Remember a few years ago when someone decided that we were about to be attacked by biologically engineered smallpox? And that we had all better go and get that new vaccine that the US government paid almost a billion dollars for? And made some drug company (I think Aventis) very happy?

Well as we know, and I’m sure that the CDC would love to bury this folly in the center of the earth, the so-called first responders largely refused to get vaccinated and the plan fizzled to a complete halt. Plus a few lethal reactions, and the military stopped jabbing its personnel as well.

And of what of the threat? Well, the threat of a biologic weapons attack vanished as well. Strange how those things coincided.

But the reason I’m even mentioning smallpox now, is that today is one of those dates in medical history. In April 1721, when the U.S. was still a British colony, the first cases of smallpox arrived in Boston on a ship from the West Indies. The disease spread rapidly, as smallpox tends to, but the physicians of the day vehemently opposed a pamphlet that encouraged them to adopt an African practice in which the patient was given a weakened form of the disease to prevent getting the more dangerous strain.

Now, not to get up on the soapbox, but even back then, doctors were stubborn and stuck in what was considered “read medicine.” Same as today. Just as many docs pooh-pooh anything that doesn’t involve a prescription pad or surgery, it seems that they were of the same mindset almost 300 years ago. Even though they had absolutely no way of treating smallpox or preventing it, they weren’t willing to try a new method that might save lives. Sound familiar?

Anyway, on this date in 1721, a gentleman by the name of Zabdiel Boylston began inoculating a small group of patients, including his own two sons. When word got out that Boylston had ignored the ordinance that forbid vaccination, he was actually attacked by angry mobs. Why, I have no idea. But then, angry mobs often are a bit irrational. Especially in a case like this, where the vaccination might mean the difference between death and survival. People who survive smallpox are often terribly disfigured, so that was an incentive in and of itself.

Three years later Boylston packed up and left the Puritans behind, and sailed for London. His expertise was well received. It would be another 75 years before Edward Jenner developed the vaccine for smallpox that would eventually lead to eradication of the disease.

Unless of course, you believe Pres. Bush.

Now is that the most beautiful face on earth or what? And today’s her birthday. And for dinner she’s getting organic chicken thigh…yum!

Finally, an article that appears in mainstream media that is actually intelligent. In case you haven’t kept up with the news, it seems that there were two cases of sextuplets that were born within days of eachother; the Masche group born at 30 weeks gestation in Arizona and the Morrison sextups, born at 22 weeks gestation in Minnesota. This particular article is pragmatic news coverage of the Masche case, instead of the glowing, bubbling, and ignorant type:

From the Tuscon Citizen.com:

Can I be blunt? The female human was not meant to give birth to litters.

Less than a day apart, women from Arizona and Minnesota gave birth to a total of 12 babies. That’s right, two sets of sextuplets, one born Sunday in Minnesota to Ryan and Brianna Morrison and the other Monday in Phoenix to Bryan and Jenny Masche.

With little exception, the coverage of the pregnancies was neutral or positive, with humorous asides about 50-inch bellies, late-night feedings and mountains of dirty diapers.

One article, noting that 12 American couples have given birth to sextuplets who survived infancy, called the Masches of Lake Havasu “the lucky 13th.” Couples in California and Florida also are expecting sextuplets this year.

Because I am a media veteran who wrote about health care for five years, the refusal to cover this story for what it is drives me more than a little crazy.

Birthing six babies at once is not a medical miracle. It’s a medical disaster!

One of the Morrison sextuplets died Wednesday. His siblings’ chances of survival are low. The future health of all of these babies is a big question mark.

I agree completely. We fawn over these cases as though they are oh so wonderful, but they’re not. First, as of this writing, the third Morrison sextuplet has died. I’ve never even seen a single baby born at 22 weeks survive, so I’m doubtful that any of these “miracles” will survive.

The other babies have a better chance because they are bigger, but they may still have multiple health problems down the road. Plus, Jenny Masche is currently in critical condition due to her “miracles.” She went into acute heart failure shortly after her C-section, due to all of the extra blood in her body. It’s possible she may not make it, so there will be six miracles and no mom.

Both couples seem to come from very religious families and have a strong faith in God. Nothing wrong with that, but I hate the way people selectively invoke the will of God as convenient. They claim their religious beliefs could not allow them to selectively abort some of the fetuses, in order to ensure the health and survival of at least some of them–well, that is a personal choice. But it seems that if not for fertility treatments and other manipulations of the normal process of getting pregnant, a high tech birth, and a fancy high tech nursery in which to care for the infants, those sextuplets would not be here now. If they really believed in the will of God, as do Christian Scientists, then they would have relied on God. Not science.

