France to ban Burqas/Niqab in Public?

[ridasgirl 1]

If it's being worn by force then France banning it will probably just lead to women not being allowed to leave the house at all. That's hardly the progress they're looking for, I'd think.

You are absolutely spot on!

[Ahmeds Girl 0]

I think it's idiotic that you have to wear a chador in KSA or that women can't drive, and that you have to veil in Iran, or are acid attacked in Afghanistan for showing an ankle. How come no one is outraged at that?

Excellent point, Mrs Amera. Some on this site are keen to embrace minority rights only when their interests are affected. They happily ignore the realities of minorities in some so-called Islamic countries. Most of the ones idealizing Islamic regimes wouldn't be able to last a month there. They are used to the freedom and respect western democracies have carved for women.

Debates like the one caused by the French President are blown out of proportion, yet I don't hear the same people protesting about the rights of women in Iran and SA. It's beyond hypocrisy... it's selfish posturing that demeans human rights. Women in Egypt, Iran, SA and other disgusting regimes would be grateful for the rights afforded to women in France. Hell, even some men would. It's easy to take freedom for granted when you have it.

It saddens me that some women (whenever this type of debate arises) immediately jump into predictable 'label women who dress as they please' as 'tramps' mode. These same women are often the very ones who complain about being labelled or judges themselves. Crazy thinking.

My position is clear... ALL women should be able to dress as they like. Women equating skimpy dress as 'tramp- like' are as culpable and irresponsible as the men who claim women deserve to be raped because of how they dress. Suggesting a woman in a veil is more moral than a woman in tight jeans is nuts. Until women recognise our responsibilities in breaking these stereotypes, nothing will change. If we want our daughters to have better lives, we should all be more mindful of the rights of ALL women.

[Ahmeds Girl 0]

I guess you can look at it like depravation of rights everywhere. I just dislike when people on here think all the ME countries are "right" in their approach to life and preserving their way of life however when other countries do the same thing people are aghast. If this is French law then that's the law. I think it's idiotic that you have to wear a chador in KSA or that women can't drive, and that you have to veil in Iran, or are acid attacked in Afghanistan for showing an ankle. How come no one is outraged at that? Women are more free in France or just about any other country on Earth than those two places. And as I previously said if they don't like French laws France isn't holding them hostage.

That is so true. I always looked at having to wear a niqab as being so oppressive...to heck with not being able to see around you with no perepheral vision, I couldn't stand the heat. I would suffer. Hijab I could probably handle.

Oh and another thing, this past weekend, we were in Atlanta, where it was 100+ degrees...saw my very favorite ironic thing: Hijabis in beautiful tunics (with matching hijabs) pushing heavy baby strollers, while their husbands wear tank tops and bermuda shorts walk 3 paces ahead of them. Pizzed me off!

I never considered the effects of the lack of sunlight. The rickets emerging in Muslim communities shocked me in the article by the Muslim woman.

[HLM 1]

I guess you can look at it like depravation of rights everywhere. I just dislike when people on here think all the ME countries are "right" in their approach to life and preserving their way of life however when other countries do the same thing people are aghast. If this is French law then that's the law. I think it's idiotic that you have to wear a chador in KSA or that women can't drive, and that you have to veil in Iran, or are acid attacked in Afghanistan for showing an ankle. How come no one is outraged at that? Women are more free in France or just about any other country on Earth than those two places. And as I previously said if they don't like French laws France isn't holding them hostage.

WOW!! I don't know it said that anywhere?? You still missed the point badly sister!! Ahmed's Girl; Staashi and you are stating your opinions concerning the attire which I have no problem with you guys don't believe in it and don't like it; great...but that's not the point at all!!! Again the right to CHOOSE! Is that too much to ask? If it was about right or wrong....Heck no they are not right walking around half naked and letting their body parts hang in everyone's face... When I went to Las Vegas last christmas it was freezing and the men were fully dressed with heavy jackets on and the poor women barely had anything on just for the sake to impress!! To me that's opression too.

