Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ckn

Malnourishment

43 posts in this topic

Last year 5499 people were treated in England as in-patients in hospital for malnutrition.  In 2008, this was 3161 (Source: MEN)

 

According to the NHS, 3m people in Britain are believed to be malnourished at any one time and many more are at risk (Source: NHS)

 

No need for additional commentary really, those two lines say it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why though? Unless it was mistreated children, there is no actual reason for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year 5499 people were treated in England as in-patients in hospital for malnutrition.  In 2008, this was 3161 (Source: MEN)

 

According to the NHS, 3m people in Britain are believed to be malnourished at any one time and many more are at risk (Source: NHS)

 

No need for additional commentary really, those two lines say it all.

 

those two lines say it all.     Hardly.  Anyway, go on lets hear it. 

 

From your NHS link -  "Malnutrition is caused by either an inadequate diet or a problem absorbing nutrients from food. There are many reasons why this might happen, including having reduced mobility, a long-term health condition or a low income."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why though? Unless it was mistreated children, there is no actual reason for it.

Some of the stories I've read recently make me really wonder.  Church emergency food supplies being rationed because they're over-subscribed.  Food bank usage going up with the food banks themselves having to make harder checks on eligibility to ensure they have enough stocks.  Adults sanctioned for benefit infractions having to stop paying all bills bar heating and prioritising feeding their kids to the point that they (the adults) are having one meal a day of utmost basic food.  I've seen a few of the begging letters to councils from such charities asking for money because they're on the last bits of their financial reserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those two lines say it all.     Hardly.  Anyway, go on lets hear it. 

 

From your NHS link -  "Malnutrition is caused by either an inadequate diet or a problem absorbing nutrients from food. There are many reasons why this might happen, including having reduced mobility, a long-term health condition or a low income."

When was the last time you heard a politician actually addressing such basic needs failures?  Even the Lib Dems are mightily pleased with themselves for their ambush while their owner, Dave Cameron, is out of the country and asking for another tax cut for the lowest paid workers.  What about those who fall below even that lowest level of minimum wage?  They're the least likely to vote and also are unable to donate to political parties therefore aren't that relevant to the vast majority of politicians.

As far as I'm concerned, even the most work-shy scrounger the world has ever seen deserves to be caught by the state safety net sufficiently that they can feed themselves to a point above malnutrition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the stories I've read recently make me really wonder.  Church emergency food supplies being rationed because they're over-subscribed.  Food bank usage going up with the food banks themselves having to make harder checks on eligibility to ensure they have enough stocks.  Adults sanctioned for benefit infractions having to stop paying all bills bar heating and prioritising feeding their kids to the point that they (the adults) are having one meal a day of utmost basic food.  I've seen a few of the begging letters to councils from such charities asking for money because they're on the last bits of their financial reserves.

I know there are many skint people; I am heading that way myself now. But I can tell you for definite that you can, if you shop wisely and do a little bit of digging, eat very well on a low budget. That some people don't is a problem for themselves and not something the government can do about. 

 

I aren't talking about every single case here obviously and I know there is some people genuinely in need but even someone on the lowest benefits can eat, if not like a king, fairly well using the cheaper supermarkets or markets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hhave a look here:

 

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/

 

You'll see the socialist paradise of France has it cracked--- a malnutrition death rate  some 660% higher than that in the UK. In fact, the UK record seems to be one of the best in the world.  

France is in a bit of a death spiral, they've taxed out all the money generators and they're screwing every penny out of anyone with a penny to spare yet they refuse to stop spending on utterly idiotic state white elephants while at the same time making it harder and harder for employers to get any value for money from actually employing someone.

 

As you'll see, I'm not unaware of the implications of idiot taxation and government policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why though? Unless it was mistreated children, there is no actual reason for it.

How about old people living alone and who aren't mobile?

People with mental health problems who omit to care fir themselves?

Parents who can't afford to feed themselves able their children as well able so feed their children and also without themselves?

People who eat but eat is deficient diet?

Those with bulimia and anorexia nervosa?

Those with issues regarding metabolism and/or assimilation of nutrients?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there are many skint people; I am heading that way myself now. But I can tell you for definite that you can, if you shop wisely and do a little bit of digging, eat very well on a low budget. That some people don't is a problem for themselves and not something the government can do about. 

 

I aren't talking about every single case here obviously and I know there is some people genuinely in need but even someone on the lowest benefits can eat, if not like a king, fairly well using the cheaper supermarkets or markets.

I actually worked out that I could feed myself, pure food costs alone, to a very good and close to excellent standard for about £30 a week if I planned it appropriately.  If I reduced that to a merely "good" standard I'm sure I could cut it even further, maybe £20-£25 or even less if I really thought about it.