Ditto for those who believe that contraceptives are wrong, and that only God “opens the womb and closes the womb.” So I guess it’s okay to use science to create a baby but not to prevent conception? And isn’t it God who starts the heart and therefore stops the heart? So would a person who is opposed to contraception refuse CPR during a heart attack? Afterall, God stopped the heart so who are you, mere mortal, to try to restart it? Would the person refuse a bypass–God afterall, clogged the arteries.

It seems most of the “God’s will” type talk seems to apply to the use of contraception, and preserving a pregnancy at all costs. It’s okay to use whatever high tech procedures necessary to get pregnant, get the baby out, and keep it alive, but preventing a pregnancy or aborting it goes against God’s will. Interesting logic. At least the Catholic church is somewhat consistent in their views, in that they oppose both artificial contraception and fertility treatments.

How can you decipher the brain of George Bush? Better yet, I don’t know how people can continue to support him. Now, not unexpected, he vetoed a new bill which would try to bring US stem cell research into the 20th century (bringing it into the 21st century is another matter).

This is from Forbes.com:

Vetoing a stem cell bill for the second time, President Bush on Wednesday sought to placate those who disagree with him by signing an executive order urging scientists toward what he termed “ethically responsible” research in the field.

Bush announced no new federal dollars for stem cell research, which supporters say holds the promise of disease cures, and his order would not allow researchers to do anything they couldn’t do under existing restrictions.

Announcing his veto to a roomful of supporters, Bush said, “If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line.”

How pathetic is this man? What would he know about being ethically responsible–I suppose that he doesn’t consider starting a war to be unethical, or denying Global Warming, or cutting funding to the Veterans Association. Bush’s list of “ethical endeavors” would take weeks to compile.

And I love this quote–as usual, another Bush blunder. “The deliberate destruction of human embryos.” Well gee, George, what do you think happens to the leftover embryos now? Do you think that they’re being wined and dined at the Ritz? How many have you invited to come and grow in your wife’s uterus, or that of your twins?

The man’s stupidity is legendary, but we know that already. But his vetoe of this bill just adds to it. And he will not allow this nation to cross this moral line…gee, okay that millions in this country can’t get medical care or that live on the streets, and it’s okay to go kill and maim tens of thousands of Iraqis for their oil, and kill thousands of American soldiers for the glory of Halliburton, but Bush doesn’t want to cross a moral line?

Oh, I forgot, he’s a Christian. He thinks killing is wrong. I guess that is in the New Testament. Jesus did say that we should only love pre-embryos in petri dishes and no one else.

This is a very interesting part of the article. Bush says that scientists should be working with the government to add other kinds of stem cell research to the list of projects eligible for federal funding. Well, they’ve been doing that for years already. Bush isn’t saying anything new, or offering anything that already isn’t out there.

Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., the bill’s chief Democratic supporter who has a daughter with juvenile diabetes, said the executive order is not a substitute for easing funding restrictions.

“While I support these other methods of research, the consensus among the scientific community is that these methods are years behind the progress of embryonic stem cell research,” she said, adding that British scientists recently announced that embryonic stem cells may be used to cure a form of macular degeneration within five years. “This research was made possible by an anonymous donation from a U.S. donor, who has become frustrated by curbs on stem cell work in this country.”

Now here’s the big question. Would Bush, or any of his naysayers, turn down lifesaving treatment that resulted from studying embryonic stem cells? Would Bush allow himself to become crippled, blind, or die, if a treatment was available? I kinda doubt it.

Stem cell research is moving rapidly ahead in other countries, where they don’t have the hypocritical moralists like Bush running the show. If Bush has such great respect for the life of pre-embryos, then he should outlaw their destruction completely. In fact, he should outlaw in-vitro fertilization, because that’s the process that creates the excess embryos, or at the very least, restrict more embryos from being created than are going to be used in one IVF round.

Otherwise, his logic is idiotic. Is it better for the embryos to be flushed down the toilet than used for scientific research? Does that make sense? Some of these embryos have been in deep freeze for a decade or more. Is that moral?

This segment comes from an interview with Michael Moore, about his new film Sicko. It appeared in the Seattle PI, and I thought his comment about socialized medicine vs. Christianized medicine was very provacative, to say the least. Certainly not something that the neo-Christians of Bush’s ilk want to hear.

“Socialized medicine” has become demonized as a political term. How do you reclaim it as a viable political idea?

By just coming right out there and ridiculing their efforts, showing them up for who they are, and then proudly claiming it. At one point when I was making the movie, I was thinking of renaming it myself, from “socialized medicine” to “Christianized medicine,” because that essentially is what Jesus would do. He said, “When you get to the Pearly Gates, we’re going to ask you a series of questions: When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you give me shelter? When I was sick, did you take care of me?” As we are a “Christian country,” as I often hear people say, maybe if we actually started acting that way, we wouldn’t have to deal with terms like “socialized medicine.” It would just be the normal Christian thing to do.