Also for those who mention diseases from the lack on sunlight....well you must know as well that skin cancer is from exposure to the sun!!

By the way I respect you so much and sister Staashi and would not mean to offend neither of you by any means

[Krikit 1,164]

Inappropriate posts removed from the thread. Please stop the hijack. Thank you.

[Ahmeds Girl 0]

"Heck no they are not right walking around half naked and letting their body parts hang in everyone's face."

Not right? funny!

Women dressing in skimpier clothes are perfectly within their rights to wear what they like in America. It's your opinion whether you like it or not. Thank God your opinion isn't law. It's strange that you seemed to pay no attention to the strongly emphasized parts of my post that stated that I believe women should be free to wear what they like - IN ALL COUNTRIES. I am not judging women who cover, nor am I jumping to conclusions about the morality of women based on dress. Why can't all women use this as a respectful starting point?

PS: Haven't you heard of suntan lotion?

[CnT4ever 1]

the notion that one must wear a burka in order to defend others' rights to wear a burka is absurd. i'm repulsed and disgusted by hate speech and websites like stormfront.org, but in a truly free society, such things have every right to exist. i don't have to participate in hate speech in order to defend its right to exist. the aclu, when it defended the rights of neo-nazis to march in a parade, defended their free speech even though everything those marchers stood for was repulsive to them. (a few of the lawyers who defended them were in fact jewish) it's not truly freedom though unless everyone is covered, even those whose actions are the hardest and yuckiest to defend. burqas are how some people choose to practice islam, whether you like it or not. and a truly free society does not impinge on their right to wear it.

equally absurd is the idea that any individual enjoys the right to impinge on someone else's right to religious expression because there also exists the right to freedom from religion. because i have the right to freedom of religious expression does not mean i can ban someone from wearing a t-shirt in public that says "god is dead" on it. nor can anyone else's freedom from religion prohibit me from exhibiting whatever form of religious expression i want, just because they don't believe in it. that's a hallmark of a truly free society, one that france does not have.

i'm not understanding what egyptian affinity for french decorative accoutrements has to do with the horrors of colonialization either. i'm an anglophile, and love all kinds of english stuff, but that doesn't mean that i'm a fan of the british colonialization of the united states. i'm still a fan of the american revolution even though i think england is a really cool place. you seem to be suffering from the same mental block as dienorglerin, who equates the offensiveness of gang rape to the french having to deal with a few random people in burqas in public. no one is calling for full-scale war and violence against the french in retaliation for their hideous and brutal colonial history. even though some of them don't like it, they should have to deal with the fact that a few people in france want to wear burqas anyways-and if they don't like it, tough. other people have been forced to deal with for worse over the course of history. france is getting off pretty easy.

that article was rubbish. what will be the next form of religious expression banned by governments of europe then? do those who support this ban honestly feel that governments can and should decide what, when, where, why and how people practice their religion? liking the idea of governments establishing curbs on other people's religious freedom, just because you don't like their practices, is a very dangerous, very slippery slope. eliminating another person's choice to wear whatever they want is every bit as wrong as forcing a person to wear something they don't want to wear. both are unacceptable assaults on personal freedom.

That's HER own personal experience...It doesn't give her the right to advocate what others should do! What about the ones who enjoy it and see their FREEDOM AND LIBERITY in it? How come that's not oppression on her side asking everyone to take it off because she doesn't like it!

Nowadays they have vitamin D supplements which can be purchased over the counter you know... and also, vitamin D can come from foods/milk. I don't think lack of sun has anything to do with the Rickett's...bad diet perhaps. There are plenty of non-covered men and women that get this disease. To make a statement like that (hijab/niqab leads to Rickett's) is pretty desperate.

[HLM 1]

"Heck no they are not right walking around half naked and letting their body parts hang in everyone's face."

Not right? funny!

