A lot of news about more babies getting hit with heparin overdoses. But as much of the news in the popular media, the information is incomplete and vague. I’m assuming that since it’s for a general audience, they assume that the public is too stupid to understand anything more detailed.

From the Wall Street Journal:

This time, it’s more infant overdoses: 17 babies at a Texas hospital got too much of the blood thinner; one has died, though hospital officials told CNN that it remains unclear whether the heparin contributed. Nurses keeping IV lines clear apparently used 10,000 units of heparin instead of 10, and the error wasn’t caught until two days later.

What kind of IV lines are they talking about? No one routinely flushes an IV line with heparin, unless it’s an arterial line. And even then, a tiny amount of heparin is mixed in with the IV solution, and that is normally done by the pharmacy. So what kind of lines are they flushing? Hep locks? That would only take a minute amount of fluid to flush through.

It would be nice if they actually explained what happened. Did the nurses add the heparin to the IV solution that was running through an arterial line and make an error–like use the wrong concentration? Was the vial mislabeled?

But of course, everyone has an answer for cutting down on medical errors, while ignoring the obvious.

The quality gurus at the Leapfrog Group, a consortium of employers aiming to improve health quality, said the problems underscored safety issues at hospitals across the country.

“Incidents like this are the reason why computerized systems for ordering medication in hospitals has been The Leapfrog Group’s number one safety measure that it urges all hospitals to take,” said Leapfrog CEO Leah Binder in a statement. Studies cited by Leapfrog suggest that computerized systems could cut drug error by 50% to 100%.

They’re not wrong of course, but I got into a “discussion” with a physician at a conference who also thought that computerized systems were the answer to all our prayers. Perhaps the WSJ article might also have told us about the staffing at these hospitals where the errors took place. How many patients did each nurse have? How sick were they? How many hours of mandatory overtime were they working?

Most medical errors are generally caused by a cascade of events that happen that lead up to the error–and since the nurse is at the end of the food chain, she often gets the full blame. Which isn’t to say that nurses shouldn’t pay attention to what they’re doing, but the current working conditions actually encourage errors of all kinds, and no amount of computerized systems is going to make up for lack of staff.

But again, nurses should not be working in unsafe conditions. ICU nurses should not be taking 3 patients (I hear complaining about it, but still the good nurse takes the assignment for the “sake of the patient”), and nurses should refuse mandatory overtime. They should take the time to read the labels of the meds they are giving, and if they get behind in their work, then they need to speak up. If they have to stay over to finish, then demand overtime. I met a nurse once who kept talking about how she could never finish her work on time, and generally had to stay over at least an hour every day to finish charting, but never asked for overtime. Even though her workload made it impossible to leave on time. What a dream nurse she was–every CEO’s dream.

Anyway, these hospital error stories, particularly the ones about heparin, are really getting tiring. How about we hear a story about a hospital that has actually done something about it? Like increased their staffing, makes sure pharmacy double checks what gets stocked on units (especially NICUs), gives nurses safe assignment and “stocks” the units with ancillary staff like clerks, respiratory therapists, aides, etc. Uses a computerized system that is user friendly and that actually makes the nurse’s life easier rather than more difficult? Are there any stories like that around?

This post sort of continues the previous one, about violent attacks against nurses. There is an interesting new thread about on allnurses.com, about the Tao of being hit by a patient.

What I find astonishing, that in this day and age, the nurse is asking what to do about it. As though assault is still a fuzzy area, and the wonderful professional called nurse should still be wondering if it is okay for a patient (who is completely coherent and not suffering from dementia) to slap her across the face. And wondering what she should do about it.

Fortunately, most of the responses are positive, in that they are telling her to file charges against the person who hit her. Afterall, if someone slaps you in the supermarket, would you just smile and say that it’s okay? That the person who hit you is a little stressed and need to get out their aggression. What if you were working as a supermarket checker and a customer slapped you across the face, because she said you were moving too slow? Would it be okay?

Is it okay for a child/teen to smack his teacher? Does the teacher just say, “Oh, that’s okay. I know this is a rough class.”

What would your doctor do if you smacked him/her? Would the CEO of the hospital take kindly to be being whacked across the face? Or some middle-management weenie who crunches numbers all day? Would they just say that the customer is always right, even though that’s often still the message given to nurses?

If You Get Hit…

If you are working as a nurse in a clinical area, or any area, it is NEVER okay for anyone to abuse you. I don’t care about the idiocy that instructors are still dishing out, or the “customer training” that is becoming rampant in hospitals today (they think its a solution to the nursing shortage). It is not okay.

If the patient has dementia, or is otherwise not in the right mind, then it would be difficult to press charges. However, you should never again be alone with that patient and if the patient is prone to violence, the facility needs to take appropriate precautions. Do not place yourself in danger. Tell the CEO to go in and give the patient his medication, if he doesn’t think there is a need to hire on extra security.

