Crikey journalist Amber Jamieson recently reported that the National Health and Medical Research Council is examining whether anti-wind farm campaigner Sarah Laurie has breached ethical codes of research conduct.

The NHMRC and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency were recently sent a dossier raising questions about the work of Laurie, CEO of the Waubra Foundation (an anti-wind farm activist group).

The dossier, whose author/s are not named, was forwarded to these agencies by the Public Health Association of Australia. It documents statements by Laurie about conducting interviews and other forms of research.

The Waubra Foundation has since put out a statement calling for ICAC or a Royal Commission to investigate the “anonymous and malicious” dossier.

“The Board of the Foundation considers that what has transpired, plus the contemporaneous and coordinated press campaign prominently featuring chronic critics of the Foundation’s works, is properly the subject of a referral to an ICAC or a Royal Commission,” the statement says. “To ignore the documented suffering of people, and openly to ridicule them, is not only unethical, it is immoral, if not criminal.”

The Waubra statement does not address the concerns raised by the dossier below. I wonder how long until we hear more on these matters from the NHMRC et al…

It’s important to challenge those who seek to demonise parents who use alcohol and drugs as “bad parents”, according to Donna Ribton-Turner, Director Clinical Services at UnitingCare ReGen.

Rather than scapegoating parents with alcohol and drug issues, they deserve appropriate support and care, she says.

***

Stigmatising vulnerable families only makes things worse

Donna Ribton-Turner writes:

As the Mother’s Day afterglow recedes for another year and women everywhere get back to the work that will often go unrecognised over the next year, it is worth reflecting on particular challenges experienced by some of the most vulnerable mothers within our communities.

Being a mum is a tough job at the best of times. The pressures of parenthood take a toll on all of us at some point and the feeling of being overwhelmed by responsibilities to our children, others’ expectations and sheer exhaustion is a common one.

Some of us cope with these events, regather our energies and move on.  Some of us seek support from counselling or medication. Some of us self-medicate with alcohol and other drugs.

Jayashri Kulkarni:

Women admitted to psychiatry wards experience high levels of violence and sexual assaults, according to a report released this week by the Victorian Mental Illness Alliance Council.

Across the nine different psychiatry hospital wards surveyed in Victoria, 85% of female inpatients felt unsafe during hospitalisation, 67% reported experiencing sexual or other forms of harassment and 45% of respondents had experienced sexual assault during an in-patient admission.

The report further described that when the women patients reported the incidents, 82% found the nurses to be “not at all helpful”.

The report reveals two major areas of concern – first, that violence against women patients occurs commonly and second, that the incidents are not appropriately dealt with.

Olav Nielssen writes: 

Just when we thought we were heading for a more tolerant and accepting attitude toward people afflicted by mental illness, a feature and a news article in Saturday’s The Australian quoting leaders in the area of forensic psychiatry have revived the old mental-illness-equals-axe-murderer stigma.

One of the articles was based on a recent paper published in the journal Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica showing a higher rate of conviction for all violent offences by people with psychiatric disorders in Victoria.

The second article examined the random attack of a stranger by a person with mental illness, which research has shown to be a rare event; most violence by mentally ill people is directed toward family and acquaintances.

Both of The Australian’s articles quoted Professor Paul Mullen and Professor James Ogloff of Monash University, who are co-authors of the Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica study.

This post offers an overview of health-related news from the Budget and a wrap of reaction.

Here are links to:

• Health and Ageing Budget statements

• A table giving a quick overview of health spends and cuts

• Ministerial press releases

• Closing the Gap press release

• The Treasurer’s speech

***

The AMA has been campaigning hard against changes to tax deductions for work-related self-education that are likely, amongst other things, to reduce the attractiveness of conferences in exotic locations.

Paul Smith, political editor at Australian Doctor, has exposed one of the vulnerabilities of the AMA’s campaign with a story about its Queensland branch’s annual conference, to be held at a luxurious venue in Chile.

It would be interesting to know the total value of tax deductions claimed by doctors for such trips every year. A related topic worth investigating is inequities in access to continuing education for the various types of health professionals.

Another issue worth exploring is what the FOAM (Free Open Access Meducation) movement means for the medical conference industry. Are traditional medical conferences losing relevance?

Thanks to Paul Smith for allowing republication of his report below (part one is his original story, followed by AMAQ’s response.)

***

AMA’s campaign for tax deductible conference travel stretches to Chile

Paul Smith writes:

The AMA’s campaign against plans to cap tax breaks for medical education has been hit by revelations its Queensland branch will hold its annual conference in Chile at a five-star hotel with “lagoon-style swimming pool”.

The six-day trip to Santiago includes an “air and land” package costing up to $6700 per doctor, with delegates — according to the AMA brochure — staying at the Grand Hyatt, “home to world class, multi-cuisine, restaurants [and] a lagoon-style swimming pool with a waterfall”.

