Feds quietly chop money for fetal alcohol program

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0321?hub=Canada

Federal money earmarked to fight the tragedy of fetal alcohol disorders has been quietly chopped back year after year, says a new report.

"Each year the initiative has received only a portion of the dollars allocated," says an internal evaluation. "It is unclear why this cutback has become the norm."

The Public Health Agency of Canada has been budgeting $3.3 million each year for its fetal alcohol spectrum disorder initiative, but consistently spends only about two-thirds of the cash, says the report.

It is curious why this cut has been made since it probably ends up costing the Feds more in healthcare and prison costs to name just two areas.

[lictor616]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0321?hub=Canada

It is curious why this cut has been made since it probably ends up costing the Feds more in healthcare and prison costs to name just two areas.

IN the case of fetal alcohol syndrome, I think a case for Euthanasia at birth could be made.

[Melanie_]

Well, aren't you the sweet little Fascist? Eugenics on your first day on the forum...tells me how long you're going to last.

[lictor616]

Well, aren't you the sweet little Fascist? Eugenics on your first day on the forum...tells me how long you're going to last.

!?

and aren't you a worshipful and adorable Bolshevik!

look at you madly doting on whatever is diseased, deformed, and degenerate.

And why wouldn't I last long? What have I said that discourages honest debate?

I think that all societies, by the very nature of heredity, produce waste products, and their health depends on prompt and efficient excretion of them. No society can stop up its sewers and survive for long.

It is sheer idiocy, for example, anxiously to preserve the life of a Fetal Alcohol Syndrome child to afflict its hapless parents and be a burden on society for a lifetime, wasting not only money and the time of many persons who would otherwise perform useful tasks, but constantly blighting the lives of the unfortunate man and woman who inadvertently or (equally disheartening) perhaps knowingly brought it into being.

The preservation of a country or nation depends on maintaining the quality of the individuals in it, and especially on preventing the inferior from perpetuating their inferiority by producing progeny. I think that we do ourselves a great disservice by ignoring social hygiene or "eugenics".

You however not only insanely reject the eugenics necessary for survival and maintaining high life quality, but you probably also enthusiastically promote every dysgenic device and procedure by selective breeding for inferiority.

Edited March 22, 2009 by lictor616

[ToadBrother]

IN the case of fetal alcohol syndrome, I think a case for Euthanasia at birth could be made.

I'm smelling a eugenics advocate here.

[ToadBrother]

!?

and aren't you a worshipful and adorable Bolshevik!

look at you madly doting on whatever is diseased, deformed, and degenerate.

And why wouldn't I last long? What have I said that discourages honest debate?

I think that all societies, by the very nature of heredity, produce waste products, and their health depends on prompt and efficient excretion of them. No society can stop up its sewers and survive for long.

It is sheer idiocy, for example, anxiously to preserve the life of a Fetal Alcohol Syndrome child to afflict its hapless parents and be a burden on society for a lifetime, wasting not only money and the time of many persons who would otherwise perform useful tasks, but constantly blighting the lives of the unfortunate man and woman who inadvertently or (equally disheartening) perhaps knowingly brought it into being.

The preservation of a country or nation depends on maintaining the quality of the individuals in it, and especially on preventing the inferior from perpetuating their inferiority by producing progeny. I think that we do ourselves a great disservice by ignoring social hygiene or "eugenics".

You however not only insanely reject the eugenics necessary for survival and maintaining high life quality, but you probably also enthusiastically promote every dysgenic device and procedure by selective breeding for inferiority.

So let's see, uses words like "Bolshevik", apparently hates Jews, thinks infants with brain damage should be murdered, thinks somehow that some bizarre subjective notion of what makes for a superior human will lead to a superior society.

I think I know who the degenerate is.

[eyeball]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0321?hub=Canada

It is curious why this cut has been made since it probably ends up costing the Feds more in healthcare and prison costs to name just two areas.

The results of multiplying some of the numbers in this article sure are staggering. $1.5 million in social costs times 300,000 cases? Apparently there are some 4000 new cases of FASD every year meaning Canada is essentially adding $6 billion dollars a year to its obligations.

Why is alcohol legal again? The ethical and moral quagmire of this issue is un-paralleled really, the only thing that comes close is the residential school disaster.

I'd like to see what would happen as a result of a class action suit against the state for the damages it's caused by allowing the sale of alcohol. Its also estimated some 40 - 50% of people in prison were born with FASD. It figures the only drug that probably actually causes crime is the one that our governments sell.

[lictor616]

So let's see, uses words like "Bolshevik", apparently hates Jews, thinks infants with brain damage should be murdered, thinks somehow that some bizarre subjective notion of what makes for a superior human will lead to a superior society.

I think I know who the degenerate is.

bizarre subjective notion?