Women dressing in skimpier clothes are perfectly within their rights to wear what they like in America. It's your opinion whether you like it or not. Thank God your opinion isn't law. It's strange that you seemed to pay no attention to the strongly emphasized parts of my post that stated that I believe women should be free to wear what they like - IN ALL COUNTRIES. I am not judging women who cover, nor am I jumping to conclusions about the morality of women based on dress. Why can't all women use this as a respectful starting point?

PS: Haven't you heard of suntan lotion?

concerning the right and wrong part had nothing to do with your post it was a reply to Mrs.Amera.

[Ahmeds Girl 0]

the notion that one must wear a burka in order to defend others' rights to wear a burka is absurd. i'm repulsed and disgusted by hate speech and websites like stormfront.org, but in a truly free society, such things have every right to exist. i don't have to participate in hate speech in order to defend its right to exist. the aclu, when it defended the rights of neo-nazis to march in a parade, defended their free speech even though everything those marchers stood for was repulsive to them. (a few of the lawyers who defended them were in fact jewish) it's not truly freedom though unless everyone is covered, even those whose actions are the hardest and yuckiest to defend. burqas are how some people choose to practice islam, whether you like it or not. and a truly free society does not impinge on their right to wear it.

equally absurd is the idea that any individual enjoys the right to impinge on someone else's right to religious expression because there also exists the right to freedom from religion. because i have the right to freedom of religious expression does not mean i can ban someone from wearing a t-shirt in public that says "god is dead" on it. nor can anyone else's freedom from religion prohibit me from exhibiting whatever form of religious expression i want, just because they don't believe in it. that's a hallmark of a truly free society, one that france does not have.

i'm not understanding what egyptian affinity for french decorative accoutrements has to do with the horrors of colonialization either. i'm an anglophile, and love all kinds of english stuff, but that doesn't mean that i'm a fan of the british colonialization of the united states. i'm still a fan of the american revolution even though i think england is a really cool place. you seem to be suffering from the same mental block as dienorglerin, who equates the offensiveness of gang rape to the french having to deal with a few random people in burqas in public. no one is calling for full-scale war and violence against the french in retaliation for their hideous and brutal colonial history. even though some of them don't like it, they should have to deal with the fact that a few people in france want to wear burqas anyways-and if they don't like it, tough. other people have been forced to deal with for worse over the course of history. france is getting off pretty easy.

that article was rubbish. what will be the next form of religious expression banned by governments of europe then? do those who support this ban honestly feel that governments can and should decide what, when, where, why and how people practice their religion? liking the idea of governments establishing curbs on other people's religious freedom, just because you don't like their practices, is a very dangerous, very slippery slope. eliminating another person's choice to wear whatever they want is every bit as wrong as forcing a person to wear something they don't want to wear. both are unacceptable assaults on personal freedom.

That's HER own personal experience...It doesn't give her the right to advocate what others should do! What about the ones who enjoy it and see their FREEDOM AND LIBERITY in it? How come that's not oppression on her side asking everyone to take it off because she doesn't like it!

Nowadays they have vitamin D supplements which can be purchased over the counter you know... and also, vitamin D can come from foods/milk. I don't think lack of sun has anything to do with the Rickett's...bad diet perhaps. There are plenty of non-covered men and women that get this disease. To make a statement like that (hijab/niqab leads to Rickett's) is pretty desperate.

Desperate? Can you prove she is lying? I had never considered that rickets would be an issue, so that part of the article surprised me too. Perhaps a doctor can give an opinion?

[CnT4ever 1]

Desperate? Can you prove she is lying? I had never considered that rickets would be an issue, so that part of the article surprised me too. Perhaps a doctor can give an opinion?

Can't prove she's lying and can't prove she's telling the truth either. I just think that something which is normally fixed by a change in diet is a desperate way to argue the banning of an article of clothing.

Rickets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

rickets

Classification and external resources

ICD-10 E55.

