Some Doctors Turn Away Obese Patients

June 2, 2011 on 8:39 am | In Health, Social Issues Email This Post Email This Post

Here’s a subject that’s going to make a lot of people mad, but that’s probably every subject I talk about. I’m going to give you my opinion. You can debate it, you can agree with it, you can disagree with it, you can think about it. It’s all okay with me.

Some ob-gyn doctors in South Florida turn away obese women. Not chubby. Not fat. Obese women. Some names were given out in a news article, and some doctors got in trouble. One said, “Oh, no. I do see obese women.” In a nation with 93 million obese people, you get a few doctors in South Florida (my guess is that they’re everywhere) who refuse to see otherwise healthy women solely because they are obese and all hell breaks loose.

Some of the doctors said the main reason was their exam tables or other equipment couldn’t handle people over a certain weight, but at least six said they were trying to avoid obese patients because they have a higher risk of complications. Keep in mind the malpractice problems for ob-gyn doctors is huge. People have floated away from that specialty because everyone wants a perfect baby and they sue the doctor when it doesn’t happen. It’s a really difficult specialty at this point.

“People don’t realize the risk we’re taking by taking care of these patients,” said Dr. Albert Triana, whose two-physician practice in South Miami declines patients classified as obese.[Dr. Triana later said his practice does accept obese patients] “There’s more risk of something going wrong and more risk of getting sued. Everything is more complicated with an obese patient in GYN surgeries and in [pregnancies].” (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-05-16/health/fl-hk-no-obesity-doc-20110516_1_gyn-ob-gyn-obese-patients)


A couple of doctors said the cross-over point was if the women weighed over 250 pounds. Two of the doctors who were interviewed stated they didn’t want to begin seeing obese women and then have to send them to specialists if they later developed problems. The office manager at one place said “This is just not a high risk practice.” The doctors there are not experts in obesity.

Turning down overweight people is not illegal for doctors, but the policy worried leaders of physician groups, medical ethics experts and advocates for the obese — how can you advocate for obesity? It’s like advocating for slow suicide. That’s bizarre to me — all of whom said it violates the spirit of the medical profession.

One doctor stated that if they had that policy, they wouldn’t have a practice, because they’d lose half their patients. And do you know why that’s true? Because statistics don’t lie: Americans are fat! According to psychorg.com, Americans are fatter than Mexicans, Australians, Greeks, New Zealanders, the British, and more. We’re fat! American’s ate more than twice as much high fructose corn syrup (sugar) per person in 2004 than we did in 1980. We’re eating more and more crap and we’re moving less and less, so we have more and more obese people.

I went to a website that advocates for obese people and found an article about obesity discrimination in the doctor’s office:

Perhaps a more unsettling type of obesity discrimination occurs in a place where caring, trust and unbiased treatment should be guaranteed…your doctor’s office. Unfortunately, on average, doctors are not immune from obesity discrimination tendencies. (http://www.bariatric-surgery-source.com/obesity-discrimination.html)


I read that and I got angry. Doctors are not discriminating because they find the patient offensive, they’re discriminating because obese people walking in clearly indicate that they’re not responsible; they don’t have self-discipline; and they probably won’t follow the protocol. They are also more likely to have side complications and not do what it takes to get the fat off so they will be healthier and be less at risk. All the risk now goes to the doctor. How many of you think that is fair?

What I’ve learned is that it’s okay for you to be totally out of control, but someone else has to accommodate you anyway. That’s personal responsibility? That’s a bratty kid.

TrackBack URI

California Goes After Social Network Privacy Policies

May 31, 2011 on 8:02 am | In Internet, Parenting, Politics, Social Issues Email This Post Email This Post

California State bill SB 242  was recently introduced (and amended last week) which would make social networking sites, like Facebook, take down personal information and photos for account users under age 18 and require more privacy settings (I think this should be a national law). 

SB-242, introduced by California State Senator Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro) would require all security setting to default to “private” and charge up to $10,000 per violation, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. 

I have to applaud Sen. Corbett – up one side and down the other.

These sites are not set up for privacy, and they’re complicated to negotiate. People who use Facebook and sites like it to engage in social/political activities are not necessarily posting information they want to share with the whole world. Even if information is private to other users, it’s not private to Facebook, and can still be used for marketing and advertising purposes.

As I see it, the main problem is you give all your private information before you then determine thelevel of privacy. It’s not well structured. And yes, parents also ought to have the power to remove information or photos from their children’s pages or accounts (one of the provisions of the bill). The bill would require “removal of that information regarding a user under 18 years of age upon request by the user’s parent, within 48 hours of his or her request.”