But if anyone in their right state of mind (arguable, of course, as to who really is right in the mind) ever hits you, immediately react. I don’t care if its the Chief of Staff. Call the police and press charges. File an incident report. Don’t let anyone talk you out of it. If you don’t do it, then not only are you telling the world that nurses are somehow “different” from everyone else, and not entitled to the same protection, but it will happen again. The same person that hit you may again strike you, only next time harder. He/she may also feel free to attack someone else, since they know there are no consequences. And your hospital won’t do anything to protect its nurses.

As a human being, you have a right to a safe and stable work environment. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

FYI, the person who posted this says she is a new nurse and still on orientation. That means that her schooling was insufficient, and that her instructors managed to skim over that huge white elephant sitting in the classroom–that nurses are vulnerable to physical and mental abuse. Or they delivered the old school line of thought about how the nurse should rise above that, she should report it to her charge nurse, etc. In other words, suck it up baby.

This is part of what this nurse wrote:

So, my question is this….at what point does a nurse actually look at a situation as being assaulted. If this lady slapped me across the face in the middle of the grocery store, I would have called the police.

What is that fine line? What if she bruised my face? Is that different?

I think she answered her own question, but isn’t it sad, that she thinks that because she’s a nurse, there is somehow another standard for assault. Or that a certain amount of damage needs to be done before a nurse can consider a physical attack “assault.”

It seems that’s what needed in addition to education and getting a license in the UK. A startling news release from Unison, a British nursing union, reported that one in three nurses in the UK have been attacked. Where is Rambo when you need him most?

Nurses are vulnerable to both physical and verbal attack in the U.S., but these stats are ludicrous. Why are nurses in so much danger? Do hospitals just consider violent attacks on nurses akin to vandalism–you know, that nurses are things not people, and attacking a nurse is similar to painting graffiti on the hospital wall? Do the words “increase security” ring a bell?

And then hospitals around the world wonder why no one wants to be a sweet nursey anymore.

From Unison:

04/03/08) Almost a third of UK nurses suffer frequent violence at work, according to new research.

UNISON has condemned the findings, which reveal one of the highest rates in Europe. Only in France are more nurses attacked.

The study, published in the journal Occupational Medicine, found that 29% of UK nurses had suffered frequent violent incidents at the hands of patients or their relatives.

“These statistics should make people in the UK ashamed,” said UNISON head of nursing Gail Adams.

“It is totally unacceptable for nurses to face rising levels of violence, when all they are trying to do is help and care for their patients.”

More needs to be done to protect staff, Ms Adams said.

She stressed that prevention is the key, coupled with better training and tough penalties for anyone found guilty of assault.

And she urged hospitals to review the support they offer staff, to ensure they offer good occupational health services.

“The survey shows many feel abandoned and depressed following an assault, which should not be allowed to happen.”

The researchers surveyed 39,894 nurses in 10 countries.

They found that violence had wide-reaching effects including recruitment and retention problems, increased amounts of sick leave and burnout.

Just when you thought that you couldn’t hear anything worse about the insurance industry, along comes the clincher that wins the pie in the sky. If there is actually pie in the sky, that is.

Blue Cross would like to enlist healthcare practitioners in a witch hunt, to seek out those infidels who dared to lie on their insurance applications. Those lowlifes who did not claim all, who failed to mention that they had their tonsils removed 50 years ago, or that they were treated for leukemia in 1965 and it has never returned so they kind of thought themselves cured and not worth mentioning the disease.

From ABCNews:

“Any condition not listed on the application that is discovered to be pre-existing should be reported to Blue Cross immediately,” according to the letter obtained by the newspaper

Other than the fact that Blue Cross wants doctors to break patient confidentiality, there are 3 amazing things to note in this story.

1) Blue Cross was recently fined $1 million for unfairly revoking coverage to scores of its policy holders. You’d think that they’d lay low and keep a low profile until the fuss blows over.

2) The reason that people may be withholding this information is that they fear that they will be denied insurance. Blue Cross, did that ever cross your mind?

3) They must be truly living in an alternate reality if they think practitioners are going to supply them with that information. Aside from breaking confidentiality (and a patient may have grounds for a lawsuit), the physician will lose money from the deal. If patients lose their insurance, they are less likely to visit their physician, or to even have a primary physician. Thus, everyone loses out except Blue Cross.

They may look pretty enough to eat, but you really don’t want to be swallowing drugs spotted with paint. Do you? Or maybe you’ve already gobbled some down. It wouldn’t be all that unusual, according to this article from the Associated Press:

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — The first warning sign came when a sharp-eyed worker sorting pills noticed that the odd blue flecks dotting the finished drug capsules matched the paint on the factory doors.

After the flecks were spotted again on the capsules, a blood-pressure medication called Diltiazem, the plant began placing covers over drugs in carts in its manufacturing areas.

But the factory owner, Canadian drug maker Biovail Corp., never tried to find out whether past shipments of the drug were contaminated — or prevent future contamination, according to U.S. regulators.

Thirteen of the 20 best-selling drugs in the United States come from plants on this island. But an investigation by The Associated Press has found dozens of examples over four years of lapses in quality control in the Puerto Rican pharmaceutical industry, which churns out $35 billion of drugs each year, most of it for sale as part of the $300 billion market in the U.S.

