Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Charity and fundraising auctions for the Canberra community

50% of Canberrans women!!!! Katy Gallagher says so!

By johnboy - 1 September 2010 52

I don’t mind there being a women’s hospital. The day I can drop a sprog I might request a re-naming, but for now it’s fine.

On the other hand Katy Gallagher does seem to be excluding the hairier gender somewhat with today’s media release on her new strategic framework to facilitate women’s access to health care services and information.”

“ACT Health recognises that women and girls have specific needs and challenges throughout their lives and women are required to balance a number of commitments simultaneously, very often to the detriment of their health status,” Ms Gallagher said.

“By incorporating a gender perspective in health and health care, the aim is to ensure that women are not disadvantaged by virtue of their gender and that women are encouraged to actively participate in health decision making.”

A number of preliminary strategies are listed in the framework to guide the work necessary for achieving the objectives. A women’s health advisory network for the ACT will be established to oversee the implementation of the framework.

“Consumer representatives will be encouraged to partner with ACT Health to raise awareness of issues that are at times not clearly visible or understood in the public domain,” Ms Gallagher said.

“Planning for the delivery of health services to women of the ACT will ensure that the specific health issues experienced by women and girls are considered and addressed at these times of considerable changes occurring in the health sector,” she said.

In 2009, it was estimated that the ACT female population was 177,892, with women making up just over 50% of the total ACT population.

I particularly liked the reminder that there are indeed many women in our community.

Given than men already die much younger than women in Australia (Five years younger according to wikipedia) it does beg a question:

Why is the ACT Government entrenching male health disadvantage?

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
52 Responses to
50% of Canberrans women!!!! Katy Gallagher says so!
cleo 1:25 am 02 Sep 10

Suck it up ‘boys’

bd84 11:53 pm 01 Sep 10

I’ve been doing laps around Garran looking for the men’s hospital, the girl must have given me the wrong directions..

JC 10:40 pm 01 Sep 10

Indeed I think men get the raw end of the stick when it comes to health care. One thing that always fires me up is the issue of cancer. Look at how many special programs there are for females, in particular breast cancer, yet when you look at the statistics more men get cancer than women and more people get prostate cancer than get breast cancer. Yet where is the focus and the bulk of the cancer funding?

Below is a link to a site with some stats from 2005. You will see that in that year 56158 Australian men got cancer of which 16349 got prostate cancer. 44356 women got cancer and of them 12170 had breast cancer.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/cancer/index.cfm

thatsnotme 10:07 pm 01 Sep 10

I-filed said :

Men can pay for their health care with their $1 million lifetime pay advantage over women.

Excellent idea. So while my wife has been off work on half pay over the past 12 months to bring up our son (a combination of maternity leave and long service leave at half pay) I guess I’ve been stupid to have been using my higher wage to help pay our mortgage, pay our bills and buy groceries? Apparently all along I should have been squirilling my ill-gotten gains away to guard against the day when I’m diagnosed with prostate cancer. I’m pretty sure that if that day comes, I’d still be proud to know that my footy and cricket teams constantly trot out in pink to support breast cancer research, while the diseases which target men are forgotten about.

That’s not sarcasm btw…I think you’d find that a majority of men would rather support research that helps keep the mothers of their children alive, while hoping for the best for themselves. I dunno if that’s worth $1 million over a lifetime or not…hopefully I never need to find out.

Thumper 9:24 pm 01 Sep 10

Cows have guns.

enfoldeadgrrl 8:49 pm 01 Sep 10

“Cows” works too… :-p

p1 8:49 pm 01 Sep 10

Aren’t ob/gyn services already aimed pretty much exclusively at women?

Skidbladnir 6:55 pm 01 Sep 10

Cows?
Stupid predictive text, I meant ‘boys’.

Jim Jones 6:49 pm 01 Sep 10

I-filed said :

Men can pay for their health care with their $1 million lifetime pay advantage over women.

Sadly, we blew most of it on scotch and cigars … what little was left over ended up with some funny looking strippers (I’m not even sure they were women, one of them had an adam’s apple).

Skidbladnir 6:05 pm 01 Sep 10

However, mentally substituting ‘man’, ‘men’ or ‘cows’ into the press release does show that it is prettymuch boilerplate text…

I-filed 5:42 pm 01 Sep 10

Men can pay for their health care with their $1 million lifetime pay advantage over women.

switch 5:42 pm 01 Sep 10

dtc said :

Then again, us men are simple machines so you can service us with a few basic tools, like an old commodore. Whereas women are the modern computer driven vehicles, completely baffling and non-fixable without the right hi-tech analysis.

You saying women are high-maintenance?

Skidbladnir 5:02 pm 01 Sep 10

Why is the ACT Government entrenching male health disadvantage?

Because its the norm for the entire species?
Seriously, the only places that women die before men (on average) are those five bastions of health and social harmony: Swaziland, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, and Niger.

Historically, childbirth was a leading cause of death for women, and men survived longer than women.
If a woman was lucky enough to survive their child bearing years and made it to age forty, she was far more likely to outlive men born in the same year.
Higher life expectancy for females is a direct result of modern obstetric care, which is an incidental field in overall medical care.
(When we learn to do things like use soaps on hands prior to surgery, or sterilise scalpels instead of “wiping the dirt off”, everybody benefitted, but women started surviving child birth, and seeing age forty).

Lets not advocate going back to the middle ages for the sake of making the stats look better, or we might as well work in middle management.

dtc 5:00 pm 01 Sep 10

I actually have no issue with some gender specific programs, including health. But I ran through that press release substituting ‘man’ (or ‘male’) for every reference to woman/women and, you know what, it sounded just as plausible and valid. Right down to the population statistic.

Then again, us men are simple machines so you can service us with a few basic tools, like an old commodore. Whereas women are the modern computer driven vehicles, completely baffling and non-fixable without the right hi-tech analysis.

Pommy bastard 4:55 pm 01 Sep 10

“ACT Health recognises that women and girls have specific needs and challenges throughout their lives and women are required to balance a number of commitments simultaneously, very often to the detriment of their health status,” Ms Gallagher said.

And of course men and boys do not, they sail through lives with nary a care in the world, monotasking always.

Utter PC bullshit.

1 2 3 4

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site