Today is the little Nish’s birthday. Is that face the most gorgeous on earth or what?

If towering snow capped mountains, thick forests, constant rain and Microsoft aren’t reason enough to convince you to move to Washington, here’s some news that might make you change your mind.

Sex.

Yes, people living in Washington state are apparently screwing around quite a bit. According to the Washington State Department of Health the rates of STDs in the state are soaring.

Gonorrhea cases in 2006 increased 13% from the year before to the highest rates seen in 13 years. We’re also seeing increased resistance to antibiotics and an increase in risky behavior–obviously, but I love when the talking heads tack that on.

The award for highest rates of gonorrhea go to Cowlitz County, which has clocked in with more than triple the state average of 66.4 cases per 100,000 residents. Chlamydia remains the most commonly reported STD in Washington, with the most cases reported among women 15-24 years old.

Overall, more than 22,000 cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis infection were reported to local health agencies in Washington in 2006.

Now isn’t this something to be proud of!

…and that would be Monsanto. Probably the most evil corporation operating on Earth today, and one with the most potential for destroying the world’s food supply.

Yes, I know this isn’t about nursing, but a great victory over Monsanto is something worth writing about. Especially since it gets so little coverage in mainstream meda. You know, people are more interested in Lindsay Lohan’s latest drug addiction than in what they’re eating.

From PubPat.com:

NEW YORK – July 24, 2007 — The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected four key Monsanto patents related to genetically modified crops that PUBPAT challenged last year because the agricultural giant is using them to harass, intimidate, sue - and in some cases literally bankrupt - American farmers. In its Office Actions rejecting each of the patents, the USPTO held that evidence submitted by PUBPAT, in addition to other prior art located by the Patent Office’s Examiners, showed that Monsanto was not entitled to any of the patents.

Monsanto has filed dozens of patent infringement lawsuits asserting the four challenged patents against American farmers, many of whom are unable to hire adequate representation to defend themselves in court. The crime these farmers are accused of is nothing more than saving seed from one year’s crop to replant the following year, something farmers have done since the beginning of time.

Monsanto’s lawsuits against American farmers resulted in thousands of investigations, nearly 100 lawsuits and numerous bankruptcies. Here’s a full report on what the Evil Empire has been doing, trying to take over the world’s food supply. Imagine Monsanto being in charge of what goes into your mouth? Bleech!

The 5th Morrison sextuplet has died. Having worked for 15 years in the NICU, this story upsets me to no end. As I’ve already mentioned in my previous posts about this, the mom had no business being prescribed potent fertility drugs at this time. And certainly, she wasn’t being monitored well while she was taking them, to try to prevent so many eggs being fertilized at one time. We do really need stringent guidelines about fertility treatments, and physicians need to be forced to follow them.

Second, the media outburst over this situation, making it sound like it was some miraculous event instead of a medical and ethical disaster. Think 22 week sextuplets are “cute?” Most people would be horrified to see what they actually look like, and even more horrified over the torture involved to keep them alive. Believe me, been there and done that. Micro-preemies do suffer terribly from the constant piercing, probing and other painful procedures that are performed on them, in the name of keeping them alive. Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t do our best on those that are viable (although viability is a very gray area), but stop sugar coating what goes on in the NICU, and especially with babies that tiny and immature. The March of Dimes has been campaigning to reduce the incidence of premature birth for a reason.

It is not a miracle to be born at 22 weeks–it is a tragic situation for everyone involved, even if the baby should survive. It is not a miracle to be a sextuplet and the product of a powerful fertility drug–we should be looking at how to better control this and not applauding it.

From the Startribune.com:

One of the two remaining Morrison sextuplets has died, leaving only a boy named Sylas, who remains in critical condition at Children’s Hospital in Minneapolis.

Three of the boys died within a week of their birth, and a fourth, a girl, died June 23.

The family issued a brief statement, as it has with the loss of the other children, asking people to “keep us in your prayers.”Though our difficult time continues, our faith remains strong,” the Morrisons said.

Some may see this as an anniversary of a great event, while others see it as the beginning of an ethical mess and mishmash. On this date in 1978, the first child was born, conceived from the use of in-vitro fertilization. Her name was Louise Joy Brown, who made her debut in England, and today turns 29.