This is pretty sad, if you ask me. How much money do pharma companies rake in, and they can’t even keep paint off their capsules? And the FDA–gee, maybe if they’d stop worrying so much about searching for elusive boxes of contaminated chamomile tea, ie, trying to put the herb and alternative medicine market out of business, they might find time to do their job.

This is another juicy little quip:

The FDA issued a warning letter to Wyeth in May 2006, after consumers reported finding machinery pins inside bottles of Effexor, a leading depression treatment, and the heartburn drug Protonix. The letter expressed concern that the plant was not “able to detect that the affected equipment was missing some of its parts.” The Madison, N.J.-based company faulted mistakes by workers who packaged the drugs.

They issued a warning letter after machinery pins were found in medication boxes. A warning! And such powerful language. Did the machinery need to be inside the drugs for them to take a little action? How about shutting down the factory? What about levying a stiff fine against Wyeth for not meeting quality controls? And maybe hiring workers with a little more intelligence, or teaching them the difference between a machinery pin and a capsule of medication.

There is no excuse for quality control at factories to be of the highest standards, and to be standardized across the board. No excuses. Every factory must meet them or be shut down until they do. And the companies should have to pay a stiff penalty for carelessness like this. And the FDA needs to do its job, not sit around and write wimpy little letters.

The article also says that some plants in Puerto Rico are three decades old. I guess that they haven’t been renovated since then, although I’m sure that none of the executives uses a company bathroom that’s gone 30 years without a tune-up, or has an office that hasn’t been redecorated in that time.

The United States is a leader in….drum roll…

Well, take a guess.

Okay, I’ll give you a hint. It’s stuff that you can get from having sex. It’s also stuff that happens when people aren’t being properly educated, and there is no comprehensive primary care network of healthcare.

See what we have to show for ourselves, from the Seattle PI

There is an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal online about workplace violence–healthcare workplaces that is. The scary thing about this article is not so much the degree of violence that healthcare workers, but how blase these people seem. They seem to take it in stride and “accept” it as being a normal part of the job.

From the WSJ.com:

The risks are part of the nursing job that doesn’t get talked about much or even reported. Most nurses I’ve known seem to figure it comes with the territory. It’s something that you can’t always guard against.

Many nurses and nursing assistants have had patients accidentally injure them. One obstetrics nurse at our hospital was injured when a patient grabbed her around the neck while pushing in labor. She needed medical treatment for a neck strain afterwards.

Certified nurse assistants, who do the bulk of patient lifting and moving, get back injuries frequently. They often work shorthanded because the pay is low, the work is hard and their co-workers don’t show up. Patients unexpectedly drop on them or grab them and pull them off balance.

A 2002 study in the Journal of Emergency found that at a large Florida hospital 88% of nurses reported being verbally assaulted and 74% reported being physically assaulted while at work in the past year. (Read the abstract)

With hospitals focused on patient safety and patient satisfaction, the nursing safety issue hasn’t gotten as much attention.

Nurses and doctors in the emergency department are the most likely to encounter workplace violence.

A 2005 study of Michigan ER doctors showed that 75% were verbally threatened, 28% were physically assaulted and 3.5% were stalked in the previous year.

No, I’m sorry, but these risks are not part of the nursing job. At least, not to the rate that they are occurring. Doesn’t the rate of 74% of ER nurses being physically assaulted send out shock waves? Shouldn’t these nurses (and the physicians and everyone else in the ER) be demanding increased security in their work area? Then again, that study was done in Florida, one of those glorious right-to-work states that prides itself on crushing labor unions. But even so, there are enough jobs all over the state, and no one should be forced to work in that type of situation.

This is really a case of where healthcare workers just have to refuse to take this kind of abuse. Working as a nurse, physician, aide, etc, is hard enough as it is. You shouldn’t have to worry about violent patients and an employer who doesn’t care what happens to you. I don’t care if the hospital has to post a whole squadron of armed security guards in the ER–healthcare workers need to be protected in order to do their job.

And as far as accidental injuries, well, many if not most facilities don’t really care either. If they did, patient lifts would be standard equipment, and they’d make sure that they had sufficient personnel to assist with moving heavy equipment and patients. Hire a team of muscle men if you have to, but nurses aren’t weight lifters. But yet, I’ve heard nurses complain about how they have to lift a 300 pound patient all by themselves, or have to go and beg for help…you know what? As long as the nurse will do it, things aren’t going to change. The outcome is that the nurse thinks that she’s “helping” the patient by moving a body that needs an electronic lift or ten pairs of strong hands. She’ll hurt her back or worse, and then the hospital doesn’t want to know her. They’ll fire her, do their best to deny workman’s comp….basically, nurses are often treated like pieces of equipment. You use it until it breaks or gets worn out and then toss it out.

Do doctors and nurses ever get mugged on the TV show ER? Or do they exist in a perfect world, where all patients survive and all are bursting over with gratitude?

When I worked in the NICU, we used to refer to the obsessive lactation consultants as “Nipple Nazis.” You know, the ones who are basically telling new moms that their baby will die without breast milk, and think that NICU nurses are being cruel by not permitting mom to nurse a 1 pound premie hooked up to a ventilator.

