Historical and contemporary perspectives on children's diets: is choice always in the patients' best interest?
Graduate studies at Western
Medical Humanities 36 (1):14-18 (2010)
|Abstract||On 29 March 1744, Thomasin Grace, a 13-year-old girl, was the first inpatient admitted to the Northampton General Infirmary (later the Northampton General Hospital). Inpatient hospital diets, then and now, are mainstays of effective patient treatment. In the mid-18th century there were four prescribed diets at Northampton: ‘full’, ‘milk’, ‘dry’ and ‘low’. Previous opinions concerning these four diets were unfavourable, but had not been based upon an individual dietetic assessment. Thomasin would most likely have been given the milk diet, but use of the full diet cannot be excluded. ‘Grace Everyman’ is Thomasin's modern equivalent. Under current NHS guidelines Thomasin would be considered a paediatric patient, but in 1744 she would have been considered as an adult. This study undertakes a full dietetic analysis of all the prescribed diets available for Thomasin in 1744 and compares this against random choices for Grace from the 2009 inpatient menu from the paediatric (Paddington) ward, and the adult ward inpatient menu at the Northampton General Hospital. The results show that, for Thomasin, the 1744 milk and full diets met the current advised nutritional requirements for adequate dietary intake. However, for Grace, the present 2009 Paddington and adult ward menu, although generally meeting nutritional requirements, could, if Grace or her carer consistently chose poorly during a prolonged inpatient stay, lead to inadequate nutrition. This challenges assumptions that hospital diets were historically inadequate, and that choice in present day equates with satisfactory nutritional intake|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Johanna Dwyer & Franklin M. Loew (1994). Nutritional Risks of Vegan Diets to Women and Children: Are They Preventable? [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):87-109.
Ann Reed Mangels & Suzanne Havala (1994). Vegan Diets for Women, Infants, and Children. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):111-122.
Timothy F. Murphy (2005). Gay Science: Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Sexual Orientation of Children. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 10 (Sup. 1):102-106.
T. Rockmore (2009). Remarks on Russian Philosophy, Soviet Philosophy, and Historicism. Diogenes 56 (2-3):84-94.
Michael C. Munger (2011). Self-Interest and Public Interest: The Motivations of Political Actors. Critical Review 23 (3):339-357.
Jerry Menikoff (2005). Full Disclosure: Telling Patients When Not Being a Research Subject is a Good Choice. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 48 (1):139-S149.
Gary E. Varner (1994). In Defense of the Vegan Ideal: Rhetoric and Bias in the Nutrition Literature. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):29-40.
Edward McClennen (2010). Rational Choice and Moral Theory. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (5):521-540.
David Shaw (2008). Deaf by Design: Disability and Impartiality. Bioethics 22 (8):407-413.
Martin G. Leever (2003). Conflicts of Interest in the Privatization of Child Welfare. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 10 (1):55-60.
Timothy F. Murphy (2009). Choosing Disabilities and Enhancements in Children: A Choice Too Far? Reproductie Biomedicine Online 2009 (18 sup. 1):43-49.
Michael S. Merry (2007). The Well-Being of Children, the Limits of Paternalism, and the State: Can Disparate Interests Be Reconciled? Ethics and Education 2 (1):39-59.
Yuval Dror (1995). The Kibbutz Children's Society‐‐Ideal and Reality. Journal of Moral Education 24 (3):273-288.
Jan Deckers (2013). In Defence of the Vegan Project. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 (2):187-195.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-09-13
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?