Since that time, many parents have been able to create families with this method, but the use of IVF has been an ethical nightmare as well. One of the biggest dilemmas are the hundreds of thousands of frozen pre-embryos, that are literally sitting on ice, waiting to be either implanted in a uterus, dumped in the trash, or used for medical science. Or, as the case has been for many, sit patiently in their little petri dish until eternity. Some of these frozen embryos are more than 10 years old, and many are no longer viable. Their “mom and dad” often don’t know what to do with them. They may not wish to have any more children, but they don’t want to put their embryo up for adoption, and they feel that tossing it out is like having an abortion.

Anyway, happy birthday Louise.

There’s an interesting thread at allnurses.com about workplace violence. I’ll comment more on it tomorrow, but here it is, in case you want to have a look–Nurses confront violence on the job.

The thread began with a clip from an article about a law in Massachusetts designed to reduce workplace violence and better protect workers, and of course, an administrator has to make an inane statement about how staffing at below minimal levels has nothing at all to with leaving workers vulnerable to violence…sigh, some things never do change.

Of course, we all know now that Pres. Bush underwent a colonoscopy and five polyps were removed. But Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic strip, has revealed a few little known facts on his blog.

Presidential Polyps

President Bush recently had some polyps removed from his colon. Sometimes polyps can turn cancerous, but I doubt his are. After all, President Bush hasn’t had much luck finding weapons of ass destruction.

And allow me to be the first to wonder aloud how the surgeons could see past Condi’s head to see those polyps.

Some of the comments are truly retrospective, as the great mystery of Bush’s ass, brain, and polyps are explored. I would advise you to tune in if you’d like to have a hearty laugh, and explore the mystery of the presidential asshole.

One commenter was baffled why Bush hadn’t seen the polyps himself. “People are wondering why Bush didn’t spot those polyps himself years ago, given where his head is probably all the time. The answer is, he’s got his head so far up his ass he can see out his ears.”

Another believed that this operation was a humanitarian effort for the polyps, to save them from a life of agony. I mean, imagine having to smell Bush’s ass 24/7? “I heard that the surgery was actually carried out for the sake of the polyps. It would have been cruel and inhumane to leave them in there to suffer like that.”

Then there was the question of Tony Blair, who has been living upwind in Bush’s ass for years? How did they remove polyps with Tony in the way? Did he have to be surgically excised first? “I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned Tony Blair yet. His head was so far up Bush’s arse they had to wait for him to be surgically removed before they could even get access to Bush’s orifice.”

Finally, the virgin birth. The sanctity of life. Was Bush’s surgery equivalent to an abortion, considering that anal polyps may be a method that some species (like the Bush family) use to reproduce asexually? Now that is a loaded question if I ever heard one. “Consider that asexual reproduction results in clones — anal polyps sound like a reasonable way for certain creatures to reproduce. The rumor that clones are somewhat dimwitted may explain generational differences that we’ve already witnessed. Has anybody examined Bush, senior, for evidence of removed anal polyps?”

I am always amazed at the amount of money spent today repetitive studies and surveys–you know, the kind that says we have a nursing shortage. Or the ones “searching” for the reasons for the shortage. They are the studies and surveys in which the answers have been well established, but instead of moving forward with solutions, the academics and spin maestros continue to restudy, resurvey, and then restudy. It would seem that they are intentionally avoiding finding a solution, as that would be far too painful and get too many industry types upset. Better to just wring one’s hands, collect grant money, and re-re-report on what has been common knowledge for the past 30 years.

Now this gem is from Advance for Nurses:

Nursing Faculty Shortage Worries CEOs

Worsening faculty shortages in academic health centers are threatening the nation’s health professions educational infrastructure, according to the latest report by the Association of Academic Health Centers (AAHC).

Based on a questionnaire of AAHC members — the CEOs of academic health centers nationwide — the report found 94 percent of CEOs think faculty shortages are a problem in at least one health professions school, and 69 percent think these shortages are a problem for the entire institution.

Academic health centers train a major portion of the nation’s health workforce in professions including nursing, allied health, dentistry, medicine, pharmacy, public health and veterinary medicine.

Several factors account for the widespread faculty shortages, including retirement among baby boomers; low level of interest in academic careers among those entering the health professions; and disparities in salaries between academe and private practice or industry.

