Guest guest Posted July 15, 2000 Report Share Posted July 15, 2000 I shouldn't be too worried about the CPHVA responding to in the same issue - this is 'normal practice' for a journal belonging to an organisation. It will be interesting to see what they say and whether there is any response from readers who are non-senate members. Normally, members aren't backward in coming forward if they don't agree with the CPHVA.(I mean look at some of the Senate members!) I'm just sorry it wasn't published in the July journal to get the debate moving on earlier. I have been worried about the FHN as in my view June has always been more nurse than health visitor. So it is reassuring to read Margaret's comments about her prevention angle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2000 Report Share Posted July 15, 2000 This is a valuable comment back from June as a ex editor of the Journal. however, the membership did vote back in the late 1980's to make the Journal independent from the Association and frre to say what it wanted. Hence Nick Robin's and Cath ' s appointment. As said things were always shared and checked in those days. Obviously what we are seeing now is the Journal being taken over as the spokes piece of the power's that be rather than of the members - although some of those powers that be might be elected. Interesting! Margaret Re: Publication > I shouldn't be too worried about the CPHVA responding to in the same > issue - this is 'normal practice' for a journal belonging to an organisation. > It will be interesting to see what they say and whether there is any response > from readers who are non-senate members. Normally, members aren't backward in > coming forward if they don't agree with the CPHVA.(I mean look at some of the > Senate members!) I'm just sorry it wasn't published in the July journal to > get the debate moving on earlier. > > I have been worried about the FHN as in my view June has always been > more nurse than health visitor. So it is reassuring to read Margaret's > comments about her prevention angle. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Get great brand name shoes with just the click of a mouse. Check out > the huge selection at Zappos.com, the Web's Most Popular Store! > 1/6994/14/_/_/_/963682866/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2000 Report Share Posted July 16, 2000 The CPHVA nor the RCN do not own the profession and everyone has a right to set up an interest group - within or without any organisation provided it does that within the law - or is that too naive? In message <8ko78a+hn8ieGroups>, Wood <hwood@...> writes >Re. 's publication in the CPHVA journal > >I think this sounds like CPHVA want the chance to get their >retaliation in first! If they were to comment on it dismissively or >in a way which makes it appear like an organisational split, or even >backbiting, that might squash debate before it gets started. Mind, >the journal *is* a straightforward organ of CPHVA without any >pretence of an independent editorial policy so I guess they're >tehcnically within their rights. But having re-read Hilda Steppe's >historical research, what kind of organisation stomps on open and >constructive professional debate? > >If there *were* a lack of free speech outlets for a timely debate on >health visiting and school nursing, it would make this forum more >important than ever. > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! >1. Fill in the brief application >2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds >3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR >1/6628/14/_/_/_/963616852/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2000 Report Share Posted July 17, 2000 I undesrtood that the journal was independent from the CPHVa and will clarify this at the next editorial advisory board (diplomatically as possible!). On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 03:32:32 +0100 Margret Buttigieg <margret@...> wrote: > This is a valuable comment back from June as a ex editor of the Journal. > > however, the membership did vote back in the late 1980's to make the > Journal independent from the Association and frre to say what it > wanted. Hence Nick Robin's and Cath ' s appointment. As Jean > said things were always shared and checked in those days. > > Obviously what we are seeing now is the Journal being taken over as > the spokes piece of the power's that be rather than of the members - > although some of those powers that be might be elected. Interesting! > > Margaret > Re: Publication > > > > I shouldn't be too worried about the CPHVA responding to in the > same > issue - this is 'normal practice' for a journal belonging to an > organisation. > It will be interesting to see what they say and whether > there is any response > > from readers who are non-senate members. Normally, members aren't > backward in > > coming forward if they don't agree with the CPHVA.(I mean look at > some of the > > Senate members!) I'm just sorry it wasn't published in the July > journal to > get the debate moving on earlier. > > > I have been worried about the FHN as in my view June has > always been > more nurse than health visitor. So it is reassuring to > read Margaret's > comments about her prevention angle. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Get great brand name shoes with just the click of a mouse. Check out > > the huge selection at Zappos.com, the Web's Most Popular Store! > > 1/6994/14/_/_/_/963682866/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2000 Report Share Posted July 18, 2000 Sorry, but I think too much is being made of this issue. Whether or not the Journal is 'independent of the CPHVA' I think it is normal journalistic practice to contact any organisation/person if it is felt that a response is warranted before an article is published (This could be termed 'editorial independence' i.e. not being dictated to by readers on what should or should not be published!!) Perhaps we should now wait and see what the article and response says. However, if the Journal is independent of the CPHVA, at the next editorial board meeting Toity, could you ask what is the advertising policy these days. E. g The last editor did not want to the publish a Follow-on-Milk advert advocating giving this from the age of 4 months but this was approved by the CPHVA. Are they also going to approve/advertise the new Cow & Gate Omneocomfort milk for 'colic?'? Why are members no longer shouting about these issues? Apathy? Indifference. Acceptance? June Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2000 Report Share Posted July 18, 2000 Yes we need to know the policy with regard to advertising on infant formula. There is a worrying trend towards advertising on milks that can solve infant feeding/medical problems but because they are not classified as pharmaceutical products, but food products, they are getting away with very dubious claims . In message <20.8d66718.26a60bc7@...>, junet579@... writes >Sorry, but I think too much is being made of this issue. Whether or not the >Journal is 'independent of the CPHVA' I think it is normal journalistic >practice to contact any organisation/person if it is felt that a response is >warranted before an article is published (This could be termed 'editorial >independence' i.e. not being dictated to by readers on what should or should >not be published!!) Perhaps we should now wait and see what the article and >response says. > However, if the Journal is independent of the CPHVA, at the next >editorial board meeting Toity, could you ask what is the advertising policy >these days. E. g The last editor did not want to the publish a >Follow-on-Milk advert advocating giving this from the age of 4 months but >this was approved by the CPHVA. Are they also going to approve/advertise the >new Cow & Gate Omneocomfort milk for 'colic?'? Why are members no longer >shouting about these issues? Apathy? Indifference. Acceptance? >June > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Make new friends, find the old at Classmates.com: >1/7075/14/_/_/_/963949006/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2000 Report Share Posted July 18, 2000 Thanks to everyone who has responded to 's message about the article to appear in Community Practitioner. Overall, the responses can, I think, be summarised under three headings: 1. We don't like the way this issue has been handled, but it is not an unusual thing to happen. It is very common for journalists to incur the wrath of those they talk to or about, but if we wish to use them for our own purposes, we take that risk. 2. We feel quite happy to support 's article and the need to publicise the group to health visitors and school nurses. We had hoped to get a press release or press briefing to the nursing weeklies, but have not done this yet. Any advice/help from members to do this would be welcome. 3. Neither the CPHVA nor the RCN 'own' health visiting or health visitors, so egroup members can choose to discuss, plan or debate issues as much as they wish. Importantly, we determined from the start, and I think re-iterated in the article, that the egroup would not be a 'knocking organisation', either of the CPHVA or any other organisation. If CPHVA members feel the CPHVA should do things differently (or if RCN members feel the RCN should do things differently, or Unison etc., etc., . . ) those issues should be taken up with the organisation concerned, not with SENATE. On the other hand, if something is not being done that should be - we need to work out how to do it and to get on with it. I would welcome suggestions for speakers, venues and dates for future meetings - next one needs to be focused around a topic, and set up ready to involve any potential new members. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2000 Report Share Posted July 19, 2000 June, I am sorry to be so ignorant, but I don't know about the new Cow & Gate Omneocomfort milk for 'colic?' Can you give us some information? Thanks sarah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 Please find attached: Arcury TA, Vallejos QM, Feldman SR, Quandt SA. Treating skin disease: self-management behaviors of Latino farmworkers. Journal of Agromedicine 11:27-35, 2006 A. Arcury, PhD Professor and Research Director Department of Family and Community Medicine Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1084 phone: 336-716-9438 fax: 336-716-3206 e-mail: tarcury@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.