Connect with Healthcetera
Thursday, April 25, 2024
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 246)

Dean Dorrie Fontaine, PhD, RN, FAAN

The University of Virginia recently hosted a conversation with the Dalai Lama (who recently received an honorary doctorate from our own Hunter College) and representatives of the UVA health professions leadership, including Dean of the School of Nursing Dorrie Fontaine, PhD, FAAN. Dean Fontaine spoke about an initiative on compassion and mindfulness that the school has created that includes reflective practice.

It’s so encouraging to see the possibilities of creating a health care system that embraces mindfulness. But, as one panelist pointed out, the system’s focus on through-put and volume doesn’t always lend itself to contemplation and pauses. Under the leadership of Senior Fellows Joy Jacobson and Jim Stubenrauch, the Center for Health, Media & Policy at Hunter College is engaged inworking with nurses, other health professionals, patients and families on reflective narratives to promote understanding of oneself and others, promote healing, and reconnecting with the passion that drew us into health care.

I was also encouraged last week when talking with the American Academy of Nursing‘s “Edge Runners”–nurses who have developed innovative models of care for which there are excellent clinical and financial outcome data. These innovators spoke about key elements of their models of care and central to each were the ideas of listening (to individuals, families and communities) and building relationships.

The challenge we face is how to develop public and private policies that support these key elements. It’s not through the 7-minute visit or “drive-through deliveries”. We need all of our best thinkers who understand the importance of mindfulness, listening and relationships to explore how our policies can support these key ingredients to better care and better health in an affordable way. The Edge Runner models provide evidence that these key elements can reduce or contain health care costs.

Click here to watch the entire video or cue it up to 33 minutes to hear Dr. Fontaine describe this initiative.

Diana J. Mason, PhD, RN, FAAN, Rudin Professor of Nursing

[caption id="attachment_5164" align="alignleft" width="112"] Dean Dorrie Fontaine,

The vice-presidential debate shed some interesting light on two men who share the same religion but have very different stances on women’s reproductive rights.

Moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC News, — who did a terrific job — asked “the abortion question” but tied it directly to the impact of religion on each man’s political stance. It was one of the few times during the evening that both were thoughtful, quiet, and reserved. Ryan said he agrees with the Catholic Church that life begins at conception and that his view is based on science, reason, and an ultrasound he saw of his unborn child. He reiterated the Romney-Ryan position – to make abortion illegal, except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life.

Biden, also Catholic, said that while he personally accepts the Church’s position on abortion, he refused to impose that view on others. “I do not believe we have a right to tell women they can’t control their bodies. It’s a decision between them and their doctor.”

Ryan also agrees with the Church about contraception. He co-sponsored The Sanctity of Human Life Act, which would make some forms of contraception illegal and also voted last year to de-fund Planned Parenthood. According to an action alert from the organization, that not only affects contraception, but also risks other important preventive care including screenings for cancer and STDs. However, he could not describe a plan on addressing the fallout from that decision.

Watching these two men, both deeply committed to their faith, and both committed public servants, presented a bit of a dichotomy. If you did not know their party affiliation, it might be logical to assume the much-younger Ryan would be the advocate for women’s rights and health. Clearly looks can be deceiving. Joe Biden has been a long-time supporter of women’s health and wellness — including co-sponsoring the 1994 Violence Against Women Act.

It is much easier to be objective about these two candidates as a journalist than as a woman. When those in charge elsewhere in the world try to force their views down other people’s throats we call them tyrants or dictators who repress their citizens. Here, it is Republican leaders telling 50 percent of the country that “we know what’s best for your body” and too bad if you don’t like it.

We are fortunate to live in a country where freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are so important that they are the first article in the Bill of RIghts. However, freedom of choice — especially when it comes to your own body — is equally as important to maintain a just society.

The vice-presidential debate shed some interesting light

May May Leung, PhD, RD is an assistant professor at the CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College.  Her research expertise includes the development and evaluation of innovative health communication and community-based interventions to prevent childhood obesity.

In about 6 months, you shouldn’t be able to find sugary drinks over 16 ounces in such foodservice establishments as delis, restaurants and even sports arenas and movie theaters in New York City.  Not surprisingly, the Board of Health showed resounding support for Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal last month as it passed by a vote of eight to zero, with one abstention.  The policy will begin on March 12, 2013, with fines to violators implemented in mid-June.

Opponents such as New Yorkers for Beverage Choices, which is an industry-financed group opposed to the policy, said they are exploring all possible options to prevent the ban from taking effect next year, including the possibility of a legal challenge.  Meanwhile, supporters and board members have said that they cannot imagine the board not acting as there is “overwhelming” evidence that obesity is a major health problem in the city and nation.

So, what is the updated evidence on sugary drinks and obesity?  Well, three new studies were recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that show consumption of sugary drinks may indeed influence obesity development across different age groups as previous research have only highlighted associations.

Qi and colleagues conducted a study to examine genetic predisposition to obesity in adults and consumption of sugary drinks.  The results support a gene-environment interaction related to obesity and sugary drinks consumption as adults with a greater genetic predisposition for obesity may be more susceptible to the negative effects of sugary drinks.  Two other studies, which focused on youth, examined the impact of interventions focused on reducing the consumption of sugary drinks.  One study found that replacing sugary drinks with sugar-free drinks for one and a half years reduced weight gain and fat accumulation in normal weight children.  Another study looked at obese and overweight adolescents who frequently consumed sugary-drinks and found that after one year those whose drinks were replaced with non-caloric beverages had significant changes in body mass index (BMI) compared to those whose drinks were not replaced.  However, the results did not remain after an additional year of follow-up.

All three studies do provide new evidence in support of the argument that Mayor Bloomberg’s large sugary drinks initiative was based upon so hopefully we shall bear witness to the intended outcomes of decreased obesity rates and healthier New Yorkers in the years to come.

Source: http://www.medifasthealth.org/general/will-a-ban-on-sugary-drinks-work-for-nyc/

May May Leung, PhD, RD is an