Now that is quite upsetting that the faculty shortage is worrying CEOs. These are the people with power to push through changes and alter the status quo, but it seems more advantageous to blame someone else for their problems.

Facing shortages, half of respondents reported the need to make institutional changes. Institutional responses included cutting programs, merging programs, and limiting student enrollment. Limiting student enrollment was the most common strategy cited by CEOs.

Asked to assess state government awareness of health workforce issues, including faculty shortages, CEOs gave governors and state legislatures low ratings. However, CEOs expressed the need for federal and state governments to take a great deal of action on health workforce issues.

So this is so typical. Rather than making becoming an instructor a more lucrative and exciting career choice (such as eliminating a lot of the BS that goes along with academic positions), they’re limiting students. There are an infinite number of things that can be done to make teaching more attractive, even if you can’t outright raise the salary. What about completely reimbursing the teacher’s loans for her advanced degree? Pay all of her living expenses while she is attaining it? Free tuition at your school for her whole family with guaranteed admission? Shorter working hours at the same pay? Less need to publish bogus papers and be the first author? In fact, cut out the need to publish at all, except if the teacher wants to. More control over the curriculum (a lot of nursing programs are so archaic and out of touch with reality, it must truly nauseate any intelligent person who considers a teaching career)?

These are just a few ideas.

Now, what would the CEOs like the state and federal government legislations to do? Go out and round up nurses and force them to become teachers? It is always so much simpler to push the blame onto someone else, isn’t it. The state legislators have little to do with anemic faculty situations, except at state schools, but even then, the institution’s have a lot of autonomy. The school itself can make decisions on instituting innovative plans. Maybe they could also start by getting rid of ineffective CEOs, like the ones whining in this survey. Maybe they can channel funds by getting rid of management bloat, and not rewarding their ineffective CEOs with multi-zillion dollar bonuses. Perhaps place a contingency on that bonus–if you get X amount of new nursing instructors to sign up, then you get to go buy Christmas presents.

But these are solutions no one wants to hear.

Really, this is a big issue. And very important to nurses around the world. I mean, it is so important that the Center for Nursing Advocacy has been diligently devoting its resources to correcting this adversity, and thus make the world a better place for the human race.

The isn’t recent news, but I think something worth mentioning. It just goes to show how misdirected the efforts
are to “improve” nursing, and why the profession continues to remain in its sad and powerless state.

In 2006, the Center for Nursing Advocacy announced its fourth “Golden Lamp Awards,” the group’s annual list of the best and worst media portrayals of nursing, still largely a female-dominated profession. The 2006 list includes a range of media from all over the world.

In the Media Report to Women, The Center’s “worst” list cited Médecins Sans Frontières for refusing to consider a slight name change to credit the nurses and others who do most of its work; Johnson & Johnson for recruiting commercials that reinforced handmaiden and emotional “angel” stereotypes; and Mattel for selling a doll called the “Nurse Quacktitioner,” which suggested that nurse practitioners are quacks. Berlusconi received an “Evolutionary Dead End” award for telling the press that his own Cleveland Clinic nurses were less attractive than Italian nurses.

Despite its imposing name, the Center for Nursing Advocacy is a tiny organization run primary by Sandy Summers and her husband. Their goal is to stamp out negative representations of nursing in the media. While I think their intentions are well meaning, much of their campaigns show how clearly far removed they are from reality, and how they have no clue about picking meaningful battles. In other words, they randomly lash out at anything that they feel doesn’t fit the unrealistic goals that they have set for themselves. This includes picking fights with both friends and foes, and as a result, and focusing energy on the totally ludicrous and unimportant. They also present nurses as poor victims who are being destroyed by negative media, and after about two minutes on their website (if you can stand it for that long), you get the impression that Sandy truly believes that polishing the celluloid nurse will cure all the ills that real nurses faces on the job. In other words, remove all real and perceived negative images of nurses from all forms of media and voila! No more nursing shortage. Workplace woes will magically transform, and hospitals will become paradise on earth.

Who Are the Devils?

Now, let’s look at the “worst” offenders. This is where I think that the Center has sunk to its lowest level, and to the point where no one can really take them seriously. Sandy Summers believes that the Nobel Prize-winning Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), should change their name.

Why, you may ask?