ICD-9 268

DiseasesDB 9351

MedlinePlus 000344

eMedicine ped/2014

MeSH D012279

Rickets is a softening of bones in children potentially leading to fractures and deformity. Rickets is among the most frequent childhood diseases in many developing countries. The predominant cause is a vitamin D deficiency, but lack of adequate calcium in the diet may also lead to rickets (cases of severe diarrhea and vomiting may be the cause of the deficiency). Although it can occur in adults, the majority of cases occur in children suffering from severe malnutrition, usually resulting from famine or starvation during the early stages of childhood. Osteomalacia is the term used to describe a similar condition occurring in adults, generally due to a deficiency of vitamin D.[1] The origin of the word "rickets" is probably from the Old English dialect word 'wrickken', to twist. The Greek derived word "rachitis" (meaning "inflammation of the spine") was later adopted as the scientific term for rickets, due chiefly to the words' similarity in sound. In many languages it is known as "English disease".

Epidemiology

Those at higher risk for developing rickets include:

Breast-fed infants whose mothers are not exposed to sunlight

Breast-fed infants who are not exposed to sunlight

Individuals not consuming fortified milk, such as those who are lactose intolerant

Individuals with red hair have been speculated to have a decreased risk for rickets due to their greater production of vitamin D in sunlight.

If a mother has low vitamin D levels during pregnancy, her infant may have rickets at birth; this is often referred to as Congenital Rickets.

Etiology

Vitamin D is required for proper calcium absorption from the gut. In the absence of vitamin D, dietary calcium is not properly absorbed, resulting in hypocalcemia, leading to skeletal and dental deformities and neuromuscular symptoms, e.g. hyperexcitability. Foods that contain vitamin D include butter, eggs, fish liver oils, margarine, fortified milk and juice, and oily fishes such as tuna, herring, and salmon.

A rare X-linked dominant form exists called Vitamin D resistant rickets.

Presentation

Radiograph of a two-year old rickets sufferer, with a marked genu varum (bowing of the femurs) and decreased bone opacity, suggesting poor bone mineralization.Signs and symptoms of rickets include:

Bone pain or tenderness

dental problems

muscle weakness (rickety myopathy or "floppy baby syndrome" or "slinky baby" (where the baby is floppy or slinky-like))

increased tendency for fractures (easily broken bones), especially greenstick fractures

Skeletal deformity

Toddlers: Bowed legs (genu varum)

Older children: Knock-knees (genu valgum) or "windswept knees"

Cranial, spinal, and pelvic deformities

Growth disturbance

Hypocalcemia (low level of calcium in the blood), and

Tetany (uncontrolled muscle spasms all over the body).

Craniotabes (soft skull)

Costochondral swelling (aka "rickety rosary" or "rachitic rosary")

Harrison's groove

Double malleoli sign due to metaphyseal hyperplasia

Widening of wrist raises early suspicion, it is due to metaphysial cartilage hyperplasia.[1]

An X-ray or radiograph of an advanced sufferer from rickets tends to present in a classic way: bow legs (outward curve of long bone of the legs) and a deformed chest. Changes in the skull also occur causing a distinctive "square headed" appearance. These deformities persist into adult life if not treated.

Long-term consequences include permanent bends or disfiguration of the long bones, and a curved back.

Diagnosis

A doctor may diagnose rickets by:

Blood tests:

Serum calcium may show low levels of calcium, serum phosphorus may be low, and serum alkaline phosphatase may be high.

Arterial blood gases may reveal metabolic acidosis

X-rays of affected bones may show loss of calcium from bones or changes in the shape or structure of the bones.

Bone biopsy is rarely performed but will confirm rickets.

Treatment and prevention

The treatment and prevention of rickets is known as antirachitic.

Diet and sunlight

Cholecalciferol (D3)

Ergocalciferol (D2)Treatment involves increasing dietary intake of HGH, phosphates and vitamin D. Exposure to ultraviolet B light (sunshine when the sun is highest in the sky), cod liver oil, halibut-liver oil, and viosterol are all sources of vitamin D.