So it is in the realm of the nipple Nazi that I write this note. And I’m sure that breast feeding aficionados are rejoicing over this story, and will find my comments nothing less than sacrilegious. However, I find this story rather disturbing.

Which story? Well, it concerns the Harvard student who is taking her medical boards so that she can become a physician. The woman, 33 year old Sophie Currier, demanded that she be given extra break time during the exam so that she could pump her breasts. The allocated 45 minutes wasn’t enough for her, despite the fact that she had been provided with a breast pump and a private room in which to pump. But I guess pumping on her break was too demeaning, or maybe she’s got extra gigantic boobs that take more than 45 minutes to pump? Or maybe she should be allowed to bring her baby to the test, and let it nurse while she filling in the boxes.

From the Boston Globe:

The woman, Sophie Currier of Brookline, argued that it would be uncomfortable and possibly pose a health problem if she took only the allowed breaks.

The National Board of Medical Examiners offered to let her pump while she took the test, but she said that would put her at a disadvantage during the exam, which she must pass to graduate and begin her residency at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“I now feel that I am able to take this test without putting my health or my child’s health at risk,” said Currier. “I hope this decision encourages moms to breast-feed and employers of moms to accommodate their needs.”

Yes, I’m certain that her health and that of her daughter are going to be jeopardized by her being restricted to a 45 minute break. And here’s a great line from the anonymous breast feeding specialists…”Lactating women can experience pain and risk developing infection of their breasts if they don’t express milk at least once every three hours.” Uh, maybe when you’ve got a newborn who’s eating every 2-3 hours, but at four months, a lot of kids are sleeping through the night. I don’t know of any breast feeding moms who set their alarm clock to wake up every 3 hours to either pump or force milk on a sleeping baby.

But let’s back track. Now not only is Currier demanding extra break time, but she has already been given an extra day to take the test! Duh, doesn’t that help with the breast feeding schedule? She has dyslexia and attention deficit disorder, so while everyone else has to take the test in one day, she gets two. And she doesn’t think that she is being fairly accommodated?

Now let’s take a look at this more closely. The test is 9 hours, and most students do it in one day. Since Currier has two days, that gives her 4.5 hours each day. So how many times does she actually need to pump her breast in a 4.5 hour period? She can pump or nurse her baby before the test, and pump or nurse afterwards. But she gets a 45 minute break in there, so that isn’t sufficient? Why on earth does she need an extra hour? Something is very wrong with this picture.

A lot of articles are yapping about how this is such a great step forward for mankind (the Medical Board is going to appeal the ruling, by the way), but to me, this woman seems just overindulgent and wants everything her way. While I think accommodations should be made for people who need them (and it seems that the Board has bent over backwards for her), I think this chick is really pushing it. Sorry, but having a baby does put some restrictions on you. There are inconveniences, and sacrifice, but it is a choice that she has made.

Pray tell, what is she going to do when she starts her residency? Demand that she get less on-call time than everyone else, get more breaks, gets off Christmas and New Year’s, and doesn’t have to work on weekends–all because she has children and is breastfeeding? Residencies can be brutal, especially the first year, and it seems that she can’t even cope with taking the Medical Boards, let alone a residency.

What will she do if it’s time to pump but a patient is crashing? Tell everyone to wait so she can empty her breasts? Is she going to demand a “light” residency schedule so she doesn’t have to be away from her children so much?

She also had the option of delaying the test, which is given several times a year. I have a friend who took off a semester from dental school when she had a baby, so that she could relax and take care of him during his first few months. Would it be so dreadful for Currier to take the test a few months from now, when her daughter is older and maybe nibbling on rice cereal?

Apparently, she has already failed the test once. And rather than review her options (of which there are numerous), and make some sane choices that might better suit where she is right now, she chooses to file a lawsuit. Great going.

Her lawyer was quoted as saying, “As a society we should be supporting her efforts to become a doctor, not put roadblocks up for her.” That has to be about the most bogus statement I’ve ever heard. They’ve basically paved her path with gold, and jumped through hoops to accommodate this woman. I guess if she flunks again, she’ll blame it on not having sufficient time to pump (maybe they should allow her a break every hour and then give her a week to complete the test), or blame it on the “mental stress” of her traumatic ordeal.

Personally, I feel a little sorry for any of her future patients.

This is an interesting article that appears in today’s NY Times, about the usual suspects–greed and the deterioration of services in nursing homes. So what’s new about this? Same old story–a chain of nursing homes gets bought up by a private corporation, whose only goal is to make money. So the end result isn’t pretty, not for staff or patients.

From the NY Times

Habana Health Care Center, a 150-bed nursing home in Tampa, Fla., was struggling when a group of large private investment firms purchased it and 48 other nursing homes in 2002.

The facility’s managers quickly cut costs. Within months, the number of clinical registered nurses at the home was half what it had been a year earlier, records collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services indicate. Budgets for nursing supplies, resident activities and other services also fell, according to Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration.

That alone should make your flesh crawl. Nursing homes are generally poorly staffed, with a serious lack of RNs. So this brilliant suit decided that halving the number of nurses was a great move. Oooo, the profit.

