Do any of the political parties have a Mens Health Policy

CDfm

We were chatting on the Gentlemens Club and the question of a Government Mens Health Policy came up.

Not a pretend one but a real one. With costings and budgets and stuff .

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70522620&utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notify#post70522620

Does any of the political parties have one ????

swampgas

CDfm wrote: »

We were chatting on the Gentlemens Club and the question of a Government Mens Health Policy came up.

Not a pretend one but a real one. With costings and budgets and stuff .

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70522620&utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notify#post70522620

Does any of the political parties have one ????

I think most people are thinking about the economic abyss we are currently facing into, rather than very specific health issues, regardless of how valid those specific health issues may be.

CDfm

swampgas wrote: »

I think most people are thinking about the economic abyss we are currently facing into, rather than very specific health issues, regardless of how valid those specific health issues may be.

And that seems to be a huge issue. This lack of attention to detail and woolieness of policies.

Where are the specifics on how a Health Budget might be managed.

Surely, attention to detail on where money is being spent is essential to an understanding on where money will be cut.

The big cut that affected me was the dental benefit cut and it has literally cost me a few thousand in the past year.

So I would like to see Euro costed budgets please.

StillWaters

Would a party then have a Womens Health Manifesto, Youth Health Manifesto, Childrens... Older People's....Minority Communities etc?

Governments have detailed strategies and policies, parties have manifestos, which are much broader.

CDfm

StillWaters wrote: »

Would a party then have a Womens Health Manifesto, Youth Health Manifesto, Childrens... Older People's....Minority Communities etc?

Governments have detailed strategies and policies, parties have manifestos, which are much broader.

Lots of parties have policies on those issues.

I do think that in this election and other elections, middle class voters. who do bear the brunt of the tax cost of these plans should say " how will these changes affect me".

I know the cost to me has been several grand over the past year. So it has genuinely affected me.

johnnyskeleton

Men's health - like finding a cure for the man flu or having a regular prostate exam?

kangaroo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Men's health - like finding a cure for the man flu or having a regular prostate exam?

From the Men's Health Forum in Ireland (MHFI) e-newsletter, e-Male matters, February issue http://www.mhfi.org/emale14.doc

Let’s Talk about Men’s Health

This year, International Men's Health Week (MHW) will run from Monday 13th until Sunday 19th June 2011. The focus in Ireland will be upon: "Promoting and Supporting the Health and Well-Being of Men and Boys during Challenging Times". The world of men, and the roles that they play in it, have certainly changed dramatically in a very short period of time. All of these changes bring new challenges (both positive and negative). Therefore, the key message for this week will be: “let’s talk about it”. But what is there to talk about? ...

 The current economic recession has made a huge impact upon men’s jobs, status, income, spending, lifestyle, debt, sense of security and health.

 On average, men are living longer, but they are not, necessarily, healthier.

 Men face a range of acute and chronic illnesses, many of which are preventable.

 Father’s roles / the expectations of fathers have expanded, but the number of disputed cases relating to access to children is also rising.

 Obesity is on the increase, while healthy eating and exercise are decreasing.

 Depression in men is becoming more prevalent (or at least acknowledged) and the male suicide rate is still extremely high.

 Males are often not aware of where and how to find help and support.

 Young men (particularly) engage in a range of high-risk activities.

 There is increasing recognition that males can be victims of domestic abuse.

 There are a lot of projects that work with men to improve their health, but we are still unsure about what ‘effective practice’ with men looks like.

 The Republic of Ireland has a Men’s Health Policy, but is it making a difference? On the other hand, Northern Ireland does not even have a framework for evaluating if men’s health needs are being met ...

CDfm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Men's health - like finding a cure for the man flu or having a regular prostate exam?

Men's Health -like tackling why men die 5 years earlier than women on average or male homelessness or male suicide which kills more men than the total of road traffic deaths.

