Teacher overwhelmed as he braves the shave for pupils mental health
A CITY teacher is overwhelmed after braving the shave for pupils' mental health.
Benjamin Holman, who teaches at North Worcester Primary Academy, has raised money to support pupils suffering from mental health problems like depression.
The year five teacher was cheered by pupils as he had his locks shaved off during a school assembly on Wednesday by headmaster Stuart Grimes.
READ MORE: Moment thief kicks down door to steal e-bike leaving victim unable to work
Benjamin Holman with headmaster Stuart Grimes after the shave. (Image: North Worcester Primary Academy) Mr Holman has so far raised £1,000 for Place2Be - a school-based mental health charity, providing support to children, families and school-based staff when they need it most.
He said: "I am truly overwhelmed by everyone's generosity and support – donations from friends, family, colleagues, pupils, and the wider community mean so much.
"I cannot believe we've raised over £1000!
READ MORE: Police with speed cameras on busy Worcestershire road after consistent issues
Mr Holman after the first part of his hair was shaved. (Image: North Worcester Primary Academy) "It is worth braving the cold head!
"The children of North Worcester Primary were fantastic in showing their support during the live shave - their cheers and applause kept me smiling throughout!
READ MORE: Teenagers illegal e-scooters seized after riding them inside supermarket
"Children's mental health is incredibly important, and every contribution helps make a difference.
"Thank you all for your amazing support."
Mr Holman's Just Giving page can be found here.
Figures provided on Mr Holman's Just Giving page highlight how one in five children and young people now have a diagnosable mental health issue.
This equates to six children in every classroom with a condition like depression or anxiety.
The headshave was also filmed so audiences could watch Mr Holman's grimace as he gradually became bolder.
Students can be heard cheering him on and supporting him through the challenge.
The head shave was done during the school's Children's Mental Health Week.
A spokesperson for North Worcester Primary said: "Did you know that 1 in 5 children experience mental health difficulties and can wait an average of 10 years before receiving any help or support?
"This is simply not ok, and at North Worcester, we believe that children should have access to the support they need to build life-long coping skills and strategies to thrive.
Benjamin Holman covered in shaving cream. (Image: North Worcester Primary Academy) "By donating to this fantastic cause, we create a positive change together."
Place2Be is a children's mental health charity that works to improve the emotional well-being of children and young people.
It helps children cope with wide-ranging and often complex social issues, including bullying, bereavement, domestic violence, family breakdown, neglect and trauma.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
01-06-2025
- Buzz Feed
Why You Should Be Wearing Sunscreen On Airplanes
Earlier this year, TikTok user FindingFiona uploaded a travel video that got serious attention, garnering more than 2 million views and 1,000 comments. In the post, she emphasized the importance of wearing sunscreen on flights, citing reports of people incurring more sun damage when they're at higher altitudes. 'Even though you're inside the aircraft, because of the high altitudes, you're actually experiencing stronger UV radiation, especially if you're in the window seat,' she says in the video. According to dermatologists, the TikToker's claim is partially correct — but it's also a little wrong. 'The good news is that the true risk from one flight, or somebody who flies occasionally, is probably low,' said Dr. Elizabeth Jones, an assistant professor of dermatology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. But Jones noted that for flight crew members and pilots, the risk is higher. 'People who are flying occupationally, they're going to be exposed much more to ultraviolet light given — especially if they're in the cockpit — the size of the windshield,' and given all the time they spend at a higher altitude, she said. Jones pointed to a 2015 study that found pilots and cabin crew have roughly twice the incidence of melanoma, a less common but more serious form of skin cancer, when compared to the general population. So, there is a connection between flying and sun damage. Below, dermatologists explain what you should know about your sun damage risk when you're at cruising altitude. Airplane windows block out most UVB rays, but not all UVA rays. 'Airplane windows effectively block out most of the UVB rays,' Jones said, referring to the rays that can cause sunburn and skin cancer. So even if you're sitting in the window seat, you likely won't end up with sunburn after a flight. But that doesn't mean other damage can't occur. This is also true for non-airplane windows, said Dr. Jennifer Holman, a dermatologist with U.S. Dermatology Partners Tyler in Texas. 'Most typical windows in a house or a car are going to filter out ... like 97%, 98% of the UVB radiation, which is typically the wavelength that people think of that causes sunburns,' she said. While windows block these rays, they don't block all rays. According to Jones, airplane windows don't fully keep out UVA rays, which can 'cause premature aging, wrinkles and ultimately can contribute to skin cancer as well.' (Jones did note, however, that 'some of the older windows block out about 50% of UVA rays' and 'some of the newer models are more effective at even blocking out UVA.') Again, this goes beyond airplanes: Holman said most glass windows, including your car windows and the windows at your local coffee shop, also don't offer UVA protection. In general, 'most glass does not filter out UVA,' she noted. Wearing sunscreen on a plane can protect you from these harmful rays, which Holman said penetrate 'more deeply into the skin' and put you 'at risk for different types of skin cancer, including the most deadly form of skin cancer, melanoma.' So, who needs sunscreen on an airplane? The short answer: everyone. Sunscreen is important for folks to wear daily, whether or not you're taking a flight. 'As a dermatologist, of course, I'm encouraging all of my patients to wear their sunscreen as a daily habit every day, just for the exposures that we face and the free radicals that are out in the world from UV radiation,' Holman said. While it is important for everyone to wear sunscreen on a plane, Jones said certain people should take particular caution. 'Who should consider wearing sunscreen on a plane?' she said. 'Certainly, someone with a personal or family history of skin cancer may want to get that added protection by using a sunscreen.' Folks with fair skin who are more sensitive to the sun should consider that added protection, too. The same goes for people with medical conditions that make them susceptible to sun damage, and people who are on medication that increases sun sensitivity, Jones noted. Holman said that when shopping for sunscreen, you should find one that's labeled 'broad-spectrum,' meaning it protects against both UVA and UVB rays. This is always necessary, including on a plane when you aren't protected from that UVA light. Beyond sunscreen, Holman stressed that other protections are also helpful. 'The importance of physical protection, too ― wearing hats, sun protective clothing, sunglasses ― all those things continue to be important as we're protecting ourselves from ultraviolet exposure,' she said.