Low IQ,

* low birth weight

* small head circumference

* failure to thrive

* developmental delay

* organ dysfunction

* facial abnormalities, including smaller eye openings, flattened cheekbones, and indistinct philtrum (an underdeveloped groove between the nose and the upper lip)

* epilepsy

* poor coordination/fine motor skills

* poor socialization skills, such as difficulty building and maintaining friendships and relating to groups

* lack of imagination or curiosity

* learning difficulties, including poor memory, inability to understand concepts such as time and money, poor language comprehension, poor problem-solving skills

* behavioral problems, including hyperactivity, inability to concentrate, social withdrawal, stubbornness, impulsiveness, and anxiety

subjective conceptions on what a superior society ought to encapsulate?

and the of course you call me a degenerate! showing that you do believe in such concepts as eugenics just as long as the people effaced are not handicapped or mentally deficient.

[Progressive Tory]

You however not only insanely reject the eugenics necessary for survival and maintaining high life quality, but you probably also enthusiastically promote every dysgenic device and procedure by selective breeding for inferiority.

I don't even know where to begin, but our adopted daughter was born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Her birth parents were both alcoholics, which might explain in part my fervent desire to see pot legalized, beginning with the hypocrisy.

However, let's stroll down your lane. What if these babies had all been destroyed at birth? How would we have identified the danger of consuming alcohol while pregnant? There are fewer pregnant women now who would even dream of drinking while carrying a child. So rather than allowing the situation to run amuck we can now say with conviction that this can be prevented. Consider children born with FAS to perhaps be martyrs in this war against pre-natal alcohol consumption.

The same can be said with many birth defects and childhood illnesses. Unless they reach the light of day we have no way of researching the inflictions and perhaps eventually preventing such birth defects, thereby creating your 'perfect' race.

[Progressive Tory]

It figures the only drug that probably actually causes crime is the one that our governments sell.

This funding is important for research, and prevention education. Unless you've lived with a victim of a mother who's consumed alcohol while pregnant, you have no idea what it's like. The sad part is that FAS is 100% preventable.

As to alcohol, I just watched a documentary on that in Canada (where they refer to Stephen Harper as the Baron of Boring). I can't remember what it was called but they showed riots after hockey games where drunks were destroying property. Then in contrast they show two people smoking a joint, without a care in the world, or inspiration to destroy anything.

How often in domestic violence cases does the victim defend her attacker, claiming he only gets like that when he's been drinking. The rest of the time he's a saint. Pot smokers might want to dance with their significant other, but never want to beat her while under the influence. They're just too darn happy.

[jdobbin]

IN the case of fetal alcohol syndrome, I think a case for Euthanasia at birth could be made.

With the decision made by whom?

[Argus]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0321?hub=Canada

It is curious why this cut has been made since it probably ends up costing the Feds more in healthcare and prison costs to name just two areas.

You are making a presumption here which might have no validity. That is, that spending money on - well, the types of programs and research are not identified in this article - will in some way correlate to a reduction in cases of fetal alcohol syndrome. We do not know that this is the case at all. I'd be curious to know what this money was being spent on. The complaint in the article that it takes up to a year to get any individual program approved is not surprising. As I've stated before, the federal government's purchasing system is nearly completely broken, massively overgrown with bureaucracy and micromanagement by senior executives utterly terrified that someone will find their department approved the spending of money on something wasteful or inappropriate.

[charter.rights]

bizarre subjective notion?

Low IQ,

* low birth weight

* small head circumference

* failure to thrive

* developmental delay

* organ dysfunction

* facial abnormalities, including smaller eye openings, flattened cheekbones, and indistinct philtrum (an underdeveloped groove between the nose and the upper lip)

* epilepsy

* poor coordination/fine motor skills

* poor socialization skills, such as difficulty building and maintaining friendships and relating to groups

* lack of imagination or curiosity

* learning difficulties, including poor memory, inability to understand concepts such as time and money, poor language comprehension, poor problem-solving skills

* behavioral problems, including hyperactivity, inability to concentrate, social withdrawal, stubbornness, impulsiveness, and anxiety

subjective conceptions on what a superior society ought to encapsulate?

and the of course you call me a degenerate! showing that you do believe in such concepts as eugenics just as long as the people effaced are not handicapped or mentally deficient.

Of course all these physical traits could have been identified at your birth. It is good thing that ignorant people don't set national policy in Canada

FAE, FAS children can exhibit some or all of the symptoms and only in the extreme cases represent a burden on society. To wipe them out just because some ignorunt thinks we should is a pretty stupid assertion.

I smell the likes of a white supremacist and very likely a anti-semite. We let some develoved thinker ins our midst and even let them speak their piece, but that will not mean their stupid assertions won't be countered with truth and fact.

[Argus]

Well, aren't you the sweet little Fascist? Eugenics on your first day on the forum...tells me how long you're going to last.

The problem with many leftists is their emotional immaturity makes it difficult to discuss issues with any degree of coherence. They tend to fly off the handle and start ranting and raving any time anyone makes a statement with which they disapprove.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

This funding is important for research, and prevention education.

And we know this becaaaaaaassee...... ?

[jdobbin]

You are making a presumption here which might have no validity.

I am concerned by program cuts that are quietly revealed on a weekend with no clarification by the government as to why. My only presumption is that the government does not want to talk about it.