How many people call themselves Christians really feel this way? Afterall, a Christian is a follower of Jesus, right?

I was curious, so I did a quick search for Christian medical and nursing groups, and I’m relieved to see that at least one group is trying to put true Christian beliefs into practice. From MedicalNewsToday.com:

The Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the nation’s largest faith-based organization of Christian doctors, today announced a new initiative to encourage doctors to give of their time and resources to help the poor.

“We are pleased to be introducing the Four-Percent Solution program to doctors around the country,” said Dr. Al Weir, Director of Campus and Community Ministries and Director of Medical Education International for the 17,000-member CMDA. “The Four-Percent Solution offers very practical, tangible ways for doctors to put their faith and compassion into action.

“What we’re asking doctors to do,” explained Dr. Weir, “is to consider and commit to specific strategies to use God’s blessings to them in a way that blesses someone far less fortunate.”

“For example,” Dr. Weir said, “a doctor may choose to spend two weeks a year–about four percent of the year–in overseas mission work that directly impacts the healthcare, housing, job skills or nutrition of the poor.”

Doctors can accomplish their goal through the CMDA’s Global Health Outreach or Medical Education International, or through other mission organizations. Global Health Outreach offers over 40 trips a year to minister directly to poor patients, and Medical Education International sends doctors to teach doctors in other countries about the latest patient care techniques. Both outreach programs emphasize not only physical care and training but also spiritual ministry.

Dr. Weir explained, “Other options that doctors may consider for service and giving include accepting one uninsured patient out of every 25 patients–four percent of all the patients they see in their practices. Some doctors may choose to volunteer about eight hours a month in a healthcare clinic for the poor. Others may want to supplement their local church giving by contributing an additional four percent of their net profits to the poor–through the church or another Christian ministry serving the poor.”

What I really like about this is that their initiative doesn’t only mean going to far off nations and doing some well baby care, and then picking up business as usual upon returning to the U.S. These options also include helping people right at home, including giving care to the uninsured, or volunteering on a regular basis.

I don’t expect Christian nurses and doctors to work for free, but I do expect that if a healthcare worker declares themselves to be a follower of Jesus, that they bring some of that to their work. But getting back to the original comments by Moore, I think he really has a point. If we claim to be a Christian nation, then why aren’t we acting like it, especially in terms of healthcare?

I am a little behind with this story, as it appeared in the news a few months ago. But still, I think it is worth posting about now, because this subject has come up before, and will come up again. And again, and again.

This is a really important story, and one which hopefully will set a precedent. Who owns a body? Who makes the final decision on care? Who who who???

The right to select the treatment of choice is as important as the right to refuse treatment. But while it is fairly well established that an adult in his or her right state of mind is free to make decisions regarding their healthcare (providing that the FDA doesn’t interfere), it is a hazy murky web when it comes to a minor.

Yes, we all have heard the stories of Jehovah’s Witnesses trying to deny their infants blood transfusions, and Christian Scientists allowing children to die from an easily treatable infection. Those are the horror stories, and the cases are a little more clear-cut. We used to routinely transfuse JW infants in the NICU if they needed blood, and in all cases except one, the parents were okay with it. Even relieved, I think, that the decision had been pulled from their hands.

But even so, there is the issue of power of parent vs. power of the state. Does the state have the right to force unwanted treatment onto a child? In some cases, local governments have threatened to have children removed the home if the parents refused to put their kid on Ritalin. I kid you not. I regard that as a blatant abuse of government power. Attention deficit disorder is a subjective diagnosis, and certainly not life threatening. It’s nothing that should involve any government interference, except that the local school doesn’t want to have to deal with the child, so they get the government involved and order him drugged.

Obviously, a baby or very young child isn’t going to make medical decisions—although, in the recent separation of the Utah conjoined twins, the twins were interviewed by a psychologist. Since the twins were already four years old, the separation surgery was more dangerous from both a physical and psychological standpoint. But the twins clearly said that they saw themselves in the future as two separate people, and their input heavily figured into the scheme of things.

But what about a teenager? What about a mature 16 year old who understands his illness, understands the treatment, and decides to say no, with the blessing of his family? Does the physician and social services have any right to interfere?

Apparently, some think that they do.

From abc news.com:

A 16-year-old cancer patient ’s legal fight ended in victory Wednesday when his family’s attorneys and social services officials reached an agreement that would allow him to forgo chemotherapy.