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- Yahoo
Why You Need To Be Extra Careful If You're Sitting In A Window Seat On A Plane
Earlier this year, TikTok user FindingFiona uploaded a travel video that got serious attention, garnering more than 2 million views and 1,000 comments. In the post, she emphasized the importance of wearing sunscreen on flights, citing reports of people incurring more sun damage when they're at higher altitudes. 'Even though you're inside the aircraft, because of the high altitudes, you're actually experiencing stronger UV radiation, especially if you're in the window seat,' she says in the video. According to dermatologists, the TikToker's claim is partially correct — but it's also a little wrong. 'The good news is that the true risk from one flight, or somebody who flies occasionally, is probably low,' said Dr. Elizabeth Jones, an assistant professor of dermatology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. But Jones noted that for flight crew members and pilots, the risk is higher. 'People who are flying occupationally, they're going to be exposed much more to ultraviolet light given — especially, if they're in the cockpit — the size of the windshield,' and given all the time they spend at a higher altitude, she said. Jones pointed to a 2015 study that found pilots and cabin crew have roughly twice the incidence of melanoma, a less common but more serious form of skin cancer, when compared to the general population. So, there is a connection between flying and sun damage. Below, dermatologists explain what you should know about your sun damage risk when you're at cruising altitude. 'Airplane windows effectively block out most of the UVB rays,' Jones said, referring to the rays that can cause sunburn and skin cancer. So even if you're sitting in the window seat, you likely won't end up with sunburn after a flight. But that doesn't mean other damage can't occur. This is also true for non-airplane windows, said Dr. Jennifer Holman, a dermatologist with U.S. Dermatology Partners Tyler in Texas. 'Most typical windows in a house or a car are going to filter out ... like 97%, 98% of the UVB radiation, which is typically the wavelength that people think of that causes sunburns,' she said. While windows block these rays, they don't block all rays. According to Jones, airplane windows don't fully keep out UVA rays, which can 'cause premature aging, wrinkles and ultimately can contribute to skin cancer as well.' (Jones did note, however, that 'some of the older windows block out about 50% of UVA rays' and 'some of the newer models are more effective at even blocking out UVA.') Again, this goes beyond airplanes: Holman said most glass windows, including your car windows and the windows at your local coffee shop, also don't offer UVA protection. In general, 'most glass does not filter out UVA,' she noted. Wearing sunscreen on a plane can protect you from these harmful rays, which Holman said penetrate 'more deeply into the skin' and put you 'at risk for different types of skin cancer, including the most deadly form of skin cancer, melanoma.' The short answer: everyone. Sunscreen is important for folks to wear daily, whether or not you're taking a flight. 'As a dermatologist, of course, I'm encouraging all of my patients to wear their sunscreen as a daily habit every day, just for the exposures that we face and the free radicals that are out in the world from UV radiation,' Holman said. While it is important for everyone to wear sunscreen on a plane, Jones said certain people should take particular caution. 'Who should consider wearing sunscreen on a plane?' she said. 'Certainly, someone with a personal or family history of skin cancer may want to get that added protection by using a sunscreen.' Folks with fair skin who are more sensitive to the sun should consider that added protection, too. The same goes for people with medical conditions that make them susceptible to sun damage, and people who are on medication that increases sun sensitivity, Jones noted. Holman said that when shopping for sunscreen, you should find one that's labeled 'broad-spectrum,' meaning it protects against both UVA and UVB rays. This is always necessary, including on a plane when you aren't protected from that UVA light. Beyond sunscreen, Holman stressed that other protections are also helpful. 'The importance of physical protection, too ― wearing hats, sun protective clothing, sunglasses ― all those things continue to be important as we're protecting ourselves from ultraviolet exposure,' she said. Can A Trip To The Beach Give You Better Skin? Derms Explain The Effects Of Saltwater. 8 Dermatologist-Backed Habits For Healthy Skin — No Fancy Products Needed Is There Really A Difference Between Cheap And Expensive Sunscreen?
