As well as speak negatively about the organization when chatting with your coworkers, refusing to help them financially when asked, enrolling your own children in alternate activities, etc.
Yes, absolutely.
They already accommodate 98% of American men, probably 99% of kids, and likely 99.8% of scouts. I would say that is pretty darn tailored. Why should they go out of their way to accommodate a tiny number of people who are actively engaging in harmful behavior?
Should girls scout camps have to accommodate girls with raging anorexia? Provide fainting couches and extra soft bedding? No-clog toilets for the bullemics?
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to decide at some point that you can only accommodate problem who have their eating disorders under control and to the point where it doesn’t pose an immediate health threat.
Because they could have done it in a way structured to not be a PIA, while making themselves look great? Their PR has been in the shitter for a while, why not try to do something about it?
ETA: do your numbers account for atheists, gay, etc men/boys who are not accommodated?
I wouldn’t. In fact, I would say that your method of measuring “tailored” is flat out ridiculous. By your measure, it would be even more “tailored” to exclude deaf children the Jamboree. Even from activities which do not require hearing.
Because it would serve their purposes and it would not be very much of a burden.
The Scouts could certainly do a lot more to improve their public image, but isn’t encouraging good health and insisting on medical reports and doctor’s releases for all kids who fell between 32 and 39.9 a step in the right direction? Encouraging good health and fitness is a positive attribute, not a negative. If kids under the age of consent have been allowed or encouraged to eat themselves into a state of chronic illness, it’s a good thing if there is an outside influence that encourages better health and wellness.
Not much of a burden to what? Add another set of reduced effort exercise for 2% of kids who may or may not be willing to participate anyway? Incurring the additional expense of adding roads for motorized vehicles? What do you propose they do to protect the morbidly obese scout from overexertion and holding back his peers? Add support staff? Add medical staff and additional medical facilities?
The Scouts published their new requirements at least two years before this event. It would be less of burden for the scant few kids who would be affected by this to lose a bit of weight.
Have you watched the Jamboree video? The host isn’t a young, perfectly physically fit specimen of optimum health. He’s an ordinary dude with a little around the middle. And if you’ll sit still and watch all the way through, you’ll see him admit that he’s working on losing a little more weight and getting fit, too. The restrictions are for staff, too, it’s not just morbidly obese kids who are being encouraged to lose a little weight in order to enjoy the full experience of the camp.
This isn’t the social travesty you are making it out to be. If you felt so strongly that businesses ought to be incurring additional expenses and financial risks of accommodating the 2% of the obese population who might or might not be interested in undertaking tasks and activities that could cause them further illness and injury, you’d be decrying the fitness requirements for the military, law enforcement, and recreational parks, too.
Do you go anywhere in public without noticing that businesses offer reinforced, double-wide chairs for theaters, waiting rooms, and restaurants? Wider bathroom stalls? Extended seatbelts? Larger airline and bus seats? The morbidly obese are being welcomed everywhere you go at the expense of businesses, not the obese who take advantage of these accommodations. I’m really not getting how you can criticize any recreational endeavor which chooses to protect the health and lives of chronically ill people who harbor a host of hidden health concerns that could put them in serious jeopardy if they are overheated or overexerted. It really doesn’t differ from excluding pregnant women from partaking in certain activities. *It’s for their own good. *
Actually, no. The ADA requires reasonable accommodation, not perfect accommodation. If the new site is as rugged and spread out as Algher has said it is, the BSA was under no legal requirement to accommodate wheelchair users (as there are no essential government services on the site such as courtrooms or the DMV which disabled people must have access to). They are no more required to build wheelchair-friendly hiking trails than the government is to install an elevator at the Grand Canyon so the non-mobile can get from the canyon rim to the Colorado River.
Now make no mistake, I’m GLAD the BSA has decided to accommodate wheelchair users at the new camp. But that just makes their refusal to accommodate the handful of obese kids with similar mobility issues who might want to attend the Jamboree that much more galling.