At the start of what was scheduled to be a two-day hearing, Accomack County Circuit Judge Glen A. Tyler announced that both sides had reached a consent decree, which Tyler approved.

Under the decree, Starchild Abraham Cherrix, who is battling Hodgkin’s disease, will be treated by an oncologist of his choice who is board-certified in radiation therapy and interested in alternative treatments. The family must provide the court updates on Abraham’s treatment and condition every three months until he’s cured or turns 18.

Tyler emphasized that the decree states that the parents weren’t medically neglectful.

Abraham saw the doctor last week, and defense attorneys told the judge that the doctor has indicated that he thinks that Abraham can be cured.

After the short hearing, the judge looked at Abraham and said, “God bless you, Mr. Cherrix.”

Last summer, the teen was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system considered very treatable in its early stages. He was so debilitated by three months of chemotherapy that he declined a second, more intensive round that doctors recommended early this year.

There is a rather disgusting backstory to this case. This is from the website called Abraham’s Journey, which explains what exactly happened.

In late August of 2005, fifteen year old Abraham Cherrix received the devastating news that he had a form of cancer known as Hodgkin’s disease. During the next few months Abraham faithfully pursued conventional chemotherapy through its recommended cycle. However, in February of 2006 he learned that chemotherapy had not cured the disease.

Doctors then recommended a higher dosage of chemotherapy combined with radiation and culminating in stem cell treatment, offering Abraham less than a 50% chance of survival under this treatment. This time the Cherrix family did their own research, contacted many other cancer victims and survivors, prayed, and discussed all their options. After reflecting on the brutal side-effects of the previously ineffective treatment and the hope offered by in a natural remedy, Abraham and his family chose to pursue alternative treatment in Mexico. A legal battle has ensued.

The Cherrix family has placed life on hold to pursue treatment for their son. Since early May, the family has been involved in continuous litigation with the Department of Social Services to continue their desired course of treatment. In the Juvenile and Domestic Court, the parents faced charges of neglect, loss of custody of their son, and orders to submit to the recommended cycle of higher dosage chemotherapy and radiation by Tuesday, July 25, 2006.

The website has a number of news stories linked to it, but the bottom line is that the court “ordered” Abraham to the hospital to undergo chemo and radiation. Abraham steadfastly refused. This is a mature 16 year old who has already been there and done that, and no thanks, he was not going there again. The conventional therapy put him into a brief remission after nearly killing him, and he wanted to try something else.

At the witching hour, a judge rescinded the order, and said that Abraham did not have to show up for his chemo and radiation. I guess the new judge had a bit of a brain, and realized that this would be a public relations nightmare of elephant sized proportions. The only way they would get Abraham to the hospital would be to drag the kid at gunpoint. And then they would have to either sedate him or strap him down to the bed into order to get him to submit to treatment. This would give new meaning to the term government interference.

But I wonder, what would the nurses have done? Would any nurse, in good conscious, agree to participate in the treatment of this teen–who is obviously mature and old enough to make up his own mind–and who was forcibly brought to the hospital? Or would there be the usual martyr types who think that they should do what they can for the “good of the patient,” even if its infusing toxic substances into his veins against his will? I’m glad the scenario didn’t reach that point, but it would have been interesting to see how nurses responded to such a situation.

Another part of the story is the involvement of social services. Yes, social workers can play an important role, but there have been way too many cases where vulnerable people have slipped through their fingers. I know, too heavy a caseload, poor funding, but as in the case of Abraham–wasting valuable time and resources on people who neither required or wanted their “help.”

Abraham’s family opted to refuse the standard treatment offered by his doctors and pursue an alternative herbal treatment in Mexico. The family said it was the doctor at the local children’s hospital brought the case to the attention of social services, and it was a social worker who asked the courts to step in and force Abraham to resume chemotherapy.

Now, don’t the social workers have “real” cases to worry about? Maybe they might concentrate on cases of children being abuse, assaulted, falling through the cracks, and so on, instead of trying to play God. I’m sure that there are enough families in dire need who could use their help, but yet they chose to inflict untol grief on this one family, to say nothing of the legal expenses.

If I was this family, I would sue both the doctor and the social services department for expenses incurred. According to the website, the family is in dire straits and their house was foreclosed.

The bright side is that in March 2007, Abraham’s Law was passed in the state of Virginia, where he was living at the time this incident occurred.

The measure specifies that a decision by parents or a legal guardian to refuse a particular medical treatment for a child with a life-threatening condition will not be deemed a refusal to provide necessary care if the decision is made jointly by the parents and the child, the child has reached the age of 14 and is sufficiently mature to have an informed opinion on the subject of his medical treatment, the parents and the child have considered alternative treatment options, and the parents and the child believe in good faith that the decision is in the child’s best interest.

