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This article appeared in June, in the SF Gate, but it can hardly be considered outdated.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.”

Perhaps our own beloved FDA would shape up if there was actually something to fear, like some form of punishment for being corrupt, ignoring safety, and allowing thousands of people (and pets) to become ill and die because they don’t want to interfere with the financial well being of the industries they are supposed to be regulating.

This is what happens in China. Maybe we should ship our own sleazy FDA officials over there and let the Chinese take care of them.

From CBSNews:

The Chinese government has taken the tough-on-corruption stand to its ultimate conclusion, sentencing to death the former head of the food and drug administration for taking bribes to approve substandard medicines. At least 10 deaths have been linked to the scandal. According to The Associated Press:

The developments are among the most dramatic steps Beijing has publicly taken to address domestic and international alarm over shoddy and unsafe Chinese goods — from pet food ingredients and toothpaste mixed with industrial chemicals to tainted antibiotics.

Maybe if we locked our own FDA officials in a dungeon and forced them to consume all of the toxic crap that they allow in food, and consume all of the now-recalled drugs that they allowed to slip through in the face of damning evidence, things might change over there. Or force them to pay for medical treatment for people and pets harmed by their inactions and efforts to ensure high profits to the industry.

Although, I think the best option is to send them on a one way shuttle to Uranus. And give them some Vioxx and toxic pet food for the trip.

If you’re concerned about tainted pet food, the American Veterinary Medical Association has a comprehensive listing of all pet foods that have been recalled, plus ones that are now considered safe. If you click on the products listed, they give you a complete history of the recall, and why the product’s safety is questioned.

And of course, I can’t post anything about tainted pet food without once again mentioning how the FDA dragged its ass on this, how they waited weeks to act, and how they don’t seem to be doing anything to “regulate” the pet food manufacturers. I mean, that’s their job, isn’t it. Ooops, sorry, I forget. The FDA is supposed to be regulating the financial health of the industry.

Well now here is one of the all time dorkiest comments from the FDA, if such a thing is possible. This is from an article that appeared in the Indystar.com, about pet owners moving to making homemade food for their pets.

The FDA and the American Veterinary Medical Association are urging pet owners to switch brands if they are worried. The veterinarian group also warned that many common foods are not safe for pets, including salt, garlic, onions, grapes and chocolate.

Making pet food at home is “kind of like canning: You have to think about bacterial contamination. And how do you make sure it’s nutritionally appropriate and balanced for the animal?” said FDA spokeswoman Julie Zawisza.

Apparently Ms. Zawisza has never read a pet food label, because if she did, it would be impossible to make such an idiotic comment publically. Then again, the FDA makes many idiotic comments publically, and make fools and jackassess of themselves on a daily basis, and endanger the health and well being of the entire nation, so I guess that comment is in keeping with their policy.

What kind of bacterial contamination are we going to get in home cooked pet foods? That’s like saying we would all be better off eating food out of cans, rather than making fresh meals from scratch for ourselves and families. And as I said, it is frightening what the FDA “approves” as safe and nutritious for both humans and pets. Reading the labels on pet foods, even some of the fancy brands, is enough to make you ill. This whole pet food scandal has to do with wheat gluten, and pray tell, what is wheat gluten doing in pet food? It is there just as filler, so companies can save money by cutting back on meat and vegetables. That’s right, filler.

How do animals in the wild make sure that their meals are nutritionally balanced? I guess they confer with the FDA before eating. It is interesting to note, that the only animals that seem to develop “human diseases” like diabetes, cancer, heart disease, kidney failure, etc, are the ones in captivity and the ones being fed commercial food. Mammals are made to eat raw food. I do feed my cats raw meat (organic from Whole Foods), vegetables and vitamin supplements. I think that their diet is a lot healthier than the chemical stew of low grade and highly processed products that are contained in most commercial pet foods.

If you are going to use commerical pet food, only buy foods that are human grade, which means that they are fit for human consumption. And add fresh foods to the diet, if you are feeding them mostly dry kibble. I mean, how healthy do you think you would be if the only thing you ate was some processed dry crunchy stuff?

And maybe FDA maven Julie Zawisza, would like to be treated to a bowl of Meow Mix and milk. Why not? She thinks its so healthy.