Unless you take a specific interest in areas that affect you directly then political policy is just abstract.

So unless, you look at specifics , you dont get anywhere.

If you dont assess policies against what you know about or what affects you -it is difficult to make an educated assessment of policies.

nesf

Honestly you won't see this issue given major attention by the main parties this election most likely. However, your focus should be on directly after the election. Organise a campaign where men (and women) can send letters to their local Government and Opposition TDs on this issue highlighting the issues raised. A selection of performed letters that a person can print off, sign and then post to a TD (with you providing a list of TD addresses for each constituency) could make this into an issue for the next Government.

CDfm

Thanks nesf, I dont think there is one - so I posted just in case some politico knew more than me

We were having the discussion in tGC

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70522979&utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notify#post70522979

d'Oracle

I don't see how gender specificity is helpful when the entire health system is so intrinsically buggered.

Theoretically as the health service improves, then the health services for men will improve by the by.

Most of those specific issues on the list are societal or awarness issues. Which are very very important, but are not really election issues.

Obesity is not the governments problem.

CDfm

d'Oracle wrote: »

I don't see how gender specificity is helpful when the entire health system is so intrinsically buggered.

I agree, but that has been the allocation method of resourses.

So maybe if the system was to be overhauled rather then just introducing swinging cuts issues like male suicide got a fair crack.

It is not so long ago that the Department of the Family was the Department of Women & Children. The new department is staffed by the same people and do they have the same policies.

It did not just exclude heterosexual men like me , lots of people like the LGBT were also excluded.

Take domestic violence issues, if there is no help for male victims that stretches across to the gay & lesbian community, the elderly and children in single parent families.

Theoretically as the health service improves, then the health services for men will improve by the by.

Most of those specific issues on the list are societal or awarness issues. Which are very very important, but are not really election issues.

Words like societal etc are fairly abstract. The couple of thousand I spent on dentistry last year plus the prsi & tax changes left me thousands worse off.

Divorced Dad paying maintenence.


So these are real issues for me.

Obesity is not the governments problem.

I dont know what you mean by this

I imagine that gay marriage and adoption are real issues for the gay community .

The Cohabitation Bill was an absolute shambles, it concerned cohabitting hetero couples rather then the gay issues.

So if you have bad laws and practices you should see where the politciians you support stand on them.

If the LGBT community is treated badly and they are organised , I am fairly sure I will be too, so I have a vested interest in their welfare too.

I might ask a question on an issue as it affects me but I am a citizen with a vote.

S when I say Mens Health , it is a yardstick I will use to assess policy but accross areas.

swampgas

When it comes to a general election, I think you have limit yourself to a few important issues and lobby/campaign for those.

Given the impact of unemployment on the mental health of men in particular, you could argue that reducing unemployment is not just an economic issue, it is also a male health issue, and focus on that.

I'm not for a second saying that the other issues you raised are not important, but the general public are far too focused on broader economic issues right now to give them the attention you would like.

CDfm

For such a small country our public policy making is very complex and partisan.

I set up a nice little Poll in After Hours on "should the Dail Bar be shut down"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70536519#post70536519

It has had a few fits and the "Ayes" are winning.

It is the type of question that begs to be asked of all party leaders. :pac:

johnnyskeleton

CDfm wrote: »

Men's Health -like tackling why men die 5 years earlier than women on average or male homelessness or male suicide which kills more men than the total of road traffic deaths.

Women also die, become homeless and commit suicide. I don't see why there should be a particular focus on these issues as they relate to men, just as I don't see why these (or similar non gender specific) issues should have a female centric focus. Although there are specific women's health clinics, usually these relate to pregnancy etc.

CDfm wrote: »

Unless you take a specific interest in areas that affect you directly then political policy is just abstract.

Chosing to specificy "men's" health is only half as abstract as just plain old "human" health. If you have a specific issue e.g. cancer because it affects you or your family, that is different, but wanting a focus on male only cancer is a bit silly really.