A sufficient amount of ultraviolet B light in sunlight each day and adequate supplies of calcium and phosphorus in the diet can prevent rickets. Darker-skinned babies need to be exposed longer to the ultraviolet rays. The replacement of vitamin D has been proven to correct rickets using these methods of ultraviolet light therapy and medicine.

Recommendations are for 400 international units (IU) of vitamin D a day for infants and children. Children who do not get adequate amounts of vitamin D are at increased risk of rickets. Vitamin D is essential for allowing the body to uptake calcium for use in proper bone calcification and maintenance.

Supplementation

Sufficient vitamin D levels can also be achieved through dietary supplementation and/or exposure to sunlight. Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is the preferred form since it is more readily absorbed than vitamin D2. Most dermatologists recommend vitamin D supplementation as an alternative to unprotected ultraviolet exposure due to the increased risk of skin cancer associated with sun exposure. Note that in July in New York City at noon with the sun out, a white male in tee shirt and shorts will produce 20,000 I.U Vitamin D from 20 minutes of non-sunscreen sun exposure.[citation needed]

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), infants who are breast-fed may not get enough vitamin D from breast milk alone. For this reason, the AAP recommends that infants who are exclusively breast-fed receive daily supplements of vitamin D from age 2 months until they start drinking at least 17 ounces of vitamin D-fortified milk or formula a day.[2] This requirement for supplemental vitamin D is not a defect in the evolution of human breastmilk, but is instead a result of the modern-day infant's decreased exposure to sunlight (i.e. breast-fed infants who receive adequate sun exposure are less likely to develop rickets, though supplementation may still be indicated in the winter, depending on geographical latitude).

[MrsAmera 41]

I wasn't writing my post in response to any one statement or person who wrote here, but as a cumulative observation having been a part of this site for 4 years. I have no problem with dressing modestly - I wear hijab, and always dressed modestly before I decided to wear hijab. The core of my argument is that France is not outside of their sovereign rights to impose whatever they wish. I don't think that their attempts are a brazen attack against Muslim women but the desire to protect their heritage. (They even banned English words some time ago if I remember correctly - in order to preserve the language.) My point is Why is it ok for Islamic nations to impose their moral and religious values on minorities in their country but not ok for western or any other nations to do the same?

Also burqa/niqab - I know people that wear it including a very dear friend, it makes life harder it isolates you and from what I've seen these things are more an imposed cultural or religious "belief" than a choice the woman makes. I also have a friend from Yemen who while in Yemen must wear niqab to satisfy her family but when outside of Yemen does not. This just goes to show that the percieved cultural/religious honor has more to do with that kind of veiling than a personal choice.

[Ahmeds Girl 0]

What irritates me about the debate on islamic dress is how ignorance and hatred spings so easily from ignorance and hatred. Someone criticises or tries to equate Islamic dress with oppression and equally abhorrent views on skimpier western dress appear. It bemuses me that some people scream about their rights being denied, but are happy to be judgemental and oppressive of those with opposite views. When will we all learn from this? Perhaps only when all women everywhere have basic, decent human rights. Only then will Islamic dress be seen as a true, unforced choice.

[Ahmeds Girl 0]

Desperate? Can you prove she is lying? I had never considered that rickets would be an issue, so that part of the article surprised me too. Perhaps a doctor can give an opinion?

Can't prove she's lying and can't prove she's telling the truth either. I just think that something which is normally fixed by a change in diet is a desperate way to argue the banning of an article of clothing.

Rickets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

rickets

Classification and external resources

ICD-10 E55.

ICD-9 268

DiseasesDB 9351

MedlinePlus 000344

eMedicine ped/2014

MeSH D012279

Rickets is a softening of bones in children potentially leading to fractures and deformity. Rickets is among the most frequent childhood diseases in many developing countries. The predominant cause is a vitamin D deficiency, but lack of adequate calcium in the diet may also lead to rickets (cases of severe diarrhea and vomiting may be the cause of the deficiency). Although it can occur in adults, the majority of cases occur in children suffering from severe malnutrition, usually resulting from famine or starvation during the early stages of childhood. Osteomalacia is the term used to describe a similar condition occurring in adults, generally due to a deficiency of vitamin D.[1] The origin of the word "rickets" is probably from the Old English dialect word 'wrickken', to twist. The Greek derived word "rachitis" (meaning "inflammation of the spine") was later adopted as the scientific term for rickets, due chiefly to the words' similarity in sound. In many languages it is known as "English disease".