The FDA has it in for cherries. Be careful, the next time you pop one in your mouth, because you never know when the FDA may creep up behind you and confiscate not only your bag of cherries, but your bank accounts and worldly possessions (yes, they have done so in the past, I kid you not).

Dr. Mercola, who is one of the larger thorns in the FDA’s ass, has some interested comments under the title “The FDA Has Blood on its Hands.”

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) says, “enough is enough,” to the Big Pharma Bullies running the FDA. He has introduced bill H.R. 2117 (the Health Freedom Protection Act) into the House of Representatives, which would effectively stop the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the health benefits of dietary supplements.

He wants to put an end to the federal bureaucrats’ meddling with your right to choose healthy alternatives over harmful and deadly patent drugs, and believes Americans should not be prevented form learning about simple ways to improve their health.

This bill puts the burden of proof on the FDA/FTC when it comes to proving that a label or advertisement is false and misleading. As it stands now, the manufacturer has to satisfy an unobtainable standard of proof—as was the case with the American cherry growers a few years ago.

The FDA went on a witch-hunt after the growers used evidence from studies funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to state that cherries have anti-inflammatory properties.

The FDA ruled that the cherry growers could not use that evidence to make these claims. Instead, the FDA approved another dangerous anti-inflammatory drug that went on to take the lives of some 20,000 Americans … Clearly, the FDA does not object to the spilling of blood in the course of maintaining the pharmaceutical status quo.

Big Pharma has the FDA firmly in pocket, and censoring vital information—like the fact that eating 20 cherries has the same effect as popping aspirin or a Cox-2 inhibiting drug—is their only way to stay in business! Perhaps bill H.R. 2117 can get enough traction to stick if enough of us stand firmly behind it, pushing at the rear.

So would you rather eat cherries or pop pills with toxic side effects? Pay for a bag of cherries, or get a second mortgage on your house to pay for the FDA approved drugs?

According to this article, eating 20 cherries has the same effect as popping aspirin or a Cox-2 inhibiting drug. And the FDA is trying its best not to let you find that out.

I don’t agree with everything that Dr. Mercola writes about, and certainly, I have no financial stake in his website or any of the products that he sells (I wish I did). But when it comes to the FDA, he certainly knows what he’s talking about, and always offers links to the data.

Here’s another tidbit for your Saturday morning pleasure. Over 80% of the FDA’s resources are geared toward the approval of new drugs, and only 20% for all the rest. Only 5% goes to drug safety. Think about that the next time you pop a pill. How safe and effective is it really?

On this date in 1860, the first 15 students entered the training program with St. Thomas’s Hospital in London. It was Florence Nightingale’s grand experiment, which as we all know, was a great success in some respects and backfired badly in others. But whatever, it is a date indelibly etched into the archives of nursing history.

Just when you think that the media can’t get any dumber (apologies to those intelligent journalists who care about their work) and the so-called experts can’t get any more dense, along comes something that makes you doubt that there’s any hope left for the human race.

This appeared on the website of Cbs5.com which I assume is a local California channel.

Report: California Facing Nursing Shortage

(AP) SACRAMENTO California’s top budget analyst says the state’s nursing shortage will continue to expand unless something is done to attract more students to nursing schools.

A report by Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill says California is facing a shortfall of 12-thousand full-time registered nurses within seven years if colleges don’t increase enrollment and improve graduation rates.

The report is urging the Legislature to award nursing schools with completion bonuses if they improve those graduation rates.

Now isn’t that ground breaking news? And I love their conclusion–that mass producing nurses is the only way that the shortage will be averted. But then, isn’t this contradictory to other reports?

They say that they need to attract more students to nursing schools, while other reports say that nursing schools are turning away thousands of qualified students. Is your head spinning yet?

And FYI, just for the record, the only thing that is going to attract people to nursing schools is to make nursing a more desirable career. And oh yeah, not only do you need to churn them out, you’ve got to keep them working.

I guess some people think that there are not enough people with a minimal amount of intelligence who can become nurses. Or at least, hire semi-literate dorks to put together these totally inane advertising campaigns.

Now this priceless FAQ on nursing was put together by the Office of Nursing Workforce Research, Planning and Development (sounds important, doesn’t it), at the University of Vermont. If this doesn’t scare a person away, then I don’t know what will.

First off, it sounds like it was written for someone with a second grade reading level who has trouble enunciating words that are longer than two syllables. Then again, maybe a second grade audience is what they have in mind.