CDfm wrote: »

So unless, you look at specifics , you dont get anywhere.

Granted, but I don't agree that "mens health" is sufficiently specific. Why not focus on "children's education" or unemployed people's social welfare? Dividing the issue into two on arbitrary gender grounds is unhelpful.

CDfm wrote: »

If you dont assess policies against what you know about or what affects you -it is difficult to make an educated assessment of policies.

I disagree. I can make just as valid an assessment of policies as you can without imposing any gender segregation.

Buceph

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Women also die, become homeless and commit suicide. I don't see why there should be a particular focus on these issues as they relate to men, just as I don't see why these (or similar non gender specific) issues should have a female centric focus. Although there are specific women's health clinics, usually these relate to pregnancy etc.

Because, as you pointed out, there are differences between men and women. Men are more likely to commit suicide, and become homeless. The statistical differences would imply that there is something specific to men that needs to be addressed.

Chosing to specificy "men's" health is only half as abstract as just plain old "human" health. If you have a specific issue e.g. cancer because it affects you or your family, that is different, but wanting a focus on male only cancer is a bit silly really.

Addressing specific cancers is far more effective than addressing generic cancers. Breast cancer campaigns have been extremely effective, far more than any non-specific cancer campaign would have been, so I don't see why things like testicular and prostate cancer shouldn't be addressed. Advertising, counselling and awareness campaigns again are more effective when you take a particular psychographic into account, which is of course informed by the gender demographic.

Granted, but I don't agree that "mens health" is sufficiently specific. Why not focus on "children's education" or unemployed people's social welfare? Dividing the issue into two on arbitrary gender grounds is unhelpful.

We do talk about children's education, primary and secondary, then adult education, tertiary, and even life-long learning for an even more grown up grouping. Gender isn't always an arbitrary distinction.

I disagree. I can make just as valid an assessment of policies as you can without imposing any gender segregation.

I think the OP is looking for specifics on something that has been handwaved for quite a while, and if he is to get action on it he needs to question the candidates, so I don't see a fault with taking a narrow view. Campaigning on specific issues is perfectly valid (although I'd prefer it to inform an overall view rather than dictate to the rest.)

Secondly, I think the OP is looking at areas where there has been a serious shortage of funding and interest. Men's health issues have taken a back seat to women's health issues, and men are far less likely to deal with them, and men's health issues are specific to men. That's why I think you need gender segregatation. Male and female bodies and minds are completely different.

CDfm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Women also die, become homeless and commit suicide. I don't see why there should be a particular focus on these issues as they relate to men, just as I don't see why these (or similar non gender specific) issues should have a female centric focus. Although there are specific women's health clinics, usually these relate to pregnancy etc.

Mens suicide rates a 4 times higher than women.

Chosing to specificy "men's" health is only half as abstract as just plain old "human" health. If you have a specific issue e.g. cancer because it affects you or your family, that is different, but wanting a focus on male only cancer is a bit silly really.

Does it bug you that men dont get access to health care.

When we talk about the huge amount of money lobbed into the health services and huge amounts increases have been made in spending when it doubled between 2000 & 2009 you expect to see things tacked.

It just has not delivered.

Granted, but I don't agree that "mens health" is sufficiently specific. Why not focus on "children's education" or unemployed people's social welfare? Dividing the issue into two on arbitrary gender grounds is unhelpful.

But if housing is allocated by gender or family unit or disability classifications shouldn't it bug us if homelessness has become a male issue.

Maybe it has become an issue because that is how resourses are allocated.

Take Domestic Violence , a hackneyed example, it uses a heterosexual couple male perpetrator model to allocate a "social good" even though statistics show males and females abuse in equal numbers.

Excluded by definition are , Male victims in heterosexual relationships,Same sex couples, LGBT, children of female perpetrators and the elderly.

