphic nature that may scare some expecting women: “This picture is my favorite picture of all time. Not that it is really clear, or that the colour is perfect, or that you can see the baby's head; it is perfect because this mother was able, and wanted to, deliver her own baby. She was so much in control of the birth of the head, her breathing so perfect, the tiny moist head just gently slid through her tissues into her hands. She knew when to slow down the push because her tissues felt too stretched, she knew what areas needed some support or massage, she attended to opening herself. This was her desire, her ultimate goal for her reproductive life. She was dependent on herself and no one else - her body, her choice, and her knowledge of her natural bodily process. This one act gave her awareness of her potential; anything was possible for her after this accomplishment.”
Baby blogs, although on board with the idea of increasing home births, have said that the Government’s plans are unfortunately just too far-fetched.
The Baby Bump Project said: “Alongside new legislation promising that by the end of 2009 all women in the UK will be able to choose how they give birth, including at home, there has been a greater willingness for women to explore their birth options with knowledgeable midwives. However, as fantastic as these new plans seem, there is still an increasing shortage of trained midwives (as in Australia) so the feasability of the scheme is significantly in jeopardy.”
Babyccino Blog says that “This whole unique system of home birth and after-care at home is rooted in the belief that birth is seen as a natural process rather than an illness.” but if birth is no longer seen as something that needs assistance, perhaps the plans will not happen as soon as we would hope.
As “No Smoking Day” again comes around, the question has been asked whether the campaign in fact makes a difference. The general answer, as expected, from health boards is absolutely yes.
The No Smoking Day’s official website claims that more than a million people try and quit smoking each year, and not always successfully, but Bolton in particular has been targeted and praised for its efforts in trying.
Deborah Collinson of The Bolton Primary Care Trust said: "There really has never been a better time to stop smoking and No Smoking Day is a great incentive. Recent statistics have revealed the number of smokers in Bolton has fallen.”
But even a Quit Smoking blog acknowledges the pressures of such campaigns. “What about those smokers who do not want to stop smoking?”
It is often argued that bringing smoking into the limelight is a reminder for those who have quit in the past, and urges them back to old habits. But Chancellor Alistair Darling remains confident that incentives such as these, can be nothing but a benefit overall.
His announcement of a 11p rise per pack of cigarettes comes at the same time as the 25th No Smoking Day this year.(March 12th) No Smoking Day chief executive Dan Tickle said: “Today’s Budget rise, coming on the back of smokefree legislation, is likely to be a decisive factor for many smokers considering quitting. A 20-a-day smoker will now be spending well over £2000 a year, up from under £500 when we launched our first No Smoking Day, 25 years ago."
On paper, this looks more than convincing, but prices have risen before, No Smoking Day's have been around for 25 years, and yet, there are still thousands of people dying each year of cancer-related illnesses. Are days like this actually giving us any new information? Or are they repeat scare tactics in the hope of reducing the numbers? Maybe the 26th year will shed some light on the situation.
According to The Express, “The Government’s Food Standards Agency is said to be considering using shock tactics to persuade Britons to cut down on their consumption of saturated fats. A consumer study conducted for the agency by CMI Research found that graphic images of fat – the kind shown on popular TV shows about food and health – had a big impact on viewers.” Many have shunned the report as another means of being controlled by the Government, rather than a campaign for better health.
NannyKnowsBest said: “It seems that this time next year we will have to endure yet another one of Nanny's remorseless campaigns warning us about the dangers of our everyday, simple pleasures. Nanny and the FSA need to remember that, unlike smoking, we really all do have to eat food everyday. You cannot, and should not, criminalise food and eating!”
Providing a similar message, Harpoon asked: “What about warnings on every loaf of bread? On every bottle of Coke? How about putting pictures of gangrened limbs on the front of every fish & chip shop with a warning that consumption of batter fried in vegetable oil can eventually lead to heart disease and diabetes?”
The point is interesting and very much plausible. And like Chow.com, which points out other products with warning labels such as Cigarettes, Handguns, Liquor, Prescription drugs and Pornographic DVDs, an increasing number of products are being labelled as dangerous and toxic, possibly un-necessarily, but it is claimed to be in the matter of public interest.
The FSA claims that these dairy foods that may require labels, is to increase awareness of their fatty nature in order to “slash Britain’s soaring levels of obesity and heart disease” but unless warning labels are places on every item that could cause these illnesses, it may not be enough. Does this mean the nutritional information on packaging is not useful after all? A change in lifestyle will most likely not occur through labels and shock tactics, but it somewhat relieving that at least some action is being taken.
According to The Metro this week, more single people in the UK now think that it is acceptable to date more than one person at a time – And surprisingly, this was more women than men. (25% of men, 36% of women)
It was also stated that more than half of single people in the UK intend to use the internet in the next few months in order to find a relationship (and not just one relationship at that).
This increase in sexual interest of course will directly link to the ever-increasing amount of sexual transmitted diseases that we so often hear of, raising the question of…how do we decrease this number if sex is on the rise?
As Britain becomes a nation of “multiple daters”, many have condemned contraception, claiming that it not only encourages casual sex, but that it doesn’t even work.
yourSTDhelp goes as far to include a “Why Condoms Fail” section explaining they are an “all round failure” due to the attitude that goes alongside them.The blog states that the only way to prevent STD’s is to yes use protection, but also to “keep your partners at a minimum” and to “stay monogamous when in a relationship.”
Nick Partridge, chief executive of Terrence Higgins Trust, a sexual health charity, talks of the growing popularity of online dating and the effects it can have on our health. He condemns the fact that although many of these dating websites are professional, they do not concentrate on the prevention of STD’s and do not provide access to related services. He added: “If we don’t concentrate on these, we will continue to have ever-increasing rates of HIV and the worst sexual health in Western Europe.”
In Global Health Blog, it is claimed that the “health benefits of monogamy are obvious” by reducing the spread of HIV and other STD’s but with so many of the nation at least considering taking more than one partner, perhaps the benefits are not as obvious as you would expect.