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Yahoo
Kansans challenge constitutionality of state law nullifying end-of-life choices of pregnant women
Five lawsuit plaintiffs, three women and two physicians from Lawrence, are part of a constitutional challenge of a Kansas law nullifying the end-of-life medical care decisions of pregnant women. The suit was filed Thursday in Douglas County District Court. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — Two physicians and three women are plaintiffs in a Kansas lawsuit challenging constitutionality of a state law invalidating advance medical directives outlining end-of-life treatment for pregnant patients. The group's lawsuit seeks to prohibit enforcement of a Kansas statute interfering with health care decisions outlined in living wills based exclusively on an individual's pregnancy status. Kansas is among states permitting state interference in advance directives for pregnant patients, regardless of the gestational age of a fetus, when a person was incapacitated or terminally ill. Issues surrounding end-of-life state law recently took on urgency as a brain-dead pregnant Georgia woman was placed on life support in deference to that state's abortion ban. Kansas patient plaintiffs Emma Vernon, Abigail Ottaway and Laura Stratton as well as Kansas physician plaintiffs Michele Bennett and Lynley Holman argued in the Douglas County District Court complaint filed Thursday the Kansas law violated rights of personal autonomy, privacy, equal treatment and freedom of speech under the Kansas Constitution's Bill of Rights by disregarding clearly articulated end-of-life choices of pregnant people. 'Because I'm currently pregnant, I don't get the peace of mind a living will is meant to provide,' said Vernon, a Lawrence resident who is pregnant. 'I shouldn't have to fear that my pregnancy could cost me my dignity and autonomy.' Vernon said she outlined in a living will the medical care she would want if faced with a life-threatening condition, but Kansas' law meant she wouldn't have control over her end-of-life care while pregnant. 'I am no less capable of planning my medical care simply because I am pregnant. I know what is best for me,' she said. Many states established a boundary for medical directives of pregnant individuals no longer capable of participating in end-of-life care in terms of the viability of a fetus. Kansas' statute invalidated decision-making authority of pregnant women regardless of gestational development of a fetus. Holman, a Lawrence physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, said responsibilities of health care professionals should be centered on honoring patients' autonomy and privacy. 'When a law compels me to act against my patients' clearly expressed decisions, it not only undermines the trust at the heart of the patient-provider relationship, but also threatens the ethical foundation of medical care,' Holman said. Defendants in the Kansas lawsuit are Kris Kobach, the state attorney general; Richard Bradbury, president of the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts; and Dakota Loomis, district attorney in Douglas County. The lawsuit seeks to prevent Kobach and Bradbury from enforcing state law nullifying directives of pregnant women. The case was filed by attorneys with Compassion & Choices, a Colorado nonprofit working to improve patient autonomy at the end of life; If/When/How, a California reproductive rights legal nonprofit; and the Topeka law firm of Irigonegaray & Revenaugh. Attorney Pedro Irigonegaray said Kansans valued individual rights and personal freedoms, but the state's pregnancy exclusion 'betrays those values by denying pregnant people the right to control their own medical decisions.' 'Our plaintiffs are simply asking for the same fundamental rights the Kansas Constitution guarantees to all Kansans,' said Jess Pezley, senior staff attorney at Compassion & Choices. 'Categorically stripping individuals of their right to make deeply personal end-of-life decisions because they are pregnant is not only offensive, it's fundamentally at odds with the values enshrined in the Kansas Constitution.' The lawsuit says Kansas law 'unjustly, discriminatorily and categorically disregards' the clearly expressed end-of-life decisions of pregnant women. The women plaintiffs asked the district court to 'affirm that the protections guaranteed by the Kansas Constitution apply equally to them and ensure that their most personal end-of-life decisions will be respected regardless of their pregnancy status.' In addition, the petition says the physician plaintiffs were 'deeply committed to the foundational medical principle that patients have a fundamental right to determine what treatment they receive, and that providing treatment without a patient's informed consent violates both medical ethics and the law.' 'Yet, Kansas law compels them to disregard their patients' clearly expressed end-of-life decisions, forcing them to provide their pregnant patients with a lower standard of care than any of their other patients receive,' the petition said. 'It demands this diminished care without offering any clarity on what end-of-life treatment they are required to provide — leaving them to guess at what the law expects while exposing them to civil, criminal and professional consequences for getting it wrong.'