Edited March 22, 2009 by jdobbin

[Argus]

I am concerned by program cuts that are quietly revealed on a weekend with no clarification by the government as to why. My only presumption is that the government does not want to talk about it and I don't know why.

We don't even know there has been a program cut. The journalist in question called it that because the program wasn't spending it's full allotment, but that could be due to incompetence. Nor do we know how long this has been the case. According to the article it's been like this for "years" but how many years?

[g_bambino]

I am concerned by program cuts that are quietly revealed on a weekend with no clarification by the government as to why. My only presumption is that the government does not want to talk about it and I don't know why.

Your desire for openness cannot be argued against (not by me, anyway), but this is hardly different to the quiet announcement between Christmas and New Years 2004, when the media was swamped with coverage of the Indian Ocean tsunami, that the government of Paul Martin had decided, without debate or prior notice, to effectively go against international practice and change who it is the diplomatic world is to consider our head of state. Governments, of all stripes, do these kinds of clandestine things, and generally nobody will know, especially if the media thinks it won't make any money off the story.

[jdobbin]

We don't even know there has been a program cut.

Perhaps the government will shed some light on that. If it is incompetence, it is a minister's responsibility to end that. If it an actual cut, it is a minister's responsibility to explain it.

[jdobbin]

Your desire for openness cannot be argued against (not by me, anyway), but this is hardly different to the quiet announcement between Christmas and New Years 2004, when the media was swamped with coverage of the Indian Ocean tsunami, that the government of Paul Martin had decided, without debate or prior notice, to effectively go against international practice and change who it is the diplomatic world is to consider our head of state.

I have commented here before that the Martin government had hung on the "Gone fishin'" sign up around that time and did our entire country a disservice about who was in charge and who made decisions. No explanations, no debate and itinerant ministers like Pettigrew who were absent for many of the most important foreign crisis and unavailable for decisionmaking or commentary.

[g_bambino]

I have commented here before that the Martin government had hung on the "Gone fishin'" sign up around that time and did our entire country a disservice about who was in charge and who made decisions. No explanations, no debate and itinerant ministers like Pettigrew who were absent for many of the most important foreign crisis and unavailable for decisionmaking or commentary.

Perhaps. But, you cut off the main jist of my comment: these things happen all the time, regardless of the policial leaning of the government of the day. Not that that is an excuse for it happening, of course. What is one to do about it, though?

[jdobbin]

What is one to do about it, though?

Hold feet to the fire. No government likes to have the spotlight shined on them when they are quietly trying to avoid responsibility for their actions.

[Keepitsimple]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0321?hub=Canada

It is curious why this cut has been made since it probably ends up costing the Feds more in healthcare and prison costs to name just two areas.

I read this story in the Star this morning and it was indeed confusing. The story itself was confusing and needed a bit more legwork to make it worthy. Firstly, there has been no cut to funding - the money is there - it's the agency that doesn't seem to be distributing the amounts fully.....and although this report only goes back to 2004, it implies that this has always been the case - going right back to its inception in 1999. Secondly, it's not clear whether this report is a result of the overall "value for money" audit that is being done by the government. If so, that may be a good thing so that funds can be better and fully targeted at this worthy cause. An excerpt from the report shows that there needs to be better coordination of where the money should go. And lastly, this should really not be fuel for partisan politics - the report was done by the government for the government. Internal auditing and reporting such as this goes a long way to using our tax dollars wisely and ensuring that we not only talk and throw money at worthy causes, but that we follow up and ensure that we are making a difference.

Investigators found as well that "information on the projects funded by the contributions fund made available to the regions has not been collected over the course of the initiative in a systematic and centralized way," making any evaluation of effectiveness difficult.

The Public Health Agency of Canada did not respond to questions about why money has been cut repeatedly from the fetal-alcohol initiative.

But a spokeswoman said the program will continue with its $3.3 million budget in 2009-2010.

"The FASD Initiative has a full work plan for the coming fiscal year," Jirina Vlk said in an email.

She added the agency has "undertaken numerous activities in response to the recommendations" of the report, including meetings with the provinces and other departments this year to better co-ordinate efforts.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

And lastly, this should really not be fuel for partisan politics - the report was done by the government for the government. Internal auditing and reporting such as this goes a long way to using our tax dollars wisely and ensuring that we not only talk and throw money at worthy causes, but that we follow up and ensure that we are making a difference.

Think I've said in my opening post that I am curious as to why the cut was made because of the costs associated with FAS. I am still left with the impression that the government does want to talk about.

[Argus]

Hold feet to the fire. No government likes to have the spotlight shined on them when they are quietly trying to avoid responsibility for their actions.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that they are trying to avoid responsibility for their actions? I mean, in the way you, on behalf of the Liberal Party, are trying to avoid any responsibility for the deficit?

If they called for this report, then clearly they wondered what was wrong there, and so had someone look into it. Are you saying they shouldn't have looked into it?

Edited March 22, 2009 by Argus