Facebook is not happy about this bill. I guess it’s a little more work for them, but it’s good PR for them to say they’ll put in the work to protect kids. When you’re not an adult, you lack the foresight to see a picture of yourself drinking beer, along with the message that “I’m so wasted,” could be problematic when interviewing for a job. It’s true 30-year-olds can also post the same nonsense, so everything can’t be blamed on youth.

The 48-hour deadline might be tight, but I don’t care – they’ll just have to figure out a way to set up programs to make that work. If a parent is calling up every day, however, then the site probably should just terminate that account, because that means the parents aren’t really “parenting.”

In fact, a lot of parents are ignorant, unresponsive, uninvolved, unaware, and “unsupervisory” when it comes to their children:

  • 81% of parents with children who go online say kids aren’t careful enough when giving out information (which is why I don’t think kids should be online at all without parental supervision)


  • 44% of teens online with social networking profiles say they have been contacted by a stranger, compared with 16% of those without social networking profiles.


  • 14% of kids have actually met face-to-face with a person they first met on the Internet.


  • When asked how they responded when contacted online by a stranger, only THREE percent of online kids said they told an adult or authority figure. Most kids said they didn’t report the contact because they were afraid of losing Internet privileges.


  • Between 2007 and 2009, MySpace deleted 90,000 accounts because they were created by registered sex offenders.


Parents are always the first line of defense. Check up on everything. Never, never worry about losing your kid’s trust. They don’t trust you anyway.

Think about it. Most of the time they don’t want to tell you the truth, because they’ll get punished or they’ll lose some privilege. They’re not going to tell you something bad happened on the Internet. They’re afraid you won’t let them use the Internet if they mention it. And kids will lie to do what they want to do or do what their friends are doing or what they think they should be allowed to do. 

So don’t be naïve. Don’t think “My kids wouldn’t do that. My kids are wonderful.” They’re kids! I’m not saying they’re criminals, but I am saying they’re kids, and kids can make very unwise choices.

UPDATE on bill SB242: Unfortunately, it has stalled in the Calfornia legislature after aggressive lobbying by Facebook, Google, Twitter and other firms. The bill failed to pass in the California State Senate just this past Friday, May 27. The measure was deadlocked with a 16-16 vote. State Sen. Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro) said the bill had been “fiercely” lobbied against by opponents, but she plans to bring the bill back for another vote later this week.

TrackBack URI

The System Fails Another Child

May 25, 2011 on 9:00 am | In Child Abuse, Social Issues Email This Post Email This Post

I’ve been reading too many stories like the one I’m about to share, and I think it’s about time these people were put on trial and then put in jail for the rest of their lives with no possibility of parole. I believe any social worker, welfare worker, or child services worker who does not adequately follow through on a case and it results in the death of a child should get life in prison without parole.

Here’s the story that is making my blood boil:

A former New York City child welfare worker and his supervisor were indicted on charges of criminally negligent homicide, because their failures had contributed to the death of four year old Marchella Pierce, who had been repeatedly beaten and tied to a bed. She weighed 18 pounds at the end of her life. Her grandmother who witnessed this poor child being tied to the bed was also indicted on manslaughter and other charges, and the girl’s mother faces a murder charge.

Apparently, this is the first time in New York City history a child welfare worker has been charged with homicide in a child’s death. The district attorney in the case said this was likely not an isolated case and that there was “evidence of alleged systemic failures” at the child welfare agency. 

The caseworker in this instance was also charged with tampering with public records and falsifying records. What seems to happen is caseworkers don’t bother to show up and they follow it up by lying on reports. Kids are dead and they go back and look at the reports that say “oh, everything is fine.”

The prosecutors said agency workers had indicated “significant concerns” a year prior to the death of the child, but the caseworker had made entries indicating there had been no changes to the child from previous visits, even though signs of malnourishment would have been obvious by then. The caseworker’s lawyer said his client had been directed to make post-death computer entries by his superiors. Then all the lawyers blamed the agency!

Everyone has been spending time pointing fingers everywhere except at the guy who was supposed to go to the house and monitor that child.

So what happened to this kid is her own mother tied her to a bed, beat her with a belt, deprived her of food and water, and force-fed her drugs. The kid died from being beaten, starved and drug-poisoned. The grandmother witnessed the girl being bound to her bed, beaten and starved and did nothing.