And this happened in Florida, one of those lovely right-to-work states, so the nurses weren’t unionized and couldn’t really fight back.

The investors and operators were soon earning millions of dollars a year from their 49 homes.

Residents fared less well. Over three years, 15 at Habana died from what their families contend was negligent care in lawsuits filed in state court. Regulators repeatedly warned the home that staff levels were below mandatory minimums. When regulators visited, they found malfunctioning fire doors, unhygienic kitchens and a resident using a leg brace that was broken.

“They’ve created a hellhole,” said Vivian Hewitt, who sued Habana in 2004 when her mother died after a large bedsore became infected by feces.

So why didn’t the regulators shut the place down? Why didn’t they start fining the company about $1 million a day until the problems were fixed? I think that strong action needs to be taken, if this type of travesty is going to be addressed in a meaningful way.

Just a few more notes on the importance of nurses…

Nurses are often residents’ primary medical providers. In 2002, the Department of Health and Human Services said most nursing home residents needed at least 1.3 hours of care a day from a registered or licensed practical nurse. The average home was close to meeting that standard last year, according to data.

But homes owned by large investment companies typically provided only one hour of care a day, according to The Times’s analysis of records collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

For the most highly trained nurses, staffing was particularly low: Homes owned by large private investment firms provided one clinical registered nurse for every 20 residents, 35 percent below the national average, the analysis showed.

Regulators with state and federal health care agencies have cited those staffing deficiencies alongside some cases where residents died from accidental suffocations, injuries or other medical emergencies.

And I also blame the nurses who stayed on there, and who didn’t keep reporting infractions. They should have leaked it to the press if need be, if they weren’t getting any response. There are plenty of jobs in Florida, and by working in a place like this, they are actively contributing to the abuse of the residents. No, they are not helping the patients. They are helping the CEOs, president, VPS, etc, make a fortune.

The article also explains how the corporations make it very difficult to get sued, and very expensive for the lawyers, because of the way the holdings are divided up among investors. Which goes to show, this system is very broken and no one is held liable. Oh, maybe they can sue the nurse who neglected the patient….never mind that she was the only one on duty.

The article points out that people are making huge profits at these homes, at the expense of the patients, and no one seems to be accountable. Aren’t there state laws? What’s the point of having the places inspected if nothing of note is going to be done?

I haven’t seen the new Michael Moore movie Sicko, but plan to at some point, due to the content. Yes, I lived what he’s talking about for 15 years as a nurse. I noticed today and yesterday that there are news stories filtering in complaining about the content of the movie; he doesn’t give “fair time” to the industry, he’s romanticizing the health systems in other countries and not mentioning their flaws; and that some of his data isn’t correct. Well that may be, but Michael Moore’s movies are not meant to be balanced wimpy reviews of a topic. His point is to demonstrate what is wrong with American healthcare, and I think he only scratches the surface, quite frankly.

This article appeared in June, in the SF Gate, but it can hardly be considered outdated. This is an experience that Americans every day have to deal, and what is sadder, is that the person highlighted is a nurse. A healthcare professional. And she can’t get the healthcare she needs. How wrong is that?

From SF Gate:

For Cynthia Campbell, a San Francisco nurse battling two forms of advanced cancer, every day is a race against time. But no single day looms larger than July 20.

That’s the day her health insurance policy runs out.

“I did everything I was supposed to do about insurance — never let it lapse, never had a gap. Yet here I am with stage IV cancer with surgery that needs to be done and my insurance is running out,” said Campbell, 53, whose hair is just beginning to grow back after a break in chemotherapy.

Campbell’s coverage nightmare is notable for what she does have rather than what she doesn’t, and that’s health insurance. But her coverage is what’s known as a short-term or temporary policy — a type of low-cost insurance that has grown in popularity in recent years. Many customers are people who have lost their job-based group benefits and can’t afford to buy long-term individual coverage.

Short term policies usually provide coverage for up to a year, and not are designed to take the place of “real” health insurance. They’re meant for people in transition, like Campbell, who purchased the short-term policy through Blue Cross of California in March 2006 while she was working as a contract registered nurse at UCSF Medical Center.

But such policies are difficult to renew or extend if customers file claims. Patients such as Campbell who develop serious medical conditions while on short-term policies can find it almost impossible to obtain other coverage once the insurance expires.

Campbell used her policy once, for a minor infection and then Blue Cross refused to renew it. She then purchased another short-term policy, this time through Blue Shield of California, and paid in advance for an entire year. But just a few days later, she was diagnosed with 2 forms of soft tissue cancers, which basically made her uninsurable.

Her Blue Shield policy has paid for the cost of her cancer treatment, but they will not renew it after it expires. Campbell can’t find anyone else who will insure her.

Campbell has worked as a nurse for 31 years, saving other people’s lives. She’s not eligible for early Medicare benefits, and she and her husband earn too much to qualify for state Medi-Cal. While California does have program for people who have serious health conditions and are unable to obtain coverage, it only covers up to $75,000 a year, which is barely enough to even scratch the surface for the care that Campbell needs.

