Parents surveyed on pressures of raising children
The pressures being felt by the parents of children under the age of 11 are being explored in a new public health survey.
The questionnaire looks at issues such as demands on finances and time, alongside concerns surrounding technology experience by parents and carers on the Isle of Man.
Cabinet Office Minister David Ashford said responses would "help to make a difference in how we manage and develop parental support".
The findings of the latest Isle of Man Health and Lifestyle Survey, which will be open until 28 May, are set to be published in January 2026.
Questions cover issues such as parent and child health, children's safety, and isolation and loneliness.
Respondents have been asked if they have found it difficult to get by financially in the past year, and if they have enough time for activities such as eating meals together and play.
It also considers possible concerns felt about the use of technology and social media.
The Isle of Man's public health directorate said the aim was to gain an understanding of "current pressures and priorities for families" on the island.
They survey was one of a number of activities being undertaken to "improve development for school readiness", it added.
Ashford said the information gathered would provide a "crucial insight to help us to identify gaps and potential opportunities for supporting families in the first years of a child's life".
A spokesman for the Cabinet Office confirmed the survey was part of ongoing work with the Department of Education, Sport and Culture "towards addressing the early intervention priority in the Island Plan", which sets out the government's priorities.
Read more stories from the Isle of Man on the BBC, watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer and follow BBC Isle of Man on Facebook and X.
Perceptions of homelessness gathered in survey
Isle of Man Health and Lifestyle Survey 2025
Isle of Man Government - Public Health
Isle of Man Government - Department of Education, Sport and Culture
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
WTA gives ranking protection for players who freeze eggs
The WTA has introduced a new measure to protect the ranking of players who freeze their eggs or embryos (Dylan Buell) Women tennis players who take time out of the game to freeze eggs or embryos will have their ranking protected, the WTA Tour announced on Wednesday. Players ranked from one to 750 in singles or doubles who spend at least 10 consecutive weeks out of competition for a "fertility protection procedure" are eligible. Advertisement The ranking can be used to enter up to three tournaments but the policy does not apply to the premier 1000 events. The special ranking will be based on the 12-week average of a player's WTA ranking from eight weeks prior to the start of their out-of-competition period. Sloane Stephens, the 2017 US Open champion, told the BBC the rule will reduce the pressure on players to return to the court too quickly. Stephens said she had twice previously used the off-season to freeze her eggs. The 32-year-old said in the WTA statement that she was "incredibly proud of our sport in recognising the importance of fertility treatments for female athletes". Advertisement "For any woman, the conversation of family life versus a career is nuanced and complex," she said. "The WTA has now created a safe space for players to explore options and to make the best decisions for themselves." The WTA said in a statement that the "Fertility Protection Special Entry Ranking Rule" would enhance the existing package of benefits to help players combine family life with tennis. WTA CEO Portia Archer said: "We understand that professional athletes can face a dilemma between focusing on their career and starting a family, and we are committed to supporting WTA players as they navigate and balance the choices associated with career and family." Advertisement In March the WTA and Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) announced the introduction of a maternity fund programme, giving players paid maternity leave for up to 12 months and access to grants for fertility treatments. The PIF is a global partner of the WTA Tour. jw/kca/mw
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
WTA Tour introduces women's tennis ranking protection for fertility treatment
Women's tennis stars will have their world rankings protected during fertility treatments, the WTA Tour has announced. Players ranked inside the world's top 750 who miss at least 10 weeks of competitive tennis will be eligible to receive a Special Entry Ranking, the same designation that the women's tennis governing body uses for players returning from long-term injury or pregnancy. Advertisement They will be able to use the ranking for up to three events in the first 10 weeks of their return to the court, but the ranking cannot be used to enter WTA 1,000 events — the 10 tournaments one rung below the Grand Slams, named for the ranking points awarded to the winner. Sloane Stephens, the 2017 U.S. Open champion who called for the measure last year after undergoing egg freezing, said that 'the conversation of family life versus a career is nuanced and complex,' and praised the WTA for creating a 'safe space' to consider fertility protection without the risk of relinquishing ranking security. Stephens, in a 2024 interview with the BBC, said that egg freezing is 'a very involved process and I don't think people understand that.' The time needed away from the tennis court varies from player to player, meaning that some women can return to competitive tennis quickly while others need longer. The measure adds to the WTA Tour's March announcement of a maternity pay program, funded by the Public Investment Fund (PIF), the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. That provides 12 months of paid leave, as well as grants for fertility treatments. Players previously had to assume the financial burden of taking an extended break from tennis. This article originally appeared in The Athletic. Sports Business, Tennis, Women's Tennis 2025 The Athletic Media Company