So, when I tell people to call Child Protective Services (CPS), maybe I should just smack my head on the desk. Yet, a lot of people are freaking out at this story, saying “Oh my God, if you put these people on trial, you’re not going to get anybody to do the job.” Don’t you love it when people say “don’t hamper the bad guys, because then we won’t even have them!” 

I think it’s very important for every caseworker to know if a kid dies and it can be demonstrated you were negligent, you are toast – you are seriously toast.

TrackBack URI

Why Men Are Failing

May 23, 2011 on 10:05 am | In Dating, Love, Marriage, Men's Point of View, Morals, Sex, Social Issues, Values Email This Post Email This Post

I read in an article in Slate by a professor in the Sociology Department at the University of Texas at Austin. I had some problems with some of his explanations, but the main point is so right on! Women and girls today are, by and large, really stupid about love and sex. As I have said so many times to women who have called my radio show:“Why are you acting like an unpaid whore? Whatever happened to wanting to be on a pedestal?”

Women in America are the freest of any women in the world and they make stupid choices without thinking about the consequences to their lives and the out-of-wedlock kids or the wedlock kids, and then the divorce.

The article is called “Sex is Cheap: Why Young Men Have the Upper Hand in Bed, Even When They’re Failing in Life.” I’ve always said it’s the women who decide the level of morality in a society. What women will and won’t do is the line in the sand.

Women used to take some pride in deciding with whom and when they would have sex. In the animal kingdom, males have to fight and dance in order to qualify to have sex with the females – they either have to fight other males for access, or they have to enthrall the female somehow, which is one of the reasons males of the species are usually prettier than the females. Male birds are usually more colorful, because they need to impress to get the girl. There are species in which males have to make an entire nest or the female won’t be bothered! Critters whose brains are a microscopic percentage of human brains, with little or no gray matter, seem to have better sense when it’s instinctive, as opposed to when there is freedom of choice.

As women have gotten weaker and stupider, more kids are born out-of-wedlock, and there’s more chaos, violence, and drug use so more kids are ADHD because their lives are total chaos. 

Yes, I blame it on the women, and I am a woman. We are the ones who determine everything when it comes to relationships. A guy used to have to get down on one knee, convince your parents he was worthy and could support a family, had to court you for at least a year and a half, then maybeyou’d say “yes” if you thought he’d make a quality husband and father. Now, women just drop their pants if it’s Tuesday….or Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday.

So this article is pretty interesting, because it says young men are failing to adapt to contemporary life, but the author thinks it’s all supply and demand. He has good arguments, but I don’t agree with them. I think we’ve just had a generalized destruction of the fabric of society. You can hardly find a commercial on TV that doesn’t use blatant, meaningless sexuality to sell a product. Children are brought up to think this is normal.

Any woman who volunteers to NOT be on a pedestal is stupid. She is missing out on something adorable and sweet – a man wooing, wanting, and working to earn her. Now, women have a date and a half and are on their backs or on their knees. Women are putting perfectly good prostitutes out of business. At least the commitment those “working girls” get is money. Now “good girls” will do it for nothing, just to be there.

What makes all this horrible is the number of girls who get knocked up, and either have the baby sucked into a sink or believe they can handle it themselves. The kids have no dad and no extended family structure. It’s all very sad, and it’s overwhelmingly the fault of the woman, because we’re the ones making these decisions. Unless it is assaultive criminal rape, we make these decisions. We get drunk, we get naked, we do whatever, and then we generalize it and justify it in some stupid way, but basically speaking, that’s it.

So young men aren’t working hard anymore, and their failures in life aren’t penalizing them in the bedroom. Ironically (and I’ve pointed this out many times), being so sexually successful hinders a man’s drive to achieve in life. It used to be a well-known statistic men who are married, have children, and work hard to support their families are more successful than single dudes, because they have something to live for and to work for. Guys don’t have that anymore. They have women who aren’t expecting them to be more or to do more.

Cheap sex is what women settle for, and that’s what they get. When they are not respected, they’re not adored, they’re not revered, they’re not loved, they’re not really wanted, and they’re not on a pedestal. Then do you know what they do?

They bitch.

TrackBack URI

Interview with Florida state representative Kelli Stargel

February 2, 2011 on 11:03 am | In Education, Parenting, Social Issues Email This Post Email This Post

I had a very interesting interview with Florida state representative Kelli Stargel, who has introduced a bill requiring teachers of grades K-3 to rate PARENTS, because she believes parental involvement is key to educating children.  You can hear the interview for yourself.

