The issue:

Many people across America have heard the term “eating disorder,” but not many people know what this means or what kind of problems this community faces. Eating disorders are much more common than many realize. Anorexia is the third most common chronic illness among adolescents (Eating Disorder Facts and Statistics para. 1). In addition, eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any other mental illness with around one person dying every hour as a result of an eating disorder (Eating Disorder Facts and Statistics para. 1). One of the most striking things about eating disorders and their treatment is that over 70% of those who could be clinically diagnosed with eating disorders will never seek professional treatment because of stigmas, misconceptions and an overall lack of education (Eating Disorder Facts and Statistics para. 1). The public is generally unaware of such startling statistics, or of the overall prevalence of eating disorders in society. This additionally means most people are not aware of the need for research on eating disorders to better diagnose and treat those afflicted and educate the public. There is clear need to accelerate research in this field as the “causes, risk factors, brain changes and other biological abnormalities in eating disorders is unclear” (Research para. 1). If more research can be done on this topic eating disorders may become preventable and recoverable

Causes:

The cause of this lack of research leading to inadequate education, diagnosis and treatment has an inadvertent cause. Society is unaware that eating disorders are a big issue and require more research. Our society still knows very little about eating disorders as it was not until 1983 when Karen Carpenter died from anorexia that it became something people even talked about (Ekern para 1). Much of the inadvertent cause comes from the fact that government funding for eating disorders is incredibly low compared to other issues that are “not as pervasive nor as fatal as eating disorders.” (Ekren para 3) The US government funds only 28 million dollars a year to eating disorder research which is about 93 cents for each person diagnosed with an eating disorder (Ekern para 3). This is compared to alcoholism which receives 505 million dollars, schizophrenia with 352 million, depression with 328 million and sleep disorders with 187 million (Ekern para 4).

Policy instruments:

A policy instrument that would be used to increase the funding for eating disorder research would be inducements in the form of increased pubic funding. While it would be nice to think that the federal government would increase their funding for such topics, it is also widely known that this may be a difficult institution to target for increased funding. Breaking it down to a state-by-state basis and having states provide an increase in funding would be much more effective. One of the reasons why targeting states may be more effective, especially in Pennsylvania, is that there is more of an interest in the subject. In Pennsylvania, the Secretary of Health, Dr. Rachel Levine, previously worked as chief of the Division of Adolescent Medicine and Eating Disorders at Penn State Hershey Children’s Hospital (University of the Sciences para. 6). This unique circumstance of Pennsylvania’s leadership makes the state government an ideal place to direct funding incentives. Institutions such as the National Eating Disorder Association (NEDA) have been directing their advocacy projects towards state and federal governments to attempt an increase in funding for research.

Works cited:

Ekern, Baxter. “Funding for Eating Disorder Professionals Seeking to Do Research.” Eating Disorder Hope, 25 July 2015, http://www.eatingdisorderhope.com/blog/funding-for-eating-disorder-professionals-seeking-to-do-research.

“Eating Disorder Facts & Statistics.” Eating Disorder Facts & Eating Disorder Statistics | Eating Recovery Center, http://www.eatingrecoverycenter.com/conditions/eating-disorders/facts-statistics.

“Research.” FREED, 20 Feb. 2018, http://www.freedeatingdisorders.org/research/.

“Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine to Address 2019 Graduates at Commencement.” University of the Sciences, 1 Apr. 2019, http://www.usciences.edu/news/2019/secretary-of-health-dr-rachel-levine-to-address-2019-graduates-at-commencement.html.

I do not really know where to start this post. It is hard to pick one place to start talking about the Coronavirus. The sheer size of this pandemic and its effects are astonishing. It has almost seemed like a domino effect around the world. The effects of the virus are seen not just in the medical field and the overwhelming rate of cases hospitals and medical facilities must deal with, but also in many social aspects. One of the scariest domino effects of the virus is the toll it is taking on the global economy. The stock market is crumbling, and businesses are falling under. Even once the virus clears up, the economic downfall will be felt for a long time.

Every single person in this country has had their lives turned upside down. It is very upsetting to know that I will not being going back to school this semester, and I will have to move out of my dorm in the next few days. I do know, however, there were people whose lives took much more drastic turns than my own.   I feel for the people who were supposed to get married in the next few weeks as many of them have had to cancel their weddings. I also feel for the people who are seniors in high school and college because many graduations and other events have been cancelled.

I am still trying to process it all. It is very hard to process as everything changes so rapidly all the time. It seems like I wrap my head around one development, either personal or national, and a new one comes right along seemingly turning my life, and the lives around me upside-down all over again.

I hope anyone reading this is safe, healthy and keeping busy.

Deliberation: Ex- Con and Moving’ On- The Reintegration of Prisoners Back into Society (Monday 3/2)

The topic of this deliberation was all about the issues surrounding the reintegration of prisoners once they leave jail. It looked at some of the biggest problems this population faces and what can be done to remedy these problems. The first approach looked at the process toward release and how to better prepare prisoners for the actual departure from the jail. One of the most interesting things I think this approach suggested was tattoo removal before release. This was something I had never really considered important until it was suggested in the deliberation. Tattoos often carry a certain stigma with them, and removal before prisoners are released could significantly assist in reintegration. The second approach looked at professional development. This is something immensely important to the process of reintegration. I had heard of programs like what this approach was suggesting, but what I found particularly interesting about this approach was continued assistance after release as opposed to just before release. I feel as this is a great suggestion to help support prisoners in finding and keeping work after release. The last approach discussed housing for convicted criminals upon release. They talked about halfway houses, and how vital they are for ensuring lower recidivism rates. They suggested expanding halfway houses and creating more to help a greater number of prisoners upon their release.

Overall, I found the deliberation to be run smoothly and the approaches flowed and fit together very well. There were a few interesting differences from my deliberation I found in the structure and layout of the event. First, I found it interesting that the moderators in team overview created a strict set of ground rules about how the event would be run and how things would and would not be discussed. I felt as if laying out the rules like this was overly formal and more less of an uncomfortable way to start the deliberation. Something else I found that was strange about the introduction was the way they had everyone go around the room and tell their name, position (student, employee, town member etc.) and their “person stake” in the issue. I thought this was incredibly uncomfortable as for the most part all the people there were students who had little to no personal stake in the issue. Additionally, there were a lot of attendees to the deliberation so introductions took up a lot of time that could have been used for discussion later down the road.

Something I did really like about the setup of this deliberation was that they had all the chairs set up in a large circle around the room. I felt as if this gave the event more of a conversational feel and less of a presentation feel that my deliberation had. Being in a circle made it easier to talk with people rather than talk at them. It made the event feel more relaxed and less stiff and formal. Another thing I really liked about this deliberation was the pro- con format the approaches had with their discussion. They introduced their ideas and then asked questions strictly about the pros and cons of their approach. I think this really helped keep the discussion on track with the approach and not veer off topic. At first, I was not a fan of such a strict format, but as the deliberation progressed, I really liked how efficient it was in discussing the topics.