Monthly Archives: March 2008

Not my idea of independent

Posted on by
Reply

A scary piece in the Ottawa Citizen this morning about seniors who want to continue living independently at home for as long as possible, but make no plans whatsoever to achieve that goal. Yikes.

While nine of 10 older Canadians have prepared a will, an Ipsos Reid survey released yesterday found fewer than half have taken steps to live independently as they age.

Virtually all of the 1,150 seniors polled (97 per cent) said they wanted to reside in their own homes as long as possible, but only 47 per cent had researched ways to achieve that goal.

[...]

Among those not receiving home care already, 96 per cent had not spoken to their families about the possibility of getting assistance.

Perhaps tellingly, 50 per cent of those seniors — and 45 per cent of those age 75 to 85 — affirmed they had no intention of broaching the subject because they “won’t require assistance for a long time.”

For a long time?

You say that as though it were a surprise

Posted on by
Reply

Census shows dramatically aging Canadian workforce:

OTTAWA – Canada’s workforce is aging dramatically as the baby boom generation slides into retirement, census data released Tuesday shows, and labour analysts are sounding alarm bells about the economic fallout if shortages in IT, skilled labour and health care are allowed to materialize.

[...]

In 2006, there were 1.9 Canadians aged 20-34 entering the workforce for every person aged 55-64 leaving it. There were 2.7 replacement workers for every retiree five years ago and, 25 years ago, there were 3.7.

Not only will we have economic problems due to labour shortages, but what about social programs? Who’s going to pay for them in 15 years, you think? Who’s going to look after older folks? Other older folks?

Except I wouldn’t call it ‘panic’

Posted on by
Reply

From the National Post this morning:

The societal panic over childhood obesity, already entrenched in the medical system and evident in the furor over school lunches, is beginning to influence custody judgments and child-welfare authorities in their decisions about fitness to parent.

An Ontario family court judgment involving the Children’s Aid Society recently cited obesity as a reason for removing a child from the parental home, after determining the mother was contributing to her child’s weight gain and was oblivious to the required medical regime.

The details of the case are covered by a publication ban, but the theme is echoed in another case, an epic nine-year custody battle that wrapped up in a Newmarket courtroom last month, much of which centred on the comparative merits of the battling parents in adhering to a diet plan for their obese twins.

While I dislike government meddling in family affairs in principle, I appreciate that there are times when intervention is needed to save innocent children from harm. Incest, abuse, gross negligence being among the most obvious. I am not convinced exposing children to, say, tobacco smoke or junk food is necessarily detrimental – you can do a lot more damage to your children with emotional abuse than with second-hand smoke. I don’t know when overfeeding your children becomes abuse that requires state intervention. But I’m glad we’re getting a chance to discuss the problem, which is unfortunately all too real.  

[cross-posted to PWPL]

When the open-minded and tolerant are, well, not

Posted on by
Reply

Interesting piece by Michael Coren in the Toronto Sun today.

In the United States a pro-life magazine has just published an article that has sent shockwaves through the media. The magazine in question, The Advocate, had an actor telephone Planned Parenthood in seven different states and pose as a racist bigot who wanted to donate money to the largest pro-abortion organization in North America. The reaction was extraordinary.

In Ohio the potential donor began by stating that, “There’s definitely way too many black people in Ohio, so I am just trying to do my part.”

Planned Parenthood: “Okay, whatever.”

[..]

… at no time did Planned Parenthood decline the donation or express concern at the appallingly racist sentiments of the caller. One conversation involved not merely an employee but a director of development and in some instances other workers were consulted to make sure the donations were acceptable. They were. Some of the Planned Parenthood staff eagerly supported the apparently racist caller’s views.

Reminds me of something my dear husband wrote a while ago in the now-defunct Western Standard (and in the National Post) about St. Tommy Douglas wanting to sterilize (I kid you not) mental defectives.

It’s not like I’m shocked to discover that there are racists, imbeciles and bigots everywhere. But it annoys me no end to be lectured on tolerance and open-mindedness by people whose ideological side practises such appallingly poor political hygiene. I know there are kooks and bigots and whatnot on the right (and among pro-lifers). But I don’t believe these people are at the forefront of the movement. It’s hard to claim Planned Parenthood is marginalized by the mainstream pro-choice movement as being too extreme for polite company…

[cross-posted to PWPL]