I love tabloid stories, don’t you? The headlines always promise more than what’s actually embedded in the lines of the actual story. Then again, I could say the same for women’s magazines. The little ditties on the cover, which promise you the greatest skin ever, or the final solution to those lumps of cellulite, never meet up to the expectations. They are only designed to get you to buy the damn magazine, and hope that you’re not dumb enough to open it up first, and check if the story is really worth pursuing. Nine times out of 10, the hot story is a one page pseudo-ad, listing a bunch of overpriced products that promise to destroy that pimple, or solve that heart tugging problem of stray eyebrow hairs.

Anyway, I’m off track. This is a tiny tale from the Times Online, letting us know that nurses in the UK are too busy to feed their patients and as a result, they are starving to death. Ok, I’m exaggerating a little, but if nurses aren’t sure that they’re patients are getting fed, then it is possible to starve to death.

Patients are at risk of malnutrition because of a shortage of nursing staff to feed them properly, a survey suggests.

Almost half of the 2,000 nurses questioned by the Royal College of Nursing said that they did not have enough time to make sure that patients got their meals and were able to eat them because they were too busy. The findings come six years after the Government spent £40 million to improve nutrition in hospitals.

Difficulties getting food for patients outside set mealtimes was cited as the main problem by 49 per cent of nurses. Almost as many (46 per cent) nurses blamed a lack of staff to assist those patients who needed help eating.

Campaigners from the charity Age Concern say that elderly patients in particular are regularly going without meals because they are placed out of their reach or because they are unable to eat without assistance.

I wonder what the results would be if a similar survey was run in the US, particularly in long term care facilities where staffing is the most strained. Without enough aides to feed patients, who knows if they are getting fed.

Which reminds me of a story…a tale from my own sordid days of nursing. I used to work per diem at a great fancy hospital in Los Angeles. I would mention the name except I don’t want their PR weenies bothering me. Anyway, I worked in the NICU and one night (7pm-7am) I was pulled to the well baby nursery. These days, babies are encouraged (and sometimes aggressively) to spend most of their time with Mom. Not that there’ s anything wrong with that, but some new moms, especially if they’ve got other kids at home, like to take advantage of being able to get some sleep. I’ve heard that some hospitals these days don’t even have a well baby nursery–and believe me, it’s not because they believe in the miracle of mommy-baby bonding, but simply because it’s yet another measure to save money. I don’t know what they do with moms who are fresh sections, or who may be ill, or whatever. Maybe they just leave the baby in the room to cry and starve, or park in the hallway and hope someone takes pity on it.

But this incident was during the 1980s, and babies were often pushed back and forth from nursery to Mom and vice versa. The nursery was divided into several small rooms, and I had 8 kids assigned to me–all in one room. For one of the feedings, every single baby needed to be fed. Mom wanted to snooze. Well, how do you feed that many kids? I asked the charge nurse and her reply was “do the best you can.” Cool. So I picked up the one screaming the loudest, and began feeding. Many newborns are not the most voracious feeders, and they spit, need a lot of burping, etc. I also needed to diaper them, change the bedding if it was wet, weigh them, and do vital signs.

We had them on an every 4 hour schedule. At the end of that time, I had fed 7 of them and it was time to start again. So I began with the 8th baby, who effectively, was going to miss a feeding. I doubt that she suffered any ill consequences, but still. There was no excuse for this system. They could have easily gotten another nurse or aide to help out. But this was the most el cheapo hospital I had ever set foot in, and if short staffing meant a baby missed a feed, well, so what.

I really am trying to focus this blog more on nursing stuff and less on general healthcare, but I just can’t help myself when I see the FDA stick another thorn up their ass. In this case, the FDA was aware that pet food may have been contaminated, but dragged their feet and didn’t act for several weeks. Meanwhile, pets became ill and died, thanks to the efficiency and compassion of our friends at the FDA.

From ABC news.com:

The expanding pet food recall is the latest example of a “broken food safety program,” says Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who asked why the recall has unfolded so slowly. Durbin asked the Food and Drug Administration’s top veterinarian if failing to recall tainted pet food until three weeks after the first suspicion of contamination was too long of a wait.

“I can’t answer that. I don’t know,” said the FDA’s Stephen Sundlof.

Now isn’t that an intelligent response. I mean, why should they know? They are only entrusted with ensuring food and drug safety for both humans and other mammals, but the best they can come up with is, “Duh…”

From the LATimes:

In announcing the Senate hearing last week, Durbin called the pet food inspection system “deeply flawed” and criticized the FDA’s response as “tragically slow.” He said he hoped to learn when the FDA learned of the contamination and who is inspecting pet food plants.