TrackBack URI

Interview with Abby Johnson, author of “Unplanned”

January 25, 2011 on 3:09 pm | In Social Issues Email This Post Email This Post

Last week, I had a fascinating conversation with Abby Johnson, a former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas who, not long after assisting in an actual abortion procedure for the first time, crossed over to join the Coalition for Life.  Because so many of you asked for this, here’s the audio of that entire conversation.

Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader's Eye-Opening Journey across the Life Line

TrackBack URI

Remembering Dr. Martin Luther King

January 17, 2011 on 12:54 pm | In Celebrity, Ethics, Morals, Social Issues, Values Email This Post Email This Post

Yesterday was my birthday.

Saturday, January 15 was Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday, which we now celebrate today as a federal holiday.  I’d like to honor Dr. King and share with you some of his more personal observations and advice on how to have a better life.

From September, 1957 to December, 1958,  Dr. Martin Luther King wrote a monthly column for Ebony Magazine entitled “Advice for Living.”  Readers would ask questions and Dr. King would respond.  Today, I’d like to share with you some of his advice.

First, Dr. King on pre-marital sex:
Question:  I was raised in a Christian environment.  My father placed great stress on premarital virginity.  I am 29.  Of late, I have begun to doubt the validity of his teaching…Is he right?
MLK:  I think you should hold firm to the principle of premarital virginity.  The problems created by premarital sex relationships are far greater than the problems created by premarital virginity.  The suspicion, fears, and guilt feelings generated by premarital sex relations are contributing factors to the present breakdown of the family.  Real men still respect purity and virginity with women.  If a man breaks a relationship with you because you would not allow him to participate in the sexual act, you can be assured that he did not love you from the beginning.

Dr. King on parenting:
Question:  Young parents nowadays cater to every whim and wish of their children.  I was in a home the other day where a 3 year old child read the riot act to his mother.  The mother took it with a sheepish smile.  This, I am told, is permissiveness.  It seems to me that what modern children need is a large dose of parental permissiveness applied to their backsides.  Do you agree?
MLK:  It is quite true that many modern parents go too far in allowing their children to express themselves with hardly a modicum of discipline.  Many parents justify this by arguing that the children must have freedom.  But freedom can very easily run wild if not tempered with discipline and responsibility.  This almost “lunatic fringe” of modern child care has been responsible for most strange and fantastic methods of child rearing in many American homes.  The child is permitted to almost terrorize the home for fear of having its individuality repressed.  Somewhere along the way every child must be trained into the obligations of cooperative living.  He must be made aware that he is a member of a group and that group life implies duties and restraints.  Social life is possible only if there exists a balance between liberty and discipline.  The child must realize that there are rules of the game which he did not make and that he cannot break with impunity.  In order to get all of these things over to the child, it is often necessary to subject the child to disciplinary measures.

Dr. King on romantic love:
Question: I am in love with a young woman who is obviously unsuitable for me.  On the other hand, I know another girl who wants to marry.  I think the latter girl would be perfect for me, but I don’t love her.  We have the same background, the same tastes and we enjoy the same things.  Should I marry her?  Isn’t romantic love, which is at best transitory, a slippery thing to bet your future on?
MLK:  I would not say that romantic love is merely transitory.  Romantic love, at its best, is an enduring love which grows with the years.  I do agree, however, that it is quite risky to base a marriage purely on so-called romantic love without taking other basic factors into account.  For it may be possible that what we feel as real romantic love is at bottom a passing fantasy or a temporary infatuation with no real substance.  Many marriages have broken up for this very reason.  Persons marry on the basis of a temporary emotional feeling, and when the slightest conflict arises, the marriage breaks up because it is not planted on a solid foundation.  I think it would be far better for you to at least pursue the relationship with the young lady who has the same background and similar interests as you have.  If you continue to associate with her, it is altogether probable that you will grow to love her.  At least with a similar background and similar interests, you have something basic and solid to build on.  In the case of the first young lady that you mentioned, you may simply have a feeling that may pass away with the wind.

Dr. King on staying married despite extra-marital affairs:
Question:  My husband is having an affair with a woman in our housing project.  He promised to stop, but he is still seeing her.  We have children and I don’t believe in divorce, but I cannot and will not share him.  What must I do?
MLK:  Your unwillingness to share your husband is perfectly natural and normal.  No person wants to share his or her mate with another.  But your problem is a very delicate one, and needs to be handled with wisdom and patience.  First I would suggest that you attempt to get your husband to go with you to talk with your clergyman or a marriage counselor.  I am sure that they could be helpful in solving your problem.  In the meantime, since the other person is so near you might study her and see what she does for your husband that you might not be doing.  Do you spend too much time with the children and the house and not pay attention to him?  Are you careful with your grooming?  Do you nag?  Do you make him feel important…like somebody?  This process of introspection might help you to hit upon the things that are responsible for your husband’s other affair.  Certainly, I would not suggest a divorce at this point.  I strongly would urge you to exhaust every possible resource in your power and seek to rectify the situation before making any drastic changes.