Q. What is a Registered Nurse?

A. After graduating from a nursing school at either a two-year or a four-year college, you must take an examination to become a licensed registered nurse. The exam is called the NCLEX examination. NCLEX stands for National Council Licensure Examination. Don’t panic, almost everyone passes, and if you don’t pass the first time, you can take it again. The state will send your license to you by mail. If you want to be a traveling nurse, you’ll be able to get a license in each state.

I kid you not, this is really on their website. Maybe they should put a disclaimer on the website and mention that this was written with people with double digit IQs. If your IQ is in three digits, then please bypass this website.

But this one is my favorite.

Q. What if I can’t stand the sight of blood?

A. Not everyone is cut out for the emergency room or the operating room. Many nurses choose to stay out of the hospital, and don’t wear a uniform. There are so many options in the profession. One is bound to suit you.

If you want to be the boss, nursing has a place for you. Nurses are:

* educators

* managers

* executives

* entrepreneurs

* lawyers

* government officials

How do I begin to even attack this? The stupidity is even beyond my capacity to make snide and sarcastic remarks about it?

If you can’t stand the site of blood, then it’s quite possible you’re not going to be able to stand the site of vomit and poop (other than your own). Bloody diarrhea, yum. If a person can’t stand the sight of body fluids, they’re not going to get far in nursing school. What is the student supposed to do, cover her eyes when drawing blood?

Now, I really love the “options” they give for nurses who want to stay out of the hospital. Uh, if a person wants to be a lawyer, then why the hell would he or she go to nursing school? They’d go to law school. If they want to be an educator, then get a degree in education. Want to be an entrepreneur? Start a business.

They make it sound like nursing is somehow a prerequisite for all of these professions, when in fact, they all have nothing whatsoever to do with nursing. Excuse me, but what sort of moron put this together?

Here’s another good one.

Q. Is nursing a good profession for guys?

A. Nursing is for anyone who wants to:

* earn between $40,000 and $60,000 per year

* be able to work anywhere in the world

* work with their hands and their mind

* make a difference every day (save a life)

* have flexible hours

* use technology

Notice that they say nothing about what nursing is, or what you do as a nurse. Work with their hands and their mind—as far as I know, that describes everything we do. Your hands don’t work unless your mind is also working. As far as their salary range, some nurses earn less and other earn a lot more. Use technology–well, that certainly describes a day in the life of a nurse, doesn’t it? Notice that they don’t mention that if you work in a hosptial, you may have to do shift work, weekends, holidays, mandatory overtime…oops, I guss they forgot that.

Anyway, I’m sure that there are now loads of second graders in Vermont, who having read this nice website written on their level, are telling their parents that they are going to become a nurse so that they can become lawyers.

I am still reeling over the arrogance of that CEO in San Luis Obispo, who’s “complaining” because nurses have a better option. Even though Catholic West Healthcare made half a billion in profit, he still expects nurses to come work for him at half the salary that they can get elsewhere.

And I wonder–did French Hospital fire nurses aides and unit clerks? A lot of California hospitals did that, because they’re really pissed off at the mandated nurse/patient ratios. Fine, they say, we have to obey the ratio, but we’ll make up for it by not giving the nurse any help.

At any rate, this is just one more story that solidifies the truth that many of us have been aware of all along–this is no real nursing shortage, just a shortage of acceptable work places. There are 2.9 million RNs in the U.S., and that’s not enough? Half a million do not work in nursing at all, and about 55% work in hospitals. The number of nurses working in hospitals and long term care keeps declining–gee, I wonder why.

And now, another chapter in the continuing saga of the nursing shortage. This time around, we have irate CEOs who are pissed to hell that nurses are flocking to higher paying jobs, and not accepting the pathetic wages that they are offering.

It’s really pathetic, actually, how a CEO with a zillion dollar income can dare to complain about unfair competition. Why doesn’t he live on the salary that he wants to pay nurses?

The backstory is as follows: this is California, which has one of the worst nursing shortages. San Luis Obispo, which is a lovely place to live on the Central Coast, is very expensive as is much of the state and is also one of the places where nurses just don’t seem to want to hang out. Can pay be a factor?

From Sanluisobispo.com:

A record number of new nurses graduated this weekend from Cuesta College, and while most plan on working at local hospitals, higher salaries at state facilities and hospitals beyond the San Luis Obispo County line are luring some away.

Dan Drager, the only man among 50 registered nursing graduates, plans on moving to Sacramento for work — though the surfer would love to stay on the Central Coast.

“The only reason (to move) is pay,” he said.

Drager, 30, said he can earn $15 more an hour in Sacramento, and he wants to buy a home and car. “This area is just really unrealistic for those things,” he said.

You know, $15/hour is a lot. That comes to $100 per day for an 8 hour shift, and about $2000 a month–enough to pay a mortgage, perhaps?