“I have a cancer that can go from zero to death in less than three months,” Campbell said. “With the kind of cancer they’ve diagnosed me with, an 18-month wait or a 12-month wait is too long.”

Despite her condition, Campbell said, she has applied for three nursing jobs and has interviewed for one. She did not get the job.

“At a time when other cancer patients are resting, I’m out there trying to find a job so I can get on someone’s group insurance,” she said.

On Thursday, Campbell received word that she may be hired as a staff member by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl. That would allow her to receive group coverage until she is eligible for Medicare.

Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, is the author of a bill that calls for universal coverage under a single-payer system that eliminates the need for insurance companies. Kuehl’s office did not confirm the job offer on Thursday.

Campbell and her husband are scheduled to testify Tuesday before a state Assembly health committee meeting in support of Kuehl’s legislation.

Allen Campbell, who worked as a pilot carrying out aid missions in Africa, said he plans to stage protests on the steps of the state Capitol and in front of insurers’ offices. He spent decades working to help people in war-torn regions, he said, but has never felt so helpless.

“I cannot save my own wife,” he said.

So even if SICKO romanticized healthcare systems in other countries, it remains a fact that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not offer some type of universal coverage to all of its citizens. There are millions of people like Campbell who fall right into the cracks. People criticize systems like in Canada, where you may have to wait for treatment. Well, what good is accessibility if you can’t pay for it?

This story is so sad, that this hard working woman may die because she can’t afford to pay for treatment. And that her husband (who is currently disabled and on Medicare), spent a lifetime helping those in need, yet can do nothing for his own wife.

The irony is of having a nurse, working her butt off taking care of patients, and yet who is dying of a disease that she can’t afford to treat.

I have received several comments on my Aug 10 post about the recent court decision to deny terminally ill patients the right to potentially effective treatment–on the grounds that they are “experimental.” You know, the drug might turn out to cause impotence in male patients 20 years after taking it, so that is a major concern for a dying patient.

I have decided that this is a subject worth more than a passing mention, and will be revisiting it regularly. Who knows, I should start a whole new blog on it. That is something worth considering.

Please go and read the comments that people have posted. They are well thought out, poignant, and filled with very intriguing information. Especially about Provenge. It seems that the article I took the information from said that Provenge extended life 4.5 months. As a commenter posted, some patients have now survived 15 months longer than they should have. A drug that adds over a year of life of a dying patient should not be ignored or dismissed. But there may be some sinister underlying reasons.

This is a comment I received, and I think the information is worth reading. It is so typical of the FDA, and may explain the heart of the Provenge controversy. It is also frightening, to see just how much conflict of interest the FDA is steeped in.

Roxanne,

I am writing to you in response to your article, Dying? Tough Luck, dated August 10th, 2007. Dr. Howard Scher, as an employee of the FDA, has been granted a level of public trust and the stewardship of such a position demands the highest levels of ethical and moral conduct. Voting on and participating in an FDA advisory meeting in order to determine which drugs receive FDA marketing approval in which you play a decisive role in and in which you have a financial interest in (or counter interest in), is contrary to unbiased public concern and counter to the fiduciary duty Dr. Scher accepted as a special government employee and FDA panel advisor. Dr. Scher’s participation in the Provenge advisory panel is akin to a defendant’s own sibling participating on a jury resulting in a hung jury decision. Knowing of Dr. Scher’s close professional relationship to ProQuest Investments, how is the public to believe that the FDA made the correct decision? Surely you can see the travesty of his participation in this matter. Such conflicts of public and personal interest jeopardize the legitimacy of one proclaiming to act on behalf of the public’s best interests.

The fact that Dr. Howard Scher sits on an advisory board to ProQuest Investments and has been granted an ownership position in ProQuest Investments, a $1 billion venture capital fund which has a major financial ownership stake in Novacea, a direct competitor to Provenge, and is allowed to participate in and vote on marketing approval of Provenge is unacceptable ethically. Furthermore, Dr. Scher’s apparent over the top crusade to deny this choice to terminally ill patients for what appears to be financial gain is immoral in light of the lack of treatment options available to terminally ill androgen-independent prostate cancer (AIPC) patients and when considering the undeniable survival benefit demonstrated in combination with Taxotere, the only FDA approved treatment for AIPC.

The survival data shows that the patients that received Provenge had longer median survival (4.5 months) than that reported for Taxotere therapy, without having to endure 7 months of infusion therapy and coping with the poisonous toxic side effects related to Taxotere infusion. In support of its efficacy, a direct correlation between Provenge induction of immune response and survival benefit was also demonstrated in these patients. Most impressively, the data analysis also shows that when Provenge treated patients were subsequently treated with Taxotere, their median survival almost doubled (from 20 months to 35 months). This is compelling survival data further supporting the efficacy of Provenge for hormone refractory prostate cancer. In comparison, Taxotere increases median survival by only 2-3 months. This increase in survival is so dramatic and remarkable, it could not have been due to a random chance. This clearly shows that Provenge is effective at extending overall survival from AIPC beyond any reasonable doubt. This is amazing data.