 

How about an innovative benefits review that worked on a minimum food value per head and gave that as food stamps/debit card instead of cash as part of an overall benefits package?  Just a suggestion, probably many more clever people out there working in the appropriate field that could come up with better ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about old people living alone and who aren't mobile?

People with mental health problems who omit to care fir themselves?

Parents who can't afford to feed themselves able their children as well able so feed their children and also without themselves?

People who eat but eat is deficient diet?

Those with bulimia and anorexia nervosa?

Those with issues regarding metabolism and/or assimilation of nutrients?

The bits in bold.... the latter must be an absolutely miniscule percentage, and even if it were true surely you would be on medication? Ditto bulimia or anorexia -and that's a totally different case anyway.

 

As for the rest, I am telling you that you can afford to feed your kids on the benefits given. Not the life of Riley, nor can you afford to run a car but in terms of getting cheap nutritious fruit and veg, there are umpteen options for getting enough. I aren't saying nobody is not getting enough, I am saying that , in most cases, there is adequate but basic provision. A mate of mine is malnourished but it's because he is a total passhead and nobody else's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually worked out that I could feed myself, pure food costs alone, to a very good and close to excellent standard for about £30 a week if I planned it appropriately.  If I reduced that to a merely "good" standard I'm sure I could cut it even further, maybe £20-£25 or even less if I really thought about it.

 

How about an innovative benefits review that worked on a minimum food value per head and gave that as food stamps/debit card instead of cash as part of an overall benefits package?  Just a suggestion, probably many more clever people out there working in the appropriate field that could come up with better ideas.

Since I lost my job, I have gone from going to the supermarket and wandering round throwing stuff in, a lot of which ended up getting wasted, to planning meals and spending approximately half what I used to. Not to mention popping in during the week to get a pint of milk and spending £30-40. Farmfoods and Aldi -it's the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bits in bold.... the latter must be an absolutely miniscule percentage, and even if it were true surely you would be on medication? Ditto bulimia or anorexia -and that's a totally different case anyway.

 

As for the rest, I am telling you that you can afford to feed your kids on the benefits given. Not the life of Riley, nor can you afford to run a car but in terms of getting cheap nutritious fruit and veg, there are umpteen options for getting enough. I aren't saying nobody is not getting enough, I am saying that , in most cases, there is adequate but basic provision. A mate of mine is malnourished but it's because he is a total passhead and nobody else's fault.

You said that unless it was mistreated children there was no reason for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said that unless it was mistreated children there was no reason for it

There isn't. Adults can look after themselves, those that are unable to are looked after by other adults. That's the theory anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't. Adults can look after themselves, those that are unable to are looked after by other adults. That's the theory anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right it's the theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of elderly people who regularly fail to eat sufficiently. I have seen them myself when I was last an in patient in hospital and I have a friend who works in a care home and she tells me one of their main problems is to get their residents to eat properly. Those who've been alone for a while seem to just get out of the habit for one reason or another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of elderly people who regularly fail to eat sufficiently. I have seen them myself when I was last an in patient in hospital and I have a friend who works in a care home and she tells me one of their main problems is to get their residents to eat properly. Those who've been alone for a while seem to just get out of the habit for one reason or another. 

It's pretty difficult with small children too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty difficult with small children too.

 

Indeed. The problems with feeding are pretty similar. However you don't find that many small children living in a house on their own. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The example  examined by the BBC article I pointed to includes the following expenditure items:

 

£ 15 a week on Sky TV

£ 32 a week on mobile phones

£ 240 a week on shopping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about old people living alone and who aren't mobile?

People with mental health problems who omit to care fir themselves?

Parents who can't afford to feed themselves able their children as well able so feed their children and also without themselves?

People who eat but eat is deficient diet?

Those with bulimia and anorexia nervosa?

Those with issues regarding metabolism and/or assimilation of nutrients?

 

 

I agree - that is alltrue. And covered by the quote from the NHS.  Maybe I am over-sensitive , but the tenor of CKN's post - No need for additional commentary really, those two lines say it all -  was that this was the fault of the nasty government who was deserting the poor and driving them into the food banks. 

 

My contention  is that those two lines do not say it all, and that by one measure at least - malnutrition death rates - we are amongst the best in the world and certainly better than countries that some may rate as better at this than us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The example  examined by the BBC article I pointed to includes the following expenditure items:

 

£ 15 a week on Sky TV

£ 32 a week on mobile phones

£ 240 a week on shopping

 

And the £240 weekly shopping includes 24 cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large pouch of tobacco. I think it is safe to assume this family will not be one of those going sort of food. But, just because this particular example is doing ok, it doesn't prove there aren't people struggling to feed themselves adequately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, of course not. I have direct experience with my daughter and son-in-law so I know how hard it can be.

 

Did you read the BBC article?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017