So if there is a gender or orientation or age bias in allocating resourses then a policy that pussy foots around it is hardly going to correct service delivery.

I disagree. I can make just as valid an assessment of policies as you can without imposing any gender segregation.

You can make an assessment based on the reality of service delivery, if the delivery mechanism of a "social good" as a commodity is allocated along gender , orientation or age lines.

Esther Rantzen , Founder of Childline UK and broadcaster , uses the term "Gender Goggles" when discussing suicide and self harm in young men.

The Health Service in Northern Ireland got rationalised and overhauled and it has a "free health service".

Where does our money go if it does not go on Health Service delivery ???

johnnyskeleton

Buceph wrote: »

Because, as you pointed out, there are differences between men and women. Men are more likely to commit suicide, and become homeless. The statistical differences would imply that there is something specific to men that needs to be addressed.

That's not a difference of substance so much as degree. Both men and women commit suicide and become homeless. But only women (to date) give birth to children.

Buceph wrote: »

Addressing specific cancers is far more effective than addressing generic cancers. Breast cancer campaigns have been extremely effective, far more than any non-specific cancer campaign would have been, so I don't see why things like testicular and prostate cancer shouldn't be addressed. Advertising, counselling and awareness campaigns again are more effective when you take a particular psychographic into account, which is of course informed by the gender demographic.

Well, private charities are perfectly entitled to set up their own cancer awareness campaign if they want. Why should national government get involved in a segmented issue. Ok, there are certain women only issues e.g. the cervical cancer vaccine, but really that is focused on the specific issue and is not lumped into some kind of "we want women's health to be top priority" campaign.

Buceph wrote: »

We do talk about children's education, primary and secondary, then adult education, tertiary, and even life-long learning for an even more grown up grouping. Gender isn't always an arbitrary distinction.

In health, it seems to me that it is.

Buceph wrote: »

I think the OP is looking for specifics on something that has been handwaved for quite a while, and if he is to get action on it he needs to question the candidates, so I don't see a fault with taking a narrow view. Campaigning on specific issues is perfectly valid (although I'd prefer it to inform an overall view rather than dictate to the rest.)

Secondly, I think the OP is looking at areas where there has been a serious shortage of funding and interest. Men's health issues have taken a back seat to women's health issues, and men are far less likely to deal with them, and men's health issues are specific to men. That's why I think you need gender segregatation. Male and female bodies and minds are completely different.

I don't agree. Anyone who is lacking in treatment, regardless of their gender, should get the same level of political attention.

johnnyskeleton

CDfm wrote: »

Does it bug you that men dont get access to health care.

Forgive me for not addressing the rest of your points, but it seems to me that your view is based on this mistaken premise. Men do get access to health care. Sure just last week my father went to the doctor and received treatment on the same terms that my mother would have received.

CDfm

But if your father was a victim of domestic violence would he recieve the same services that your mother would. Or if he went to thre doctor would he get the same support for prostate cancer awareness , the male equivalent of cervical cancer or breast cancer.

It seems to me that health as a "social good" needs to be assessed and overhauled.

What Does Social Good Mean?
A good or service that benefits the largest number of people in the largest possible way. Some classic examples of social goods are clean air, clean water and literacy; in addition, many economic proponents include access to services such as healthcare in their definition of the social or "common good".
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/social_good.asp

I am not posting from a gender perspective BTW rather the opposite , the elimination of gender based service delivery.

So when assessing service delivery of "social goods" so practical biological issues are obvious but if you are voting for a politician who will have an input in overhauling the system I feel I would like to know their ideological stance on toplevel issues.

Buceph

johnny: If you can't see that there is differences between the sexes attitudes to certain things, and the treatment they receive, I can't help you.

The idea that everyone is the same has long been abandoned by most involved in gender studies, and it's well known that differing approaches have to be taken to be most effective.

When there is a lack of public awareness about the issues CDFM outlines, I think it's a good thing that there are people looking to address it.