But the best is yet to come. Rather than raise salaries and make their hospitals more appealing, the powers that be are pissed off that the nurses aren’t coming to work there, and are trying to get other places to lower their pay!!

Cuesta trains about 75 percent of the county’s nurses. All four hospitals in the county support the nursing program financially and through clinical training. But hospital officials are worried that recent salary increases at the California Men’s Colony and Atascadero State Hospital may thwart their ability to recruit and retain qualified nurses.

“We are deeply concerned about this escalating wage disparity and its frightful impact to our community’s health care,” French Hospital CEO Alan Iftinuk wrote in an April letter to Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee.

CMC now starts registered nurses at $85,000 — twice what a nurse fresh out of school could make at local hospitals and about $20,000 to $30,000 more than experienced nurses earn.

Can you believe the balls on this guy? Finally, nurses are being offered decent pay and Mr. CEO is writing to the state assembly in protest. So let’s take a closer look. Alan Iftinuk says he is concerned about escalating wage disparity—uh, is he talking about the disparity of his wages as compared to what his hospital pays nurses? Or the disparity between the wages of all of his senior managers and other parasites in suits, and the salary he pays his nursing staff? Oh, silly me, now why would I think that Al would ever think of that.

And here’s another mind twister. French Hospital is part of Catholic Healthcare West, and I just saw that they earned $438 million in 2006—–and they are on track to beat that number in 2007. Now don’t you feel sorry for those poor little community hospitals who can’t “afford” to keep up with these bright new salaries?

I have a solution for you, Al. How about you donate your Christmas bonus to the nurses, and increase their salaries so that they are competitive with the state facilities? I bet your nursing shortages will disappear. They always do when nurses are paid well, and have a pleasant, safe and healthy environment to work in.

The article says that another hospital, Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center, is throwing out the bells and whistles, now that they have some serious competition. They’re offering nurses retention bonuses, continuing education online and developing a program to encourage nurse input on hospital policies. Well isn’t that nice of them, to finally acknowledge nurse input. They are also developing a mortgage assistance program, which is badly needed in California.

But you better believe that none of these perks would ever have materialized if the state facilities hadn’t upped their wages.

It seems that the powers-that-be in South Africa are about as dumb as they are over here. FYI, South Africa has one of the highest rates of AIDS in the world. That is in addition to a multitude of other more mundane health problems, and their healthcare system is in a bit of a crisis.

One of the problems is a dire nursing shortage, but due to horrendous working conditions and a piddly salary, their nurses are going to work abroad. Yeah, I know South Africa’s got problems, but governments have to realize at some point that nurses are not ethereal angels of mercy, who are willing to survive in mud huts and dine on bread crusts. South African nurses would like to be able to afford to live in a home with a flush toilet, and maybe be able to afford to busfare to work.

But it seems that the healthcare workers who haven’t fled the country are standing up for themselves and demanding better compensation. And so what does the government do? Fire them. Right on, guys. It’s not like they’ve got a whole lot of other workers waiting in line to replace them.

From Scientific American:

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - South Africa’s health department began firing health workers on Saturday over a week-old strike by public servants which has crippled government hospitals and schools, state media reported.

Are these people crazy or what? They don’t have enough healthcare workers, and do they think that firing these people is going to have a positive impact? Not only will they have less workers, but it surely isn’t going to entice anyone to go into healthcare professions.

On Friday soldiers helped doctors tend to patients at one hospital as the government vowed to assert control over the strike, called to enforce workers’ demand for a 10 percent salary increase, brought down from an initial 12 percent.

The government is offering 6.5 percent, but unions say this only just keeps pace with inflation, which quickened to 6.3 percent in April.

COSATU says it is urging all of its more than one million members to prepare for a general sympathy strike on Wednesday to push labour’s demands.

Let’s add a little more spice to this. The South African parliment recently awarded themselves a 57% pay increase, while nurses are supposed to be happy with 6%. So what’s wrong with this picture? Surely there is money to go around, except the government prefers to line the pockets of politicians with it. I’m sure that the average South African would much prefer that the wages of healthcare workers increased to the point where they wouldn’t be leaving the country.

Now here some great news that is sure to make people consider nursing as a career: New graduate nurses in Vermont make between $16 to $19 per hour, depending on geographic location. The highest starting salaries in Vermont are around $40,000 per year.

Now, Vermont isn’t one of the most expensive places to live in the U.S, but $16 an hour for a nurse? A nurse who has gone to school, may have a BSN, and who has sat for boards and passed? A person who is in charge of your life and whose very skill can save or kill you, and she’s being paid $16 an hour?