Expected to attract 140 doctors, the September event includes four half-day conference sessions with around 20 hours of medical education on topics such as an “Overview of international health systems and standards — how does Australia stack up?”.

Concerns about the presence of man-made chemicals in our bodies should not deter women from breastfeeding, according to a new review of the scientific evidence.

The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) says breastmilk contains protective agents and helps children develop a strong immune system. Breastfeeding can mitigate the effects of chemical exposure in the womb, whereas formula feeding does not afford any protection or mitigation.

The IBFAN statement also says formula feeding and industrial baby foods contribute significantly to environmental pollution.

Joy Heads, an experienced midwife and International Board Certified Lactation Consultant in Sydney, gives an overview of the new statement below.

***

A useful source of information on breastfeeding and chemical residues

Joy Heads writes:

The reality of the presence of environmental chemicals has been on the world’s radar since the release of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring in 1962.

Today it is accepted that every human body contains many man-made chemicals that can cause harm. Human milk has a high proportion of fat and therefore fat soluble contaminants, including dioxins, can be very easily measured.

Expressed breastmilk used to be included in the Australian Basket Market Survey, now called Australian Total Diet Study (ATDS), because it was easy to collect from consenting women in postnatal wards.

Over the last few decades scare tactics have emerged, warning women about the perceived danger of breastfeeding.  I clearly remember one front page headline in a Sydney Sunday paper in the mid 70’s screaming: “DDT’s in breastmilk: mothers poisoning their babies.”

The press coverage of Florence William’s 2012 book: “Breasts: A Natural and Unnatural History”, which covers her investigations into the issue, did little to allay these fears.

It is therefore heartening that the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) has just released “IBFAN Statement on Infant and Young Child Feeding and Chemical Residues” (2013), which presents objective and independent information for parents, carers and health professionals.

Alarm bells are ringing right around the world on climate change (see some of the most recent examples at the bottom of this post).

But does the health and medical research sector have its thumbs jammed firmly in its ears?

In the article below, Dr Elizabeth Haworth, Dr Brad Farrant and Fiona Armstrong lament a lack of leadership from the research community on this pressing global public health concern.

***

A plea for the health and medical research community to prioritise work on climate change

Elizabeth Haworth, Brad Farrant and Fiona Armstrong write:

The report of the Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research, set up by the Australian Government in 2011 and chaired by Simon McKeon, was released last month, recommending a 10-year strategic plan for the nation.

Despite criticism of the preliminary consultation paper for overlooking the health impacts of climate change, the final report has made minimal mention of these threats to health.

This stands in stark contrast to the 2011 Australian Government Climate Commission report, The Critical Decade: Climate Change and Health.  This report points to increasing frequency and severity of heat waves and other extreme weather events, more infectious and vector-borne diseases and more disease and premature deaths due to air pollutants. It reveals our health services are inadequately prepared for this change and that evidence-based action is urgent.

Ever-increasing scientific evidence and the long-standing consensus of over 97% of climate scientists, the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science and every major national scientific body in the industrialised world agree that the planet is warming, that the observed climate change is mostly caused by humans and that business as usual will result in irreversible changes to the climate system.

Worldwide, with less than one degree of the global mean temperature rise, health is already threatened.

If the Federal Government wanted to use the forthcoming Budget to boost population health, what would it do?

Raise taxation generally (plus specific hikes for tobacco, alcohol, and unhealthy foods), and remove subsidies on the use of fossil fuels. These are among the suggestions from Croakey contributors outlined in the post below.

Contributors also said they’d like to see the Budget bring increased payments to single parents and the unemployed, as a way of reducing health inequalities.

Another suggestion for addressing heath inequalities was to “publish the taxable income and tax paid by all Australian citizens”.

There is also support for having all Government policy and program decisions subjected to Climate Impact Assessment and Health Impact Assessment.

Reflecting widespread support for a health in all policies approach, one contributor suggested that health-based key performance indicators could be introduced for all portfolios.

Croakey contributors also hope the Budget will show a commitment to ongoing health reform, including a “transition away from the small business, fee-for-service model that dominates Medicare now to a capitated model in primary and community care”.

As for how the Government could make savings in health – scrap the private health insurance rebate altogether was the suggestion from some.

****

For the compilation post below, Croakey contributors were asked:

1. What is the single most important thing the government could do in the health budget to improve population health?

2. What is the single most important thing the government could do in the overall budget (ie beyond the health portfolio) to improve population health?

3. What is the single most important thing the government could do in the health budget to tackle health inequalities?

4. What is the single most important thing the government could do in the overall budget (ie beyond the health portfolio) to tackle health inequalities?

5. Any advice to the media about how to cover the budget this year? What do you most want to know about it?

6. Where could savings be made in the health portfolio?

****