Provenge received an overwhelming vote of support from the advisory committee and recommended immediate marketing approval be granted. Both Dr. Howard Scher and Dr. Maha Hussain, each of whom voted in the minority and are very powerful members of the oncology community, launched an unprecedented PR campaign accusing those in the majority of incompetence and naiveté in matters relating to cancer products. The arrogance of this campaign overlooked the notion that survival data from Provenge may be qualitatively different from, and may need to be judged by different criteria than, survival data from chemotherapy drugs (as recognized in a July 1st National Cancer Institute research report by Jeffrey Schlom, Ph.D., chief of the Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Biology at the National Cancer Institute).

A request for a Conflict of Interest Waiver was requested by Dr. William Freas, Director of Scientific Advisors and Consultants for CBER, on February 5, 2007. The request was concurred by Vince Tolino, Director of Ethics and Integrity, on February 26, 2007. On March 8, 2007, Dr. Howard Scher was granted a waiver by Dr. Randall Lutter to participate in Dendreon’s FDA advisory panel for Provenge because an individual with lesser conflicts of interest was unavailable. I don’t understand how the need for Dr. Howard Scher’s individual services could outweigh the above demonstrated conflict of interest created by the financial interest attributable to Dr. Scher. I can’t imagine an individual participant with more financial conflicts of interests sitting on the FDA advisory panel for Provenge. It is my fear that Dr. Scher’s financial interests have come before the best interests of terminal AIPC patients.

There must be standards to public duty and there must be accountability and consequences for failure to meet the necessary high standards. Maintaining the integrity and dignity of the FDA is essential for maintaining high levels of public confidence in our institutions of government.

Provenge should be approved now! Cancer patients and advocates will be holding an FDA rally September 18th raise awareness of the current situation and elicit change at the FDA. You can find out more at: http://www.arighttolive.com Please come support cancer patients September 18th. Every voice counts.

If you’re dying of some dread disease, and all of your options spent, and you weren’t lucky enough to qualify for a clinical trial–well, tough luck. Even if an experimental drug may help you, our court system and FDA has decided that you are better off dead than to dare use an unapproved drug.

This does go back to the militancy which developed early in the AIDS epidemic, when patients mobilized and demanded drugs be made available sooner. They didn’t have time to wait until the next century, until the FDA got around to giving potential life saving/prolonging drugs approved. But now it seems, we are back to square 1.

Granted, I think that in many cases, the FDA is far too lax in what is approved and what pharm companies are allowed to claim about their products. For starters, the FDA is a joke when it comes to post-marketing surveillance, although that is beginning to change. But what we have to realize is that most drugs approved these days are mostly for non-life threatening conditions. Some are mere remakes of older drugs, with a few new bells and whistles, and are really not essential in the grand scheme of things.

What I am now referring to are drugs for potentially lethal diseases, made available to dying patients who have run out of options and whose physicians feel that they may help this patient. These are experimental drugs, which are in clinical trials. The patient is willing to pay for them out of pocket, and is willing to take any risks (although, when you are soon to be dead, the word “risk” takes on a whole new meaning). But yet, a court decided today that a patient has no right to these drugs.

From the OC Register:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit apparently believes that bureaucracies can and do have power so absolute that they trump the traditional right of free people to control their own bodies and try to protect their own lives. If that’s not the case, it’s difficult to see how the court arrived at the 8-2 decision in Abigail Alliance v. Eschenbach, which denies terminal patients and their doctors access to medications that have passed safety tests required by the Food and Drug Administration, but not the full battery of tests to prove efficacy.

The best course would be for the FDA to loosen up its restrictions on access to partially tested drugs, which lead to “thousands of people dying because of the FDA’s bureaucratic know-it-all attitudes,” as Paul Kamenar of the Washington Legal Foundation, which was co-plaintiff in the case, put it to us.

The next-best course (because it would take longer) would be for the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse this misguided ruling. Mr. Kamenar assured us that an appeal will be filed before the end of the month.

It’s one thing to deny a patient the use of an experimental acne drug, but a cancer patient? One dying of AIDS? One dying of a severe bacterial infection? Come on, let’s get real. This is about the cruelest and most devastating thing that the FDA has ever done. And apparently, the judges who ruled in favor of the FDA seem to think that they are invincible, and will never be a dying patient themselves, without options. Then again, when you are rich and well connected, having a connection to unapproved drugs isn’t a problem. It’s just the peons who will suffer.

“The FDA’s policy of limiting access to investigational drugs is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of protecting patients, including the terminally ill, from potentially unsafe drugs with unknown therapeutic effects,” Judge Thomas Griffith wrote in Tuesday’s majority opinion.

Does he really think that a person who is dying wants to be “protected” by the FDA, or by him for that matter? Do they care about the potential side effects? And the unknown therapeutic effects–gee, if it doesn’t work, they’ll just die, same as before. This paternalistic and arrogant attitude is mind boggling. Someone ought to lock this person in a room with a hundred dying patients, and then let him explain to them how his decision is “helping” them.