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Stop harassing Canadian drinkers
By David Clement Sen. Patrick Brazeau, who wrestled publicly with the demons of alcohol and emerged recovered and sober, has now set his regulatory sights on the substance he's shaken. His tale of redemption certainly stirs the heart. But he now seeks to impose the lessons he has drawn from his personal experiences on the rest of us. His twin bills, S-202 and S-203, would require cancer warning labels on every bottle of booze and banish alcohol promotion entirely. Not merely misguided, they are a nanny-state sermon dressed up as public health policy. Bill S-202 would require that every can of beer and bottle of Pinot bear warnings about cancer. Echoing the flawed claims of the Canadian Centre for Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA), the senator insists that alcohol is a 'group 1 carcinogen' with 'no safe level' of consumption. This is the kind of linguistic sleight-of-hand that thrives in the neo-prohibitionist mindset, conflating hazard with risk as if the mere possibility of harm were a death sentence. Saying there is 'no safe level' of alcohol is as fatuous as saying there is 'no safe level' of swimming or driving or sex. After all, each has been known to cause injury or death. But existence itself is a gamble and the human condition does not bend, and shouldn't, to absolutist rhetoric. In fact, one of the experts behind this 'no safe level' dogma has since backtracked, admitting on a BBC podcast that the phrase is more alarmist than accurate. The CCSA's own data, which Sen. Brazeau wields like a trump card, reveals the absurdity of his crusade. For a man consuming two drinks a day, the absolute increase in colorectal cancer risk is 0.0028 per cent — three one-thousandths of a per cent. Add up the risks for all cancers cited — liver, esophagus, larynx and so forth — and the total increase for our two-drink male is 0.0099 per cent — one one-hundredths of a per cent. For women, factoring in breast cancer, the figure is 0.0088 per cent. These are not numbers that scream 'public health crisis.' They are statistical whispers, barely audible in a world full of risks. Plastering cancer warnings on alcohol as if it were equivalent to tobacco sows panic where proportion is required. A regular smoker, for example, increases his risk of lung cancer by 2,400 per cent. Equating the two dangers, one a tiny fraction of a per cent and the other thousands of times larger, insults the intelligence of the drinking public and erodes the very credibility of health warnings. If the senator's goal is truly to arm consumers with facts, why not mandate labels proclaiming that for men two drinks a week may lower the risk of ischemic heart disease, which kills more Canadians every year than all the cancers cited by the CCSA combined? Why not cite the peer-reviewed studies — dating back to 1986 and confirmed in at least eight subsequent inquiries — that trace the 'J-curve,' an arc showing that moderate drinkers (one to two drinks daily) enjoy lower mortality rates than teetotallers? Why not also acknowledge the social virtues of a shared pint, and how alcohol, as anthropology and common sense attest, can knit communities together? If truth is the aim, let the labels show benefits as well as costs. But, no, the senator prefers a moralizing monotone that trusts neither citizen nor science. For its part, Bill S-203, would ban all alcohol advertising: print, digital, outdoor, even the fleeting glimpse of a beer logo in a movie or video game. Event sponsorships, point-of-sale displays, all gone. Again the senator draws a false equivalence with tobacco, ignoring the great difference in harm. The deeper question is: by what right does the state presume to shield adults from the promotion of a legal product? Especially one that if consumed in moderation carries very little risk at all. If the aim is to protect children from alcohol's attractions, fine, let's have that debate. But to infantilize adults as if they were incapable of navigating a billboard or a bar display is an affront to liberty itself. William Watson: Do good pipelines make good nations? Opinion: Will Canadians buy the pre-fab housing Ottawa wants to sell them? Sen. Brazeau's bills are a triumph of zeal over reason. They infantilize, exaggerate and disempower. The senator deserves congratulation and admiration for having conquered his own demons, but he has no mandate to exorcise anyone else's. David Clement is North American affairs manager at the Consumer Choice Center. Sign in to access your portfolio
