Children's Hospitals Under Golden Arches

           The article from Salon.com titled "Why Children's Hospitals Tolerate McDonald's"  is about the "difficult alliance" (Parikh 1) between children's hospitals around the country and the famous golden arches. Personally, I had absolutely no idea why any reputable children's hospital would go as far as having an actual fast food restaurant on site in the same building as children suffering from type II diabetes, obesity, and other health related illnesses, but many of the top hospitals do exactly that. But, as I read the article the proof was in the profits. Although both companies benefited from the other, I found it odd that hospitals picked a fast food restaurant famous for unhealthy foods to help bring in revenue. There did seem to be some moral sense to it however; the article brings up the point that it provides sick children with a familiar and normal aspect to their hectic hospitalized lives.Also, the fact that McDonald's funds a foundation to raise money for chronic children helps provide some reason for the partnership. Even after reading the article, although I see some of it's benefits, I don't agree with the whole idea of something so famously unhealthy in the center of a place for recovery that is so pro-health. But, that's just my opinion.
          Throughout the article, the author uses some negative diction to describe McDonald's . He says McDonald's is "the archetypal bad guy in the war against childhood obesity" and that Morgan Spurlock "called it 'utterly irresponsible' and 'a flagrant violation of the doctor's pledge of "Primum non nocere' (First, do no harm.)" (Parikh 1). The author also uses some statistics, prior knowledge of the audience, and common sense points of evidence, logos. These statistics seem to work because they shock the reader at the sheer abundance of such a partnership. Based on their prior knowledge, readers are forced to agree that hospitals are against unhealthy eating which makes them utilize common sense and come to the conclusion that this isn't a great idea. He then uses pathos to appeal to the reader emotionally and force them to think about a different perspective. He says, " Imagine having to come to the hospital over and over again for invasive and painful treatments. McDonald's represents normalcy for many kids and their families, and could be a fun, comfortable place to go under very grave circumstances." (Parikh 1). The article also mentions that Spurlock writes: "The doctors at Texas Children's Hospital told me they had young patients who were dying of cancer, and it was hard to get them to eat anything. At least these poor kids would eat some fries, take a bite of a burger: food they were familiar with." (Spurlock, Parikh 1). This use of pathos allows the reader to acknowledge one of the benefits of the unlikely business partners. This article forces the reader to question the stereotype of super-size-me McDonald's, and see the somewhat unusual partnership the restaurant has with top children's hospitals around the country.

"Why Children's Hospitals Tolerate McDonald's" by Rahul Parikh
http://www.salon.com/life/poprx/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2011/09/19/poprx_mcdonalds