Search results

1 – 2 of 2
To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 16 September 2011

Keeley J. Pratt, Angela L. Lamson, Suzanne Lazorick, Carmel Parker White, David N. Collier, Mark B. White and Melvin S. Swanson

This review paper seeks to conceptualise childhood obesity through clinical, operational, and financial procedures. It informs multiple disciplines about: the trajectory…

Abstract

Purpose

This review paper seeks to conceptualise childhood obesity through clinical, operational, and financial procedures. It informs multiple disciplines about: the trajectory of paediatric obesity and current recommendations; the trends in the clinical, administrative/policy and financial worlds of paediatric obesity; and discusses commonly misunderstood collaborative terms.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper is based on analysis of national and international policy documents and research papers in the field.

Findings

Paediatric obesity treatment teams, programmes, and providers could all benefit from a document that bridges the disciplines of medicine, other professions, and financial management. A family centred, multidisciplinary approach is necessary at all stages of obesity treatment care and the three‐world model discussed is helpful in achieving this. The clinical, operational, and financial aspects of the service need to be integrated in a way that reduces the barriers to accessing services.

Originality/value

The paper combines perspectives from different service sectors: clinical, operational, and financial. To facilitate interdisciplinary cooperation, it offers common definitions of terms that often have different meanings for those involved.

Details

Journal of Children's Services, vol. 6 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1746-6660

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 January 1979

In years past, when life seemed simpler and the Law much less complicated, jurists were fond of quoting the age‐old saying: “All men are equal before the Law.” It was…

Abstract

In years past, when life seemed simpler and the Law much less complicated, jurists were fond of quoting the age‐old saying: “All men are equal before the Law.” It was never completely true; there were important exemptions when strict legal enforcement would have been against the public interests. A classic example was Crown immunity, evolved from the historical principle that “The King can do no wrong”. With the growth of government, the multiplicity of government agencies and the enormous amount of secondary legislation, the statutes being merely enabling Acts, this immunity revealed itself as being used largely against public interests. Statutory instruments were being drafted within Ministerial departments largely by as many as 300 officers of those departments authorized to sign such measures, affecting the rights of the people without any real Parliamentary control. Those who suffered and lost in their enforcement had no remedy; Crown immunity protected all those acting as servants of the Crown and the principle came to be an officials' charter with no connection whatever with the Crown. Parliament, custodian of the national conscience, removed much of this socially unacceptable privilege in the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, which enabled injured parties within limit to sue central departments and their officers. The more recent system of Commissioners—Parliamentary, Local Authority, Health Service—with power to enquire into allegations of injustice, maladministration, malpractice to individuals extra‐legally, has extended the rights of the suffering citizen.

Details

British Food Journal, vol. 81 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0007-070X

1 – 2 of 2