Well, because much of the work is not done by doctors. Nurses, pharmacists, respiratory therapists, etc, all volunteer for MSF. It’s not just physicians, so Sandy thinks that nurses are being slighted by this. Therefore, the organization should change its name to reflect that. So says Sandy.

Doctors without Borders was started in 1971 by a group of French PHYSICIANS–hence, the name. While it is true that their ranks now include a variety of other healthcare workers, I can think of few things more ridiculous than changing their name. They have world recognition by that name, and to be quite honest, do you think that the people they help really care what they’re called?

Also, I doubt that Sandy Summers has considered how expensive it would be to change the name. Would she prefer that they waste their resources on bureaucracy–not only does it cost money to legally file a name change, but the change would have to occur on every scrap of paper, website, business card, etc. Does she think that’s a good use of their money, instead of using it to save lives? Perhaps she would like to foot the bill and take care of all the paperwork involved.

The Center of Nurse Advocacy could be doing useful work, but instead, it is making itself–and nurses–look like fools when it embarks on this kind of nonsense.

This is what she wrote on her website about it:

I believe that a group with the prominence and resources of MSF could easily navigate a minor name change. The corporate world is full of major companies that have changed their names completely in recent years as a result of mergers. I doubt anyone would be confused about a change to a name like “Soins Sans Frontières” (”Health Care Without Borders”). Indeed, the name change itself could provide helpful publicity. I understand that MSF was founded by physicians, but that does not change the fact that the name sends an inaccurate message about what the group does around the world today.

Sends an inaccurate message to who? I don’t think anyone on this earth, who they have helped, has been “confused” by their message. I don’t think that anyone working in the healthcare field is confused either, except for Sandy, perhaps. And yes, the corporate world is full of merges and name changes, but the names are changed to reflect the merging of two companies, or because a company is sold, or whatever. MSF has no reason to change its name. The world knows it by that name, they have a Nobel Prize in that name, and they have no desire to change their name.

I greatly doubt that they have received one request for a name change from anyone who volunteers for them. And if there are nurses who find the name offensive, well, there are dozens of other organizations who would gladly welcome their help. MSF is not the only one on earth.

And probably the most important aspect is that they are a private non-profit and have the right to call themselves whatever they want.

Now imagine this. Suppose a group of nurses started a group called “Nurses Without Borders.” And they went on to become world recognized, won a Nobel Prize, were showered with accolades, etc. Now, Nurses Without Borders also has a lot of non-nurses working for them, including physicians. Let’s see, the Center for Physician Advocacy decides that the name is not applicable to the people working for it. They find that the name “sends an inaccurate message about what the group does around the world today.” So the physician group wants the name changed to something more benign. Like Health Care Without Borders.

The outcry from nursing would be deafening. Overwhelming. Sandy would be screeching on her soap box.

You get the point.

Sandy also wrote that “the name of your group matters to nursing. Names that permeate modern culture have a significant effect on how people view the world and how they act.” Again, does Sandy have any documentation about nursing complaining about the name? Or who care what it’s called? Or who have refused to volunteer for them because of the name?

I would love to read her thesis on how the name of Doctors without Borders has permeated modern culture and the significant effect it has on how people view the world and how they act.

Non Issues

What I have found about the Center for Nurse Advocacy is that they tend to dodge important issues by focusing on trivial issues. Imagine thinking that changing the name of an international relief organization is somehow helpful to nurses? Or being upset because Berlusconi ( who is an idiot and no longer in office) told the press that his own Cleveland Clinic nurses were less attractive than Italian nurses. Yeah, and so? If he said the nurses at the CC were more attractive, would that have bothered anyone? And he is entitled to his opinion, isn’t he? If he said that American nurses were the most beautiful on earth, would Sandy have found that sexist and offensive?

This is what I mean about picking battles. Out of all the problems in nursing, this is what she zeros in on.

I will agree with her, however, about the Johnson & Johnson campaign. I have long said that its Discover Nursing campaign was about the silliest and sugar coated effort to “get” people interested in nursing. Someone commented that their television commercials are like Hallmark cards. They actually show nurses fluffing pillows and placing that “cool hand on the fevered brow.” They also give the impression that nurses have all the time in the world to sit and chitchat with their patient–never mind that they’re got 9 others pounding on their call bells. Not to get into a whole other post about the Johnson & Johnson campaign, but I think that Sandy is right about this one. However, her wording about it is all wrong, and she’s really not focusing on the heart of the problem with the campaign. She thinks that they should show nursing as a more “scientific” pursuit. Not sure what they would do with that one–show the nurse walking around with a microscope?