A high school graduate, with no training or skill, can make more than that working for the post office. Just consider the implications. A person who delivers the mail can make more money than the one pushing potent drugs into your veins.

I actually knew an LPN in Florida who had wanted to go back to school to get her RN, but was really struggling to support herself and two kids. Going back to school meant a time committment, student loans, and when she finished, she realized that the pay increase wasn’t going to be all that much. So, she applied for a job at the post office, took some sort of exam and passed, and left. I forgot what she was going to be doing there, but the hours were much better, and her pay was MORE than I was making as an RN!

Yes, I know, this is very politcally incorrect. All we need to do to fix a 50 year nursing shortage is just churn out more nurses. Silly me.

This report is from 2001, but the stats haven’t changed and neither have working conditions.

From Elderweb.com:

The Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals (FNHP) commissioned Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., to conduct a study among current direct care nurses and former direct care nurses to examine their perspectives on the nursing profession. Seven in ten current nurses say that their facility has a major or moderate problem retaining and recruiting qualified nurses, with more than two in five saying that each is a major problem. 50% of current nurses say that they have considered leaving the patient care field for reasons other than retirement in the last two years. They report that the health care profession faces a serious risk of losing one in five current nurses (21%) from the direct patient care setting for reasons other than retirement.

Isn’t that interesting? And here our experts and talking heads keep telling us that all we need do is simply mass produce more nurses. Train nurses on robo dummies, cut the length of nursing trains, do anything possible to pump more into the system.

The two most-often cited improvements that nurses would like to see are increased staffing levels and higher salaries. Three in four potential leavers say that they would consider continuing in patient care for longer if conditions at their job improved.

So you see, the nursing shortage could be solved almost overnight if hospitals would stop farting around. If they really made concrete changes, a lot of nurses would return. There are about 150,000 nurses working full time at non-nurse jobs. That doesn’t include the number who work part time, or who may have gone back to school, or who may be engaging in other activities like starting up a business or working as a freelance writer. There are 2.8 million RNs in this country, and we don’t have enough?

California was cold. The Bay Area to be exact. Even out in the East Bay, where it is usually hot and sun-baked, brown and crunchy this time of year, it was chilly. The brown crunch was there, but so was heavy morning fog and then an annoying cold wind that made sitting still outside impossible. I know that regular Seattle people, the kind who wear shorts and Birkenstocks in January when it’s hailing, would probably be working up a sweat.

I guess I complained a little too much, because coming back home yesterday evening, I was greeted by temps in the low 50s and rain. Today more rain. Well, at least its nice and green. It certainly is a startling contrast to California, especially when looking down from my airplane seat.

And they are having a nursing shortage in California. I guess even with the ultra high nursing salaries, they just can’t compete with the astronomical cost of housing. Maybe if hospitals are really all that desperate, they can enlist some govt help and buy up some condos and homes and then resell them to nurses at normal prices. Then watch the shortage disappear like magic.

Blood transfusions should be denied to anyone working at the FDA.
No, let them bleed to death. Hemorrhage and die. If they wish to keep our blood supply short for no reason at all, they should be the first to accept the consequences.

From UKGay.com: (actually an AP story)

Gay men remain barred from donating blood, the U.S. government said Wednesday, leaving in place a 1983 prohibition meant to prevent the spread of H.I.V. through transfusions.

The Food and Drug Administration reaffirmed the policy on its Web site on Wednesday, more than a year after the Red Cross and two other blood groups criticised the ban as “medically and scientifically unwarranted.”

“I am disappointed, I must confess,” said Dr. Celso Bianco, executive vice president of America’s Blood Centers, whose members provide nearly half the nation’s blood supply.

Before giving blood, all men are asked if they have had sex, even once, with another man since 1977, when the AIDS epidemic began in the United States, according to the drug agency.

So according to the FDA, all gay men, even if they’ve had sex once with another man who was HIV negative and used a condom, are a “risk” to the nation’s blood supply.

Or if the guy had sex with another man in 1979, and then decided he liked women better, and is HIV negative–the FDA also considers him “too risky” to donate blood.

The FDA, as they keep proving over and over, does not operate according to scientific data, common sense, or intelligence. This gay thing I assume is just part of the politics that has taken over the organization, and been responsible for most of their recent declarations–like that marijuana has no medicinal value, despite the IOM report saying the opposite and hundreds of scientific studies; their faltering on Plan B, and now gay men.

Politics and assuring the financial health of the industries that they are supposed to be regulating. What a great organization the FDA is. Well, my original remedies still hold. Send them to China where they know how to take care of corrupt officials. Make them eat the tainted pet food that they dragged their feet about, and still can’t come up with an explanation for it. And let them bleed to death. Deny anyone working at the FDA a blood transfusion.