Epidemiology

Those at higher risk for developing rickets include:

Breast-fed infants whose mothers are not exposed to sunlight

Breast-fed infants who are not exposed to sunlight

Individuals not consuming fortified milk, such as those who are lactose intolerant

Individuals with red hair have been speculated to have a decreased risk for rickets due to their greater production of vitamin D in sunlight.

If a mother has low vitamin D levels during pregnancy, her infant may have rickets at birth; this is often referred to as Congenital Rickets.

Etiology

Vitamin D is required for proper calcium absorption from the gut. In the absence of vitamin D, dietary calcium is not properly absorbed, resulting in hypocalcemia, leading to skeletal and dental deformities and neuromuscular symptoms, e.g. hyperexcitability. Foods that contain vitamin D include butter, eggs, fish liver oils, margarine, fortified milk and juice, and oily fishes such as tuna, herring, and salmon.

A rare X-linked dominant form exists called Vitamin D resistant rickets.

Presentation

Radiograph of a two-year old rickets sufferer, with a marked genu varum (bowing of the femurs) and decreased bone opacity, suggesting poor bone mineralization.Signs and symptoms of rickets include:

Bone pain or tenderness

dental problems

muscle weakness (rickety myopathy or "floppy baby syndrome" or "slinky baby" (where the baby is floppy or slinky-like))

increased tendency for fractures (easily broken bones), especially greenstick fractures

Skeletal deformity

Toddlers: Bowed legs (genu varum)

Older children: Knock-knees (genu valgum) or "windswept knees"

Cranial, spinal, and pelvic deformities

Growth disturbance

Hypocalcemia (low level of calcium in the blood), and

Tetany (uncontrolled muscle spasms all over the body).

Craniotabes (soft skull)

Costochondral swelling (aka "rickety rosary" or "rachitic rosary")

Harrison's groove

Double malleoli sign due to metaphyseal hyperplasia

Widening of wrist raises early suspicion, it is due to metaphysial cartilage hyperplasia.[1]

An X-ray or radiograph of an advanced sufferer from rickets tends to present in a classic way: bow legs (outward curve of long bone of the legs) and a deformed chest. Changes in the skull also occur causing a distinctive "square headed" appearance. These deformities persist into adult life if not treated.

Long-term consequences include permanent bends or disfiguration of the long bones, and a curved back.

Diagnosis

A doctor may diagnose rickets by:

Blood tests:

Serum calcium may show low levels of calcium, serum phosphorus may be low, and serum alkaline phosphatase may be high.

Arterial blood gases may reveal metabolic acidosis

X-rays of affected bones may show loss of calcium from bones or changes in the shape or structure of the bones.

Bone biopsy is rarely performed but will confirm rickets.

Treatment and prevention

The treatment and prevention of rickets is known as antirachitic.

Diet and sunlight

Cholecalciferol (D3)

Ergocalciferol (D2)Treatment involves increasing dietary intake of HGH, phosphates and vitamin D. Exposure to ultraviolet B light (sunshine when the sun is highest in the sky), cod liver oil, halibut-liver oil, and viosterol are all sources of vitamin D.

A sufficient amount of ultraviolet B light in sunlight each day and adequate supplies of calcium and phosphorus in the diet can prevent rickets. Darker-skinned babies need to be exposed longer to the ultraviolet rays. The replacement of vitamin D has been proven to correct rickets using these methods of ultraviolet light therapy and medicine.