I’ve no problem with wanting unfit folks to get in better shape before attending a Jamboree. But why the hard numerical cutoff? Do you honestly think there’s much of a difference healthwise and fitnesswise between a person with a BMI of 39 (who may be permitted to attend, with a doctor’s clearance) and a person with a BMI of 40 (who is flat-out forbidden from attending, no matter what a physician might say about their fitness)?
I’d be more sympathetic to this argument if we were talking Philmont rather than a Jamboree.
How about just encouraging good health for ALL participants (with special scrutiny of those with a BMI of more than 30, who statistically are more likely not be fit enough to participate in the more strenuous activities), and requiring a doctor’s release for ALL participants? Why the hard cutoff at BMI 40? There’s no significant health difference between a BMI of 39 and a BMI of 40, so why pretend there is?
And the BSA are utter fools if they aren’t requiring a physical examination and doctor’s clearance from EVERYONE who is attending that camp. It’s actually not all that rare for a fit and seemly healthy kid to suddenly drop dead in the middle of an athletic activity, and almost always the cause is an underlying heart abnormality (such as long QT syndrome, or a genetically-caused hypertrophic cardiomyopathy) which can be detected on a physical exam by a doctor who thinks to check for it. A mandatory doctor’s clearance of all participants is going to be their best defense against the subsequent lawsuit when (not if!) such a tragedy occurs on their property.
What part of the sentence “BMI does not measure fitness” are you not understanding? No one is having any issues with fitness requirements in this thread!
What part of physician’s guidelines are you not understanding? You can use the same argument for lowering the drinking age to 20 years and 364 days or age of consent to 17 years and 364 days. For whatever reason, and I suspect it was after consulting with medical and legal experts, the Scouts have decided that this course is too strenuous for kids with a BMI of 40 and above, and risky for kids in the 30s. The cutoff is designed to protect the organization and the kids from harm.
Do you feel that a kid with a BMI of 40 might feel pressure to keep up with his peers and might put himself at risk? Do you think that kid has the maturity and self-confidence to speak up and ask for help if he gets in trouble? Does he have the maturity and experience to assess the risk to his cardio-vascular system and joints? Why in the world would you insist on that risk? Play out the whole scenario. Is it better to tell a Scout with a BMI with 40+ that “You can’t go with us on this outing because we’re afraid you’ll hurt yourself and can’t keep up. You may stay behind and clean up the camp kitchen instead”. Or have a motivated counselor shouting at the same kid to “Pick it up! You’re dragging everyone down!!”
Would you have the Jamboree divided into a Fat Scout activities and Typically Developing Scout activities? Or just leave the BMI 40 kids behind with a counselor while the rest of the group does awesome things? What is your idealized version of inclusion here?
The BSA can be utter fools on a regular basis, but THEY DO REQUIRE A FULL PHYSICAL. I posted their requirements, links to the documents, and justification for the 40 BMI and the list of all other health issues they track specifically.
If you don’t like BMI as a measurement, take it up with the medical community. They are the ones that rely on it to measure health risk issues. The BSA did not invent BMI, nor are they the ones that decided to use it as the measurement to determine if someone is a health risk. They have chosen to use it as one of many measures to determine if there is a risk to take a Scout OR Scouter (the term for an adult in a short pants, knee socks and Oscar De La Renta designed militia shirt) out beyond close-by ER facilities.
Hilarious. Just as I expected. No apology for lying about what I said. Good show!
None. Unlike you, I AM a physician. And I’m quite familiar with how BMI is used (and more commonly, misused) in public health guidelines.
And as I have already said, it doesn’t do that, because BMI does not measure fitness. Hell, it doesn’t even measure adiposity! If the BSA wants to protect kids from harm, they need to be looking at fitness directly rather than relying on such a poor proxy as BMI.
Do you think an unfit kid with a BMI of 25 might feel pressured to keep up with his peers and put himself at risk? Why are you worried about the one scenario and not the other?
Do you think ANY kids have that level of maturity and self confidence?
