I hope you are not referring to the end-stage anorexic's lanugo because this is not characteristic of the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians. In fact, it's not even reliably observed in the majority of anorexics.
You seem to be unable to tell the difference between anorexia nervosa and vegetarianism, Denver. I expect better of you.
UCLA Medical Center Resource Guide on eating disorders mentions this as one warning sign of anorexia nervosa, related to very low calorie intake. No evidence exists to suggest that this condition is tied to vegetarian eating, except by association through anorexia.
Many of the other ills average Americans hear about in association with vegetarianism are from dumb people embarking on a vegetarian diet that is not balanced and ending up short on several nutrients. Like any lifestyle change, you have to do your homework and are strongly advised to talk to your doctor or a dietician before making the change. Access is not that difficult...even a community health nurse has to take a semester of nutrition and biology before graduation and can tell you the basics.
None of my sources will work unless you have access to ProQuest, or even JSTOR. If you do have access to them (probably through your school, like me), then I'll link my sources regarding vegetarians and vegans with severe health issues related to their vegetarian and veganism.
edit:
Cute, catchy term. Coined by a physician who has ties to the beef industry and originally meant to designate the extreme "no wheat no GMO no yeast no preservatives no high-fructose corn syrup" nutbags who become just as fat and sick eating honey, soy, organic butter, and spelt bread. Not exactly the same thing. In fact, not even close. He describes about 80 percent of American dieters this way so he can sell a book. In fact if you go to his website the first thing you see is pictures of his book, not facts or studies.
I don't care who coined the term, the fact is it's a good term to describe self-righteous and pompous idiots who subscribe to those kinds of diets.
Umm... I'm the one arguing that it's NOT. I don't know what the HELL you're arguing, and I don't think you do either.
I'm saying that we said the exact same thing, and I was anticipating a very semantic and hair-splitting response.
Because we did say the exact same thing.
Yeah, I've got that too. It's called HAIR. You get it in places besides your head. I'm not entirely sure you're the age to know that yet, but take my word for it.
If that's not what you're talking about, then I'm positive you're making something up.
It's called lanugo. It's extremely common on annarexia nervosa sufferers, and fairly common on vegetarians. Vegans fall in between the two in terms of sufferers with lanugo.
So, no, I'm not making this up.
I'm not entirely sure you're the age to know that yet
Yes. That's right. I'm below the age of 12.
Edit: Orthorexia Nervosa was the word I've been looking for to describe vegetarians and vegans. It's not yet an actual on-the-books medical term, but many doctors use it to describe those kinds of people who are fixated on a diet which makes the group of "acceptable" foods narrower and narrower. Like how vegetarians cut out meat and vegans cut out meat and much more.
"I'm uncomfortable with some aspect of eating" is not the same as, "I have a compulsion related to eating that impairs my physical and mental health."
Mikey is a picky eater. However, the fact that "Mikey won't eat it" does not mean Mikey has an eating disorder.
It wasn't uncomfortable, it was psychologically uncomfortable.
And don't offer any semantics about how being a picky eater is a psychological uncomfortability, blah blah blah.
Quote from SnoopDoggAtog »
Actually no, comrade. Disorder implies a detriment to health or danger to others as a result of compulsions.
Yes.
Have you read on what a vegetarian diet can do to the human body?
You know that hairy fuzz that grows on vegans and vegetarians? That fuzz is a reaction of the body attempting to keep itself more warm because homeostasis has been completely ruined by an unhealthy diet.
There are other ones, but that's the one most people know.
People are classified with eating disorders are so classified because they have a complex compulsion with regards to eating that impairs physical and mental health.
lolz.
That's what I said.
"People with eating disorders are so classified because they psychologically are uncomfortable with some aspect (or, in some cases, all aspects) of ingesting food."
This is not only ridiculous, not based on anything at all, and unreasonable to apply, but also not in the public's interest(usually things that are based off of no principle whatsoever aren't). Are you going to make a law that says "if you make over x dollars yearly you automatically sacrifice your rights as a person."?
I didn't mean to say that it was just that it was the money itself, but that at that high level of pay, it represents an extremely concentrated field of learning. Sorry for making it a money issue, instead of being much more clear. The high level of pay - to me - simply represents a high level of professionalism.
At that level of specified knowledge, in the medical industry, doctor's who deny certain treatments are simply not doing their job.
No one (other than other medical professionals) is qualified to do the things doctors do. If doctors don't do the things that only doctors can do, then I think they are a disgrace to medicine. They might be happy with themselves on a personal, religious, moral, etc. level, but they would simply not be medical professionals.
Controlling the market, deciding what a profession must do because you don't respect their moral beliefs(not to mention you are basing it off how much people choose to pay their doctor), would be bad for the economy anyways and hurt the patients as well.