Is it my imagination, or is there a serious lack of safety protocols in our food industry? It seems every other day there is something that is being recalled, or that has sent people to the hospital, or is contaminated with ghastly microbes.

Could it be that the safety enforcement is so lax because we don’t have a real agency that monitors this? I don’t consider political mouthpieces and industry puppets to be taking care of food and drug safety, do you? And certainly, the hallowed FDA gives these industries a tap on the knuckles when they should be giving them a kick in the ass and setting steep fines that really hurt.

Here’s the latest in recalls. Beware fans of canned chili, botulism is coming to get you!

From MedicalNewstoday.com:

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers not to eat certain brands of canned chili sauce because they could get botulism poisoning which can be fatal.

A couple in Indiana and two children in Texas are seriously ill in hospital after eating the affected products. This was confirmed after testing left overs in a refrigerator. They started getting ill between June 29 and July 9.

All of the affected products are made by the Castleberry Food Company in Augusta, Georgia.

Sorry if this sounds crass and unsympathetic, but this is an update on my post about multiple births–the fertility engineered kind.

I’m not at all surprised at the news. In fact, the only thing that I’m surprised at is that two are still alive, albeit barely.

From WCCO.com:

A statement from Children’s Hospital in Minneapolis said Cadence Alana, died Saturday morning.

The two other newborns of Ryan and Brianna Morrison of St. Louis Park remain in critical condition in the neonatal intensive care unit at Children’s. The children were all born June 10, about 4 1/2 months early.

Earlier this month, the Morrisons lost their sons Tryg Brenton, Bennet Ryan and Lincoln Sean.

Ryan and Brianna issued the following statement:

“Though our difficult time continues, our faith remains strong. Our families, friends, and churches have provided us with great comfort, for which we are deeply grateful. We continue to express our thanks to the staff at Children’s. Please keep us in your prayers.”

Ah yes, the will of God. The selective will of God. When you use high-tech means to become pregnant, it suddenly becomes God’s will. And then to selectively abort is wrong. It is of course, a very individual decision whether or not to reduce the number of fetuses in cases like these, but please don’t pull the God’s will trump card. If these people really believed in God’s will, then they would allow pregnancy to occur (or not occur) by natural means, and accept that God may have other plans for them if a pregnancy doesn’t come about. Like maybe as a foster or adoptive parent, or a teacher, or a Big Brother/Big Sister?

No, I guess not. It seems to be only God’s will when it nicely coincides with the will of the parents who use fertility treatments.

This was an earlier story, when the babies were first born, which gives a bit of background:

The Morrisons have been married for two years. After trying for about a year to get pregnant, Brianna Morrison went on fertility drugs.

At their first ultrasound, they found out Brianna Morrison was carrying six babies. Couples in their situation have the option of what’s called selective reduction, where doctors reduce the number of fetuses to give the others better odds. For the Morrisons, that wasn’t an option.

“For us, there’s no difference between a fetus that’s undeveloped and a baby,” said Ryan Morrison.

“Because it’s life and God gives life and it’s not up to us to decide to take it away,” added Brianna Morrison.

On their website, Ryan Morrison (daddy) wrote:

Each one of them is a miracle given to us by God. He knows each one of them by name and we will trust Him absolutely for their lives and health.

It is rather ironic that four of the infants have died, which would have been the same if they had selectively aborted. And if they had aborted them, the two struggling would have had a good chance of survival. If by some chance the two remaining babies survive, I can’t imagine that they won’t have significant mental and/or physical handicaps.

But what I really find infuriating is the backstory, which makes the God’s will scenario all the more disturbing. Brianna Morrison is only 24 years old. Not exactly on the cusp of menopause with a loud biological clock ticking. They’ve only been married for 2 years, and had been trying to have a baby for ONE year. Yes, one. Is that what you’d call infertility? Do we need to bring on the heavy artillery? Surely, if they truly believe in God, then they might have given him a chance, don’t you think? Or are they such a modern couple that they think God’s answer needs to be instantaneous? Or that God “directed” them to potent fertility drugs, and then gave them 6 kids, only to see 4 (as of this moment) die?