Recommendations are for 400 international units (IU) of vitamin D a day for infants and children. Children who do not get adequate amounts of vitamin D are at increased risk of rickets. Vitamin D is essential for allowing the body to uptake calcium for use in proper bone calcification and maintenance.

Supplementation

Sufficient vitamin D levels can also be achieved through dietary supplementation and/or exposure to sunlight. Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is the preferred form since it is more readily absorbed than vitamin D2. Most dermatologists recommend vitamin D supplementation as an alternative to unprotected ultraviolet exposure due to the increased risk of skin cancer associated with sun exposure. Note that in July in New York City at noon with the sun out, a white male in tee shirt and shorts will produce 20,000 I.U Vitamin D from 20 minutes of non-sunscreen sun exposure.[citation needed]

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), infants who are breast-fed may not get enough vitamin D from breast milk alone. For this reason, the AAP recommends that infants who are exclusively breast-fed receive daily supplements of vitamin D from age 2 months until they start drinking at least 17 ounces of vitamin D-fortified milk or formula a day.[2] This requirement for supplemental vitamin D is not a defect in the evolution of human breastmilk, but is instead a result of the modern-day infant's decreased exposure to sunlight (i.e. breast-fed infants who receive adequate sun exposure are less likely to develop rickets, though supplementation may still be indicated in the winter, depending on geographical latitude).

With respect, this doesn't disprove what the Muslim woman in the article said... it simply highlights the need for vitamin D when women don't have adequate exposure to sunlight. Women aren't infants.

[MrsAmera 41]

Fair enough - but a woman living in a devloped nation wouldn't suffer from a poor diet most likely- therefore what is the basis for the vitamin deficiency. Also it has been shown that vitamins through supplements are not as good as acquring them naturally through nature or food.

Desperate? Can you prove she is lying? I had never considered that rickets would be an issue, so that part of the article surprised me too. Perhaps a doctor can give an opinion?

Can't prove she's lying and can't prove she's telling the truth either. I just think that something which is normally fixed by a change in diet is a desperate way to argue the banning of an article of clothing.

Rickets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

rickets

Classification and external resources

ICD-10 E55.

ICD-9 268

DiseasesDB 9351

MedlinePlus 000344

eMedicine ped/2014

MeSH D012279

Rickets is a softening of bones in children potentially leading to fractures and deformity. Rickets is among the most frequent childhood diseases in many developing countries. The predominant cause is a vitamin D deficiency, but lack of adequate calcium in the diet may also lead to rickets (cases of severe diarrhea and vomiting may be the cause of the deficiency). Although it can occur in adults, the majority of cases occur in children suffering from severe malnutrition, usually resulting from famine or starvation during the early stages of childhood. Osteomalacia is the term used to describe a similar condition occurring in adults, generally due to a deficiency of vitamin D.[1] The origin of the word "rickets" is probably from the Old English dialect word 'wrickken', to twist. The Greek derived word "rachitis" (meaning "inflammation of the spine") was later adopted as the scientific term for rickets, due chiefly to the words' similarity in sound. In many languages it is known as "English disease".

Epidemiology

Those at higher risk for developing rickets include:

Breast-fed infants whose mothers are not exposed to sunlight

Breast-fed infants who are not exposed to sunlight

Individuals not consuming fortified milk, such as those who are lactose intolerant

Individuals with red hair have been speculated to have a decreased risk for rickets due to their greater production of vitamin D in sunlight.

If a mother has low vitamin D levels during pregnancy, her infant may have rickets at birth; this is often referred to as Congenital Rickets.

Etiology

Vitamin D is required for proper calcium absorption from the gut. In the absence of vitamin D, dietary calcium is not properly absorbed, resulting in hypocalcemia, leading to skeletal and dental deformities and neuromuscular symptoms, e.g. hyperexcitability. Foods that contain vitamin D include butter, eggs, fish liver oils, margarine, fortified milk and juice, and oily fishes such as tuna, herring, and salmon.

A rare X-linked dominant form exists called Vitamin D resistant rickets.