I respect their private moral beliefs. But that is on their private time. I wouldn't want to force anyone to do something they don't believe when they are on their own time. But when they are getting paid, that isn't their time. They have a job to do - more or less, and hopefully without the cliche - and they are usually the only ones who can do it.
I will say it again: Doctor's who refuse certain treatments in certain situations for ultimately arbitrary personal reasons are unprofessional.
Now patients are gonna have to pay taxes for a program that verifies that doctors don't have rights.
?
A law cannot not allow a doctor to deny specific treatment(by default you can already do it), a law can only say they cannot deny a certain treatment. You don't make laws saying people are allowed to things.
No, many states have laws on the books that allow a doctor to deny treatments for various reasons, varying from state to state.
And actually, conveniently enough, there's a source for that in the original article.
"Physicians anywhere can deny you care. But some states back up M.D.s with specific laws allowing them to do so, says Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute research group."
And you learn plenty of things in school that you never use, get over it.
Yes, that's true.
Everyone is qualifed to have their own opinions.
Yes, and opinions can influence people to make the wrong choice.
And many people who are legally and medically "qualified" do think that the treatment is unreasonable.
Yes, and those aren't the people I was talking about.
Many people don't believe it is reasonable.
Yes, but they're wrong.
Anyone who will argue that a doctor should deny emergency contraceptives to a rape victim is wrong.
It's that simple to me.
Get off your high horse and start being tolerant of other people's opinions, thinking you have the right to decide what other people's moral beliefs are or are not reasonable.
Well, when the belief is that people shouldn't have a right to paid medical care; or; to do with their body's what they will (i.e., contraception, abortion); or; that medical care should be completely discretionary of how a doctor feels about it, rather than an actual professional assessment, than I think that that is unreasonable.
In all, though, it seems like we're arguing about two different things.
(also, I think I need a thesaurus, I used the same words over and over in this dang post.)
Well you're going to have to define eating disorder, because that's the stupidest definition of an eating disorder I've ever heard.
People with eating disorders are so classified because they psychologically are uncomfortable with some aspect (or, in some cases, all aspects) of ingesting food.
So if your job is well payed, you lose your free will?
Absolutely. At that level of pay and that high level of profession, that doctor's paid time is for him to act as a tool, conduit, etc., for medical advice and medical treatment.
Any law that tries to allow a doctor to deny specific treatments should also make it that those doctors who would deny treatment do not learn those treatments in medical school, since they have no use for them anyway. Moreover, those less qualified doctors should earn less and be on separate medical insurances.
And not everyone will agree with you that it is a reasonable treatment.
Not everyone is qualified - medically, legally - to make that distinction.
If you look at it like the doctor looks at it, he was asked to take a life so his patient didn't have to suffer pain and handling a child. Well that's not reasonable at all.
I'm almost certain that a rape victim asking for emergency contraceptives, just in case the act did impregnate her, is a reasonable request.
A patient does not have a right to the morning-after pill, that is a service provided by a doctor who chooses to provide that service.
Well, to be quite technical:
If a person's private medical insurance were to cover the cost (even in part) of prescription contraceptives, then that patient has both a financial claim and a personal claim to those contraceptives being his or her right.
(Also, let's not forget that the medical insurance industry owns the actual medical industry.)
From what I have heard in recent news stories (last five years or so), the hostage crisis was a result of Reagan, not Carter. Does anyone have more information on this?
Harkius
Well, Carter's administration allowed the Shah to come to the Mayo Clinic for treatment in October, and then in November an upset and newly revolutionized Tehran takes Americans as hostage.
Reagan had nothing to do with the situation. Heck, the hostages were released when Reagan came to office - not because they were afraid of Reagan, but because they wanted to insult Carter that much more.
The worst presidents are the ones who can't really be remembered.
If anyone can tell who the 14th and 15th presidents were, off the top of their head - without looking it up - then they'll know who the two most consistently voted "worst president evar" presidents were.
Edit: I realized how poor the grammar in that previous sentence is. I'm not fixing it, just pointing out that it's terrible.
None of my sources will work unless you have access to ProQuest, or even JSTOR. If you do have access to them (probably through your school, like me), then I'll link my sources regarding vegetarians and vegans with severe health issues related to their vegetarian and veganism.
I don't care who coined the term, the fact is it's a good term to describe self-righteous and pompous idiots who subscribe to those kinds of diets.
I'm saying that we said the exact same thing, and I was anticipating a very semantic and hair-splitting response.
Because we did say the exact same thing.
It's called lanugo. It's extremely common on annarexia nervosa sufferers, and fairly common on vegetarians. Vegans fall in between the two in terms of sufferers with lanugo.