I haven’t seen or heard one word about the physician who prescribed these drugs. I consider that malpractice, that any licensed doctor would prescribe this woman fertility drugs under these circumstances. Considering the growing number of mega-multiples, some stringent guidelines need to be put in place. Or perhaps the doctor also heard the word of God, as it directed him to his prescription pad….

This is a really sad and sorry story all around. I think would-be parents should be taken on a tour of the NICU, and shown what these tiny preemies really look like. And told point blank about their odds of survival, the future problems they may face if they survive, and the cost and strain that they put on families and couples. After soaking it all in, only then should they be permitted to go ahead with these fertility treatments.

This has nothing to do with healthcare or nursing, but I received it as one of those infamous email “forwards,” the stuff that clogs your box and is usually nonsense. Anyway, this one is short and hysterical, and dare I say, oh so true. Especially the last sentence.

PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY DESTROYED BY FLOOD

Crawford, Texas - A tragic flood this morning destroyed the personal library of President Bush. The flood began in the presidential bathroom where both of the books were kept.

Both books have been lost. A presidential spokesman said the president was devastated, since he was almost finished coloring the second one.

The White House tried to call FEMA, but there was no answer.

For anyone who doesn’t think we have a problem with health insurance in this country, please read the following post that I found on a forum. I haven’t seen SICKO yet, and I realize that this isn’t an objective movie. But some of the complaints I’ve seen about are really so off-base. Michael Moore is a showman, and his point was to bring attention to the sad state of our healthcare system. And anyone who works in healthcare knows how truly sad it is.

One of the interesting things about SICKO is that Moore veered away from the usual talk about the uninsured, and also addressed the problems people have who do, in fact, have health insurance. Anyway, read on. I have adjusted this post so as not to violate anyone’s copyright. This person is trying to get new health insurance, and not having a good time of it.

I happen to suffer from acid reflux, and the agent that I spoke with says that it is a “pre-existing condition.” Great, thanks for sharing. The best part is what comes next. The whole reason for having insurance is to help me handle my healthcare costs, not to just donate money to a large corporation. But according to this agent, when I apply the medical underwriting department, they will evaluate my condition but I can 99.8% expect that there will be a rider on the insurance plan offered that excludes treatment for anything related to my GERD.

So, what’s the point of the health insurance? My GERD is the primary reason for getting insurance in the first place!! I am on daily medication and it’s expensive. But yet, if I go with this plan, I will not only be paying for health insurance, but also paying for anything related to my acid reflux. And who knows where that will lead to? If I develop any other kind of digestive problem, are they going to say, “Sorry, sucker, but that has to be part of your GERD–you know, the pre-existing condition–and we’re not going to pay. Why don’t you develop headaches instead?”

Do you think he’s frustrated??

I know that a lot of nurses get all bent out of shape whenever you dare to use the doctor, meaning an MD. As we all know, a doctor can also be a nurse with a PhD. Hmmm….and they also get their knickers in a royal twist if you use the word physician rather than the more generic clinician or practitioner. Granted, a lot of people don’t see an MD anymore, at least not for a routine visit. They see a PA, or a nurse practitioner. But still, these are ridiculous battles, and take away from the energy that should be put towards organizing and mobilizing nurses, and really moving the profession into the 21st century.

Anyway, the above rant is just to explain that yes, I know, I am being like so politically incorrect for writing “Dr. Internet,” considering that it implies an MD. But who cares? I don’t, and I think it’s cute. The story behind this post is that now the ordinary person surfing the Internet can just surf on over to WedMD and check out any annoying symptoms. Sort of like doc in the box, only virtual.

It’s the new WebMD symptom checker, and loaded with the disclaimer that it is not meant to take the place of real medical help.

This tool does not provide medical advice It is intended for informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Never ignore professional medical advice in seeking treatment because of something you have read on the WebMD Site. If you think you may have a medical emergency, immediately call your doctor or dial 911.

Thanks for sharing. But I guess that have to put the disclaimers up, as someone is bound to sue them for “misdiagnosis.”