The FDA’s comments about this are priceless, but then, they always are. They never miss an opportunity to show their supreme stupidity, or how out of touch with reality they are. But I guess that it is their right to hold the power of life and death over defenseless patients. People should live and die by their word, it seems.

FDA spokeswoman Julie Zawisza said the agency was pleased with the appeals court ruling.

The decision “upholds the constitutionality of FDA’s role in facilitating appropriate treatment access to investigational therapies,” Zawisza said. It also protects the public by requiring that drugs be proven safe and effective before they are sold, she added.

Again, this protection bit. Did anyone explain to this chicklit that we are not talking about a treatment for nail fungus, but for diseases like cancer? That the word “protection” has little meaning to someone who is peering into their grave and doesn’t want to jump in like a good little patient.

On the bright side was the dissent by Judge Judith Rogers. “Denying a terminally ill patient her only chance to survive without even a strict showing of government necessity [for denying access to the drugs]presupposes a dangerous brand of paternalism.”

Right on sister, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

So where are out healthcare professionals? This is a volatile issue, but I haven’t seem much feedback on this coming from doctors and nurses. But some of them also seem to have this idea that a dying patient should be kept from their options.

From BusinessWeek:

Even cancer specialists, who often seek compassionate use programs for their patients, aren’t keen on expanded access. “I understand emotionally why patients would want this right, but the issues surrounding experimental drugs are very complex, and I think this could potentially backfire,” says leading oncologist Dr. George Demetri of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “Patients really need to know the relative benefit of a drug versus the relative risk, and expanded access could prevent them from gaining that insight.”

Well gee, Dr. Demetri, then why not sit down and explain the relative risk of a drug to the patient. You know, spend some time with the patient, and go through it. Give them the lowdown. Expanded access is not going to prevent that from happening. The only thing that will prevent that is if doctors like yourself don’t take the time to confer with your patients.

Activist patients, however, are disinclined to wait for such data when it comes to diseases for which treatments are few to nonexistent. Prostate cancer patient advocates in particular are up in arms these days over the FDA’s controversial refusal in May to approve Dendreon’s (DNDN) Provenge without further clinical trials, which could take a year or more to complete. Provenge is a novel cancer vaccine meant to prime the body’s immune system to attack tumors, and if approved would have been the first new treatment in more than 20 years for advanced, stage-4 prostate cancer, which is almost always fatal. Some 30,000 men die each year in the U.S. from prostate cancer.

In a trial, Provenge failed to stop the disease from progressing, but when it dug into the data it found that patients on the drug lived an average of 4.5 months longer than those on standard treatment. Despite the uneven results, an FDA advisory panel voted 13-4 in March to recommend the drug for approval, and the FDA usually follows such recommendations. So when the agency withheld approval on May 9, a firestorm erupted. Prostate cancer activists (and disgruntled Dendreon investors) have lobbied Congress, held demonstrations, and met with the FDA’s Commissioner, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach.

So now you have to wonder, why did the FDA withhold approval? It’s not like they’ve never approved a drug that was shown to be sketchy, or lacked solid safety data, or was shown to have minimal efficacy. They have also approved drugs that their advisory board turned down. So what’s up with Provenge? It’s not like people are just going to take it for the hell of it. The opportunity to live another 4 or 5 months is a real blessing to someone with a terminal illness. Is the FDA just trying to show how truly corrupt and cruel it can be?

…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.

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.

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?

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.

Oh, you didn’t know that was what FDA stood for? Fools and Dorks Association, F**kers and Derelicts Anonymous…take your pick.

Here’s more news on the FDA. I still think the Chinese have the right idea, because someone or something needs to put a fire under their asses. The FDA doesn’t think it needs to respond to the pet food scandal, or to even respond to questions about their incompetence. They’re hoping that it will just disappear, and then they can along on their merry little corrupt ways.

From the North County Gazette:

A Congressional committee has given the U.S. Food and Drug Administration until June 1 to produce requested records concerning drug and food safety in the United States or they will subpoena them.

Rep. John Dingell, (D-MI) chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Rep. Bart Stupak, (D-MI) chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, told Michael Leavitt, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that the FDA has failed to respond to requests of the committee and in some instances, has produced redacted records to the committee without any prior consultation on such redactions.

“Since the 110th Congress began, Committee has requested briefings, documents and information regarding a range of problems with the operation of the Food and Drug Administration”, the committee’s letter to HHS said. “With the exception of the January 23 request regarding the generic drug approval process and the provision of two food safety briefings, all of the other requests form this committee have been, at best, only partially answered and several have been ignored altogether. The requests for documents and information have been outstanding for one to three months”.

“The delays and quality of responses to the Committee’s requests concerning FDA are unacceptable”, the committee told the FDA. “With the exception of patient identifiers in medical records, all documents produced to the committee are to be unredacted”.

The FDA claims its been “as responsive as possible” to the document requests.

Well, maybe the FDA isn’t lying. Maybe their “response” is all that they are capable of. Otherwise, they will have to answer to all of the industries that they are trying to protect, and perhaps return some of the gold that they’re getting to grease their pockets?

Or maybe they are really are just too dumb to under the meaning of the word “response.”