Dr. King on interracial marriage:
Question:  I’m in love with a white man whom I’ve known for two years.  We met at the company where we work.  I want to marry him, although both of our parents object.  I know that he loves me, too.  Should we go ahead and get married anyway?
MLK:  The decision as to whether you should marry a white man whom you have known for two years is a decision that you and your friend must make together.  Properly speaking, races do not marry, individuals marry.  There is nothing morally wrong with an interracial marriage.  There are many other things, however, that must be taken under consideration in any interracial marriage.  The traditions of our society have been so set and crystallized that many social obstacles stand in the way of persons involved in an interracial marriage.  If persons entering such a marriage are thoroughly aware of these obstacles and feel that they have the power and stability to stand up amid them, then there is no reason why these persons should not be married.  Studies reveal that interracial couples who have come together with a thorough understanding of conditions that exist, have married and lived together very happily.

Dr. Alveda King, Dr. Martin Luther King’s niece, a civil rights advocate not only for minorities, but also for the rights of the unborn, has said that her uncle was a social conservative who believed in family, personal responsibility, marriage and sexual abstinence for the young.

Martin Luther King’s lifelong support for Planned Parenthood has always bothered me and always will, but I would like to celebrate the man who encouraged so many of us to dream of a better world.

TrackBack URI

I Made the AP List for 2010 News Events

December 27, 2010 on 12:00 am | In Internet, Media, Regarding Dr. Laura, Social Issues Email This Post Email This Post

The Associated Press just recently released its “Chronology of News Events in 2010.”  It includes such momentous occasions as the Obama administration filing a lawsuit in Phoenix to block Arizona’s toughest-in-the-nation immigration law (leaving out that it is an anti-illegal immigration law), actress Lindsay Lohan beginning a 14 day jail sentence (reduced from 90 days due to overcrowding) for violating probation in a 2007 drug case, Wikileaks posting 90,000 leaked U.S. military records from the war in Afghanistan, and…..

August 10
Talk radio host Laura Schlessinger uses N-word 11 times on-air while discussing interracial marriage, later apologizing.

  • What the AP does not mention:
  • That I used the word to discuss its meaning and appropriateness in our society.
  • That I questioned why our society allows blacks to call each other that name but does not allow whites to discuss the issues raised by that word.
  • That I realized immediately the mere use of the word offended many of my listeners.
  • That I “self-policed” myself, pulled myself off the air, and apologized the very next morning.
  • That it wasn’t until 48 hours later that the liberal so-called news media at CNN teamed up with Media Matters, the Urban League and the NAACP to demand that I be silenced and taken off the air.
  • That I NEVER called ANYONE that word.  Instead, I was pointing out how that word is used ubiquitously in the black culture and community.

 
I am not a victim.  We choose to be victims, and I do not choose that label for me.  This event in my life – which I am responsible for – has led me to realize how precious free speech is in our country, and that there are forces gathering to restrict that fundamental First Amendment right.

In the few months since August 10, we’ve seen Rick Sanchez fired by CNN for expressing his opinion about Jon Stewart.  We’ve seen NPR fire Juan Williams for expressing his opinion on Muslims and airport security.  We’ve heard Al Sharpton (who called for me to be silenced from radio) call for the censorship of Rush Limbaugh and other talk show hosts who whom he disagrees. 

We’ve heard a U.S. Senator – Jay Rockefeller – on the floor of the U.S. Senate ask that the FCC shut down Fox News.  We’ve heard an FCC commissioner – one of 5 men who decide what can air on our radio and television stations – call for the monitoring and regulation of news.  All of this to support an alleged right that is NOT in the Constitution – the right not to be offended.

So, I am committing myself to supporting free speech in any way I can, beginning with moving my program to a venue which reveres free speech.  Check my website at www.drlaura.com to learn more about my move.  I will use my new format to continue to help people be and do better in their lives as well as provide a forum of open discussion on such controversial topics as racism, abortion, religion, the destructive influence of feminism, and on and on.

I am energized by all that has happened to me, not only recently but over the three decades of my career.

In January, my new book Surviving a Shark Attack (On Land), deals with betrayals and revenge.  I have some surprising things to say and to reveal. 

 

TrackBack URI
« Previous Page — Next Page »

Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.