I tried it out and it really isn’t very precise. You put in a symptom or a list of symptoms, and then different possible diagnoses pop up. And they are really vague. Just to try it out, I selected several symptoms related to an upset stomach, and the choices that came up included constipation, irritable bowel syndrome, colon cancer, depression, kidney infection and muscle strain.

I tried again and put in symptoms closely related; cough, mild shortness of breath, and heartburn. Again, my choices were all over the map, although I did kept getting warnings to seek medical help if I was experiencing shortness of breath. But the menu that popped up included common cold, asthma, allergies, aortic stenosis, drug allergy, coronary artery disease, anemia, GERD, etc. I suppose that it may give someone a chance to consider possibilities, but it can really scare you, I think. And all of these choices are so wide.

But I guess it’s cheaper than going to a PRACTITIONER, especially if you lack insurance!

This is part of a press release that I received about a medical ethics conference being held at Seattle Children’s Hospital. Medical ethics has becoming an increasingly sticky point in healthcare, and you just can’t ignore the issues if you are working in an acute care environment. One of the stickiest issues has to do with critically ill kids, and who makes the the decisions regarding treatment.

Parents Request “Futile” Treatments

What are the limits of medical intervention? When should treatment be considered “futile”? The majority of the medical community agrees that care is futile when it does not achieve its purpose. But medical ethicist Dr. Norman Fost, professor of pediatrics and bioethics, University of Wisconsin, cautioned that there is no definitive definition of futile treatments.

“The fact that a treatment hasn’t been tried or hasn’t been successful in the past does not mean it will not be successful in the future,” said Fost. “Some medical professionals deem any treatment that has not worked in 100 cases is not viable. Many parents argue a one in 10,000 chance still isn’t zero.”

To determine whether a treatment is futile, ethicists argue that we must look at whether the patient is gaining anything from the treatment. If life-saving actions are taken for a child whose quality of life will be poor, who does that serve? Fost reminds us that these are personal value judgments and not medical judgments. This is why, in part, the medical community cannot agree on a specific definition for futility in medical treatments. The search for an ultimate definition of futility is futile, Fost argues.

Can Physicians Refuse to Provide Life-Prolonging Medical Interventions?

The father of a child with severe neurological damage asks for a treatment that the medical community agrees will not work. In fact, it may put the child at even higher risk. But the father goes to the media and the court; the court orders the hospital to give the treatment a try. Since no U.S. court has ever refused life-sustaining treatment without parental consent, should hospitals save the court costs and just abide by whatever the parents request, for as long as they request it?” asked John J. Paris, SJ, PhD, professor of bioethics, Boston College. “Is that responsible medical care?”

“We are all going to die,” said Rev. Paris. “So what is the best way to treat a dying child – and who decides?” Paris suggested that treatment must be in the best interest of the patient. So, if technology can prevent death, but it cannot restore well-being, what is the benefit? Balancing the benefit and burden of medical intervention is the job of everyone involved in the care of the patient.

It seemed odd to me that we switched Surgeon Generals in the middle of an administration, but I guess George W did not like having someone around who actually wanted to do his job. Put it this way, he wanted a mouthpiece who would back-up his devastating policies and attacks on reproductive rights, and who would embrace his ideas even though they conflicted with evidence based medicine.

So Richard Carmona, who happens to be a really nice guy with a squeaky clean background (I met him), and one who has been on the frontlines as a medic and a nurse prior to becoming a physician, got the boot.

But now at least, he is speaking up. And letting the nation know how deadly George W. Bush is to our health–as if we don’t didn’t know that already, but it’s nice that the former Surgeon General has broken the silence.

From the Washington Post:

Former surgeon general Richard H. Carmona yesterday accused the Bush administration of muzzling him on sensitive public health issues, becoming the most prominent voice among several current and former federal science officials who have complained of political interference.

Carmona, a Bush nominee who served from 2002 to 2006, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that political appointees in the administration routinely scrubbed his speeches for politically sensitive content and blocked him from speaking out on public health matters such as stem cell research, abstinence-only sex education and the emergency contraceptive Plan B.

Ah yes, the insidious Plan B. George got his lap pups at the FDA to do his bidding on that, but even they couldn’t hold out forever. Then again, the FDA was simply living up to their name and reputation (Faith Drug Agency).

In one such case, Carmona, a former professor of surgery and public health at the University of Arizona, said he was told not to speak out during the national debate over whether the federal government should fund embryonic stem cell research, which President Bush opposes.