No, but his physician (who will be signing off on his ability to participate in various levels of physical activity) does. Remember, I said earlier that EVERYONE should have a physical examination before going to this camp. I also think everyone ought to have to submit a form detailing their typical weekly workout routine and what physical scouting activities they’ve participated n over the past 3 months, and have their Scoutmaster sign off on it as well. Again, focus on fitness, because that is what matters.
No, but the kid can be directed to a more appropriate activity (just as the wheelchair users presumably are). There’s no reason a Jamboree can’t have hikes, swims, etc. suitable for various fitness levels.
You don’t want a counselor saying that to ANY kids, regardless of his weight. That’s how you get fatal cases of heat exhaustion (not to mention other injuries).
A range of physical activities from the very simple to the highly demanding, with participation in each being contingent on the kid proving (by past activity and a medical examination) that he’s up to the task he wants to join.
Really, it’s not so hard.
artemis, please read the entire page on the Scout website describing the requirements and limitations.
“The BMI is just one factor that will be taken into account when considering an individual’s acceptance to the jamboree. The national jamboree is being conducted at a high-adventure site. For that reason, physical standards have been set unique to the jamboree. These standards help highlight some of the challenging terrain at the Summit and types of activities that will take place, all with the goal of keeping participants safe.”
I haven’t seen anyone on that cite or here claim that BMI is the best or only measure of physical fitness. Have you, as a physician, given a child or an adult with a BMI of 40+ the go ahead to complete strenuous physical activity that is in a remote location such as this? If so, what criteria did you use to determine that person’s ability to weather the heat and exertion?
As an aside, since you are a physician, I’ve been under the impression for some time that BMI was a preferable measure of overall health than mere height/weight charts with don’t account for muscle tone, bone density/size, etc. What is your complaint about BMI, and what is your preferred guideline for weight recommendations?
If you keep reading the Scout page I linked to, you’ll find that alcohol and tobacco products are prohibited. Since tobacco and alcohol addiction are medical problems and alcohol withdrawal for serious addicts can result in serious illness or death, should those people also be allowed to bring along their fix?
You keep saying that revamping the course and activities to allow for limited participation is a no-brainer, but the Scouts have a reputation for encouraging outdoor survival skills, many of which require physical exertion. Just like rescue and leadership skills, physical fitness and good health is a goal to aspire to. I assume you’re okay with the public school system restricting the lunch menu to healthy fare and mandatory participation in physical fitness programs, why do you feel the Scouts should excuse kids with unhealthy habits from completing the same programs as typically developing kids? Isn’t that rewarding bad habits? Because what they are encouraging: get in shape to attend this awesome, physically challenging Jamboree, encourages good habits. I just can’t understand why you, as a poster or a physician, feels that an organization with a reputation for encouraging kids to excel at outdoor physical activities, should offer limited participation for kids who just aren’t interested in keeping up with their peers.
Just trying to fight your ignorance. It’s taking longer than I thought.
come on let’s get along. we can sing a song.
let’s sing Johnny ver Beck’s machine. no maybe not a good one considering.
let’s do Row Row Row Your Boat as a round. first those with a BMI under 40 and then with a BMI over 40. no maybe not a good one considering.
Michael Row Your Boat Ashore that’s a good one.
I’m not a physician, but MY complaint with BMI is that it isn’t actually anything more than height and weight. So says the CDC. http://m.cdc.gov/en/HealthSafetyTopics/HealthyLiving/HealthyWeight/AssessingYourWeight/BodyMassIndex/introBodyMassIndex
They also say it’s reliable for indicating body fat, of course, which isn’t strictly true. It’s a great indicator of whether you’ll fit into the height and weight charts nicely, though.
priceless
Why isn’t it a reliable indicator?
From your cite: “BMI provides a reliable indicator of body fatness for most people and is used to screen for weight categories that may lead to health problems.”
Because all it takes into account is “mere height and weight.” It does not account for body composition (lean body mass vs. fat) or anything else, which as you pointed out, is a major flaw.
Why are the experts wrong to use it as a guideline and what is a better measure of overall health and fitness?