So, no, I'm not making this up.
Yes. That's right. I'm below the age of 12.
Edit: Orthorexia Nervosa was the word I've been looking for to describe vegetarians and vegans. It's not yet an actual on-the-books medical term, but many doctors use it to describe those kinds of people who are fixated on a diet which makes the group of "acceptable" foods narrower and narrower. Like how vegetarians cut out meat and vegans cut out meat and much more.
It wasn't uncomfortable, it was psychologically uncomfortable.
And don't offer any semantics about how being a picky eater is a psychological uncomfortability, blah blah blah.
Yes.
Have you read on what a vegetarian diet can do to the human body?
You know that hairy fuzz that grows on vegans and vegetarians? That fuzz is a reaction of the body attempting to keep itself more warm because homeostasis has been completely ruined by an unhealthy diet.
There are other ones, but that's the one most people know.
lolz.
That's what I said.
"People with eating disorders are so classified because they psychologically are uncomfortable with some aspect (or, in some cases, all aspects) of ingesting food."
I didn't mean to say that it was just that it was the money itself, but that at that high level of pay, it represents an extremely concentrated field of learning. Sorry for making it a money issue, instead of being much more clear. The high level of pay - to me - simply represents a high level of professionalism.
At that level of specified knowledge, in the medical industry, doctor's who deny certain treatments are simply not doing their job.
No one (other than other medical professionals) is qualified to do the things doctors do. If doctors don't do the things that only doctors can do, then I think they are a disgrace to medicine. They might be happy with themselves on a personal, religious, moral, etc. level, but they would simply not be medical professionals.
I respect their private moral beliefs. But that is on their private time. I wouldn't want to force anyone to do something they don't believe when they are on their own time. But when they are getting paid, that isn't their time. They have a job to do - more or less, and hopefully without the cliche - and they are usually the only ones who can do it.
I will say it again: Doctor's who refuse certain treatments in certain situations for ultimately arbitrary personal reasons are unprofessional.
?
No, many states have laws on the books that allow a doctor to deny treatments for various reasons, varying from state to state.
And actually, conveniently enough, there's a source for that in the original article.
"Physicians anywhere can deny you care. But some states back up M.D.s with specific laws allowing them to do so, says Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute research group."
Yes, that's true.
Yes, and opinions can influence people to make the wrong choice.
Yes, and those aren't the people I was talking about.
Yes, but they're wrong.
Anyone who will argue that a doctor should deny emergency contraceptives to a rape victim is wrong.
It's that simple to me.
Well, when the belief is that people shouldn't have a right to paid medical care; or; to do with their body's what they will (i.e., contraception, abortion); or; that medical care should be completely discretionary of how a doctor feels about it, rather than an actual professional assessment, than I think that that is unreasonable.
In all, though, it seems like we're arguing about two different things.
(also, I think I need a thesaurus, I used the same words over and over in this dang post.)
People with eating disorders are so classified because they psychologically are uncomfortable with some aspect (or, in some cases, all aspects) of ingesting food.
If society is always so concerned about stopping eating disorders, we do some people encourage this particular one (and Veganism, too)?
Absolutely. At that level of pay and that high level of profession, that doctor's paid time is for him to act as a tool, conduit, etc., for medical advice and medical treatment.
Any law that tries to allow a doctor to deny specific treatments should also make it that those doctors who would deny treatment do not learn those treatments in medical school, since they have no use for them anyway. Moreover, those less qualified doctors should earn less and be on separate medical insurances.
Not everyone is qualified - medically, legally - to make that distinction.
I'm almost certain that a rape victim asking for emergency contraceptives, just in case the act did impregnate her, is a reasonable request.
Well, to be quite technical:
If a person's private medical insurance were to cover the cost (even in part) of prescription contraceptives, then that patient has both a financial claim and a personal claim to those contraceptives being his or her right.
(Also, let's not forget that the medical insurance industry owns the actual medical industry.)
Well, Carter's administration allowed the Shah to come to the Mayo Clinic for treatment in October, and then in November an upset and newly revolutionized Tehran takes Americans as hostage.
Reagan had nothing to do with the situation. Heck, the hostages were released when Reagan came to office - not because they were afraid of Reagan, but because they wanted to insult Carter that much more.
Yea. I don't have a prize for you though. I'm sorry.
(Much like how this comment, which is just to respond to you, would be better as a private message.)
If anyone can tell who the 14th and 15th presidents were, off the top of their head - without looking it up - then they'll know who the two most consistently voted "worst president evar" presidents were.
Edit: I realized how poor the grammar in that previous sentence is. I'm not fixing it, just pointing out that it's terrible.
Please reconcile these two completely contradictory statements.