“Much of the discussion was being driven by theology, ideology, [and] preconceived beliefs that were scientifically incorrect,” said Carmona, one of three former surgeons general who testified at yesterday’s hearing. “I thought, ‘This is a perfect example of the surgeon general being able to step forward, educate the American public.’ . . . I was blocked at every turn. I was told the decision had already been made — ‘Stand down. Don’t talk about it.’ That information was removed from my speeches.”

Carmona said that when the administration touted funding for abstinence-only education, he was prevented from discussing research on the effectiveness of teaching about condoms as well as abstinence. “There was already a policy in place that did not want to hear the science but wanted to just preach abstinence, which I felt was scientifically incorrect,” Carmona said.

The White House weenies of course deny this, giving the usual pre-digested rhetoric (their nonsensical statements are in the article). But I believe Carmona, because he’s not the only one who’s been ousted from Bushland. And there was no reason to replace him, except that he didn’t walk the Bush-line. He wanted to do his job.

Imagine if Koop hadn’t broken free of Reaganitis, and kept silent on AIDS in the 1980s? Imagine if he had allowed himself to be muzzled? To Reagan’s credit, he didn’t get rid of Koop, and I kind of think he was a little bit grateful that his staunch conservative Surgeon General flew the conservative coop (yes, a pun) of silence and pretending that AIDS didn’t exist, and became a staunch advocate of promoting sex ed, condom use, and demystifying AIDS. Reagan had a lot of friends in Hollywood–friends who were gay and dying of AIDS. Koop may have well been his Godsend, actually, because when all of the neo-cons got crazy over what was coming out of Koop’s mouth, Reagan could just shrug and say, “I don’t know, it’s not in my script. Go talk to Nancy.”

And no one wanted to mess with Nancy!

I just had to post it. That’s one nice thing about living at the beginning of a new century–you get to write really cool dates like that. Next in line will be 08/08/08.

Anyway, happy 07/07/07

Happy 4th of July. Strange how my business associates in the UK are hard at work today–could it be that they still don’t acknowledge that they lost their colonies?

Bush’s bedroom, that is. What happens when wife Laura smacks him in the face and says, “George, your policy sucks.”

Never mind that the man just pardoned a traitor to the United States of America…a man who betrayed his country…but that’s another story which I don’t want to get into.

Bedroom antics are more in tune with this blog. Here’s a hot news release, fresh off the press from the The Center for Health and Gender Equity. I know, the very name probably makes the Prez and his comrades queasy.

First Lady Laura Bush Supports Waiver of Abstinence-Until-Marriage Earmark in PEPFAR

Washington, DC: During her trip to several African countries, U.S. First Lady Laura Bush told CNN that, while she believes abstinence is an important component of prevention efforts, she has no problem with Congress waiving the requirement that 1/3 of U.S. global prevention funding be spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs. Mrs. Bush was talking about the language passed by Congress that waives the abstinence-until-marriage earmark in the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). According to CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux, Bush said “she found that idea perfectly fine.”

The CNN video can be found at http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/07/03/malveaux.laura.bush.aids.cnn

So not even his wife supports his damning policies. Very interesting and I hope we hear more about this. Trouble in paradise, hmm…

I certainly hope that nurses are ignoring this nonsense, and giving patients the information that they need, whenever they can. If a teen asks how to protect herself from getting AIDS, or even getting pregnant, please don’t tell her to cross her legs and wait for the bliss of holy matrimony. The reality is–the girl has probably already had sex but is getting smart and wants to protect herself. And in many nations around the world, this girl may be about to be sold off to an older man who is already infected.

Whatever happened to those nice sweet simple spams about Viagra? Or even about penis enlargement? Or getting it on with raunchy lesbians?

The spams that I am getting now, which are fortunately fewer in number, are elaborate monstrosities of nonsensical rantings. Some of them would be pages long if I copied and pasted them into a word document. They go on and on, with all kinds of links. I don’t have a clue what some of them are even selling, or what it is that they want you to link to.

I suppose it’s a sign that the spammers are getting desperate. Or maybe not. Perhaps they think that people who have blogs are dumb enough to think that these lengthy diatribes are real messages. I just deleted 60 of them a few minutes ago.