Presentation

Radiograph of a two-year old rickets sufferer, with a marked genu varum (bowing of the femurs) and decreased bone opacity, suggesting poor bone mineralization.Signs and symptoms of rickets include:

Bone pain or tenderness

dental problems

muscle weakness (rickety myopathy or "floppy baby syndrome" or "slinky baby" (where the baby is floppy or slinky-like))

increased tendency for fractures (easily broken bones), especially greenstick fractures

Skeletal deformity

Toddlers: Bowed legs (genu varum)

Older children: Knock-knees (genu valgum) or "windswept knees"

Cranial, spinal, and pelvic deformities

Growth disturbance

Hypocalcemia (low level of calcium in the blood), and

Tetany (uncontrolled muscle spasms all over the body).

Craniotabes (soft skull)

Costochondral swelling (aka "rickety rosary" or "rachitic rosary")

Harrison's groove

Double malleoli sign due to metaphyseal hyperplasia

Widening of wrist raises early suspicion, it is due to metaphysial cartilage hyperplasia.[1]

An X-ray or radiograph of an advanced sufferer from rickets tends to present in a classic way: bow legs (outward curve of long bone of the legs) and a deformed chest. Changes in the skull also occur causing a distinctive "square headed" appearance. These deformities persist into adult life if not treated.

Long-term consequences include permanent bends or disfiguration of the long bones, and a curved back.

Diagnosis

A doctor may diagnose rickets by:

Blood tests:

Serum calcium may show low levels of calcium, serum phosphorus may be low, and serum alkaline phosphatase may be high.

Arterial blood gases may reveal metabolic acidosis

X-rays of affected bones may show loss of calcium from bones or changes in the shape or structure of the bones.

Bone biopsy is rarely performed but will confirm rickets.

Treatment and prevention

The treatment and prevention of rickets is known as antirachitic.

Diet and sunlight

Cholecalciferol (D3)

Ergocalciferol (D2)Treatment involves increasing dietary intake of HGH, phosphates and vitamin D. Exposure to ultraviolet B light (sunshine when the sun is highest in the sky), cod liver oil, halibut-liver oil, and viosterol are all sources of vitamin D.

A sufficient amount of ultraviolet B light in sunlight each day and adequate supplies of calcium and phosphorus in the diet can prevent rickets. Darker-skinned babies need to be exposed longer to the ultraviolet rays. The replacement of vitamin D has been proven to correct rickets using these methods of ultraviolet light therapy and medicine.

Recommendations are for 400 international units (IU) of vitamin D a day for infants and children. Children who do not get adequate amounts of vitamin D are at increased risk of rickets. Vitamin D is essential for allowing the body to uptake calcium for use in proper bone calcification and maintenance.

Supplementation

Sufficient vitamin D levels can also be achieved through dietary supplementation and/or exposure to sunlight. Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is the preferred form since it is more readily absorbed than vitamin D2. Most dermatologists recommend vitamin D supplementation as an alternative to unprotected ultraviolet exposure due to the increased risk of skin cancer associated with sun exposure. Note that in July in New York City at noon with the sun out, a white male in tee shirt and shorts will produce 20,000 I.U Vitamin D from 20 minutes of non-sunscreen sun exposure.[citation needed]

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), infants who are breast-fed may not get enough vitamin D from breast milk alone. For this reason, the AAP recommends that infants who are exclusively breast-fed receive daily supplements of vitamin D from age 2 months until they start drinking at least 17 ounces of vitamin D-fortified milk or formula a day.[2] This requirement for supplemental vitamin D is not a defect in the evolution of human breastmilk, but is instead a result of the modern-day infant's decreased exposure to sunlight (i.e. breast-fed infants who receive adequate sun exposure are less likely to develop rickets, though supplementation may still be indicated in the winter, depending on geographical latitude).

[Ahmeds Girl 0]

Also it has been shown that vitamins through supplements are not as good as acquring them naturally through nature or food.

That is my understanding.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Ahmeds Girl