“What we see here is an indication of problems across the board with food safety — both human and pet,” Durbin said Saturday. “There are too many agencies, too many laws, too many committee chairmen and too many special interest groups, which results in a piecemeal and splintered approach to food safety.”

FDA officials could not be reached for comment Saturday.

Durbin said the Kansas facility where many of the products were made had never been inspected by the FDA. “I would be shocked if they inspected any pet facility,” he said.

The FDA has “the ultimate responsibility for the safety of pet food,” Durbin said, but leaves inspections of facilities to the states. He said he was told that Kansas had never inspected the facility.

Don’t you feel safe, knowing that the FDA is watching over food and drug safety?

Every official at the FDA, who had anything at all to do with this issue, or who has anything to do with pet food safety–like getting off their ass and inspecting pet food facilities–should be forced to eat the tainted pet food. Then if any of them are left alive, they should be arrested and held without bail, and charged with fraud (stealing taxpayer money and not doing their job), and everything else from corruption to negligence. And hopefully, all of them would be locked away for the rest of their pathetic lives.

And as I’ve said before, the FDA as we know it needs to be completely dismantled, everyone associated with it fired, and in its place, several new agencies introduced. One for drugs only, one for food only, one for alternative medicines, and maybe a separate one for veterinary. And all should have strict regluations that separate the agencies from the industries that they are supposed to be regulating. As it stands now, the FDA thinks that it is supposed to be regulating the financial health of the food and pharm industries. Have they taken any action against the pet food companies responsible for this? Heaven’s no, that might interfere with their profits. It’s bad enough that they were forced to recall the pet food–the FDA wouldn’t want to inflict any more pain and suffering on the poor industry…

I never gave much thought to Walgreens, other than its name which sounds similar to my arch-enemy WalMart. I’ve never seen a Walgreens in Seattle, so I don’t know if they exist here, but they are all over the place in Florida, where my parents are.

But here’s a tidbit of news about Walgreens, and pay close attention if you use prescription drugs because this applies to you. If you fill your scripts at Walgreens, you might want to consider another pharmacy.

From Boing Boing:

Walgreens marks up generics by 975%

On the Freakonomics blog, Stephen Dubner (co-author of the wonderful Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything) digs into the pricing on generic drugs and finds that the main-street pharmacies mark up their offerings by 975 percent!

Even once you factor in the cost of buying a membership at Costco and Sam’s Club, the price differences were astounding. Here are the prices he found at Houston stores for 90 tablets of generic Prozac:

Walgreens: $117

Eckerd: $115

CVS: $115

Sam’s Club: $15

Costco: $12

Those aren’t typos. Walgreens charges $117 for a bottle of the same pills for which Costco charges $12.

Isn’t that great to know, how WalM

The scandalous conditions at Walter Reed isn’t exactly breaking news anymore, except it’s great fun to check back on the news and see which head is currently flying. But if one is looking for the joke in all this, look no further than George W. Bush’s “outcry” over the conditions.

From Buzzle.com:

President Bush was forced to pledge tough action yesterday to deal with a growing scandal over the poor treatment of wounded Iraq war veterans, which has led to a series of military resignations.

The furore has centred on conditions at the Walter Reed hospital in Washington, DC, which is considered the best military facility of its kind in America. However, revelations in the Washington Post last week revealed dilapidated conditions at several buildings used to house military outpatients.

The newspaper described infestations of rats in some rooms, mouldy walls and damp-stained fixtures. That was enough for the head of Walter Reed, Major-General George Weightman, to be fired. His sacking was then swiftly followed by the resignation of the Army Secretary, Francis Harvey. Harvey was the army’s top civilian official.

But the political crisis has not stopped there. In a highly unusual move aimed at stemming the damage, the White House has now become involved. In his weekly radio address yesterday, Bush slammed conditions at the hospital. ‘This is unacceptable to me, it is unacceptable to our country and it is not going to continue,’ he said.

Now isn’t that sweet, Bush is upset at the conditions at the hospital. This is the same man who thinks nothing of slashing the benefits to veterans, so that the VA hospitals may soon end up as disgusting as the military ones. Gee, this sort of compassion just brings me to tears. And never mind that the majority of these men are maimed and sick because of his and Dickie’s quest to control Iraqi oil. And to pave the coffers of Halliburton with gold.

Actually, hearing that Bush is upset does make me slightly queasy. But wait, here’s more. Apparently Bush has previously visited Walter Reed, as have other paper soliders–uh, I mean politicians–and they noticed nothing amiss. I guess they were blinded by the photo op.

The problems at Walter Reed are a potential disaster for many politicians on both sides of the political divide. The hospital is a favoured stop for any politician wishing to show solidarity with the troops and has been visited by many senior figures from both parties. Bush himself has visited Walter Reed several times. Yet, as White House spokesman Tony Snow has been forced to admit, he first learnt of the problems there from the media.

No other visiting politician appears to have noticed anything awry either. Certainly not the dreadful conditions at some of the outlying buildings at the sprawling facility. In particular, the state of Building 18 has been the centre of attention. That building, which houses wounded soldiers not ill enough to be in the main hospital but still requiring outpatient treatment, was the focus of the Post’s stories. It has now been closed for hurried renovations.

So I guess that Bush and his ilk thought that mice, roaches, termites, and mushrooms growing on the walls was normal for a military hospital. Nothing like a little hardship to toughen those silly soldiers up.

I’m also curious if there was any sort of protest from the doctors and nurses working at Walter Reed. Not only protesting for their patients, but for themselves–in having to work in these conditions. I’ve worked as a contract civilian in two military hospitals, so I am wondering if civilians also work at Walter Reed–and civilians may be more aggressive at complaining, since they have no military ties and the upper brass can’t threaten them. Surely the nurses, physicians, and other staff could not keep turning a blind eye. And if they did protest/complain, was it all buried? Were they threatened if they were military? Booted out if they were civilian contract, although the military is hard pressed for nurses and I can’t see how they would even consider firing a nurse.

Anyway, I’d love to hear from any nurses who’ve been at Walter Reed. I have a feeling that this has been kept under wraps for a while, but now that the story broke, there’s no going back.

I’m sure that most people now have caught a glimpse into the pathetic stories emerging from Walter Reed and other military facilities. Not enough heads are rolling if you ask me, and of course, the first head to roll should be the commander in chief…

But I just wanted to clarify something, which some news stories are not getting quite straight. The military hospital system is run by the Department of Defense, and is entirely separate from the VA system. Yet, some reporters seem to be meshing the two together. Most independent researchers (at least the reports that I have read) who have compared the VA with private hospital systems found the VA far superior in most measures of quality of care. To be sure, the VA has its own problems, which will be complicated by the cuts that Bush is trying to push through (why care for our sick and injured soldiers once they can no longer be sent to Iraq to secure his oil?), but that’s another issue entirely.

Bottom line is that the military hospitals treating soliders fresh from active duty, and the VA system, should not be confused.

Bush doesn’t even attempt to hide his real agenda anymore. A bill that would force drug companies to negotiate lower prices for Medicare, ie, bring down health spending and make drugs more affordable does not jive with Dubya. And why not? Well, who cares if healthcare spending is over the top? Who cares about old geezers getting their drugs? This bill will harm big Pharma’s profits, and Dubya couldn’t stand to allow that to happen.

From ABC News

Despite President Bush’s veto threat, the House approved legislation Friday that would require the government to negotiate with drug companies over the price of medicines for Medicare participants.

Democrats used their new majority status to push through the latest of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s priorities for the first 100 hours of the new Congress. The vote was 255-170, mostly along party lines, well short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

Dubya says that competition is already “bringing down prices” and encouraging the development of new drugs. What a moron. Let’s hear all about the prices going down. Come on Dubya, let’s see some examples. Let’s hear all about how healthcare spending is decreasing.

Is this man one of the most despicable forms of human life ever to walk the earth?

The president and his Republican allies have argued that this bill would do nothing. Then why, I must ask, would he bother to veto it?” said Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Yes, if the bill is so benign and won’t have any effect on anyone or anything then why make such a big deal over it? Why bother to veto it? We’re waiting for an answer, George.

How many days until 2008? I do believe that George W Bush will go down in history as not only the absolute worst president in the history of our country, but as one who caused some of the worst destruction to our planet and the creatures living upon it. How many people have died or been injured from his policies, which include not only Iraq but also withholding money from the UN Population Fund, his sickening stipulations for the AIDS funding, and trying to bully nations into going along with his thinking. How much destruction has he caused to our planet with his greed and denial of global warming?

And now he wants to attack old people. Deny them lower prices for drugs. What a guy. You just gotta love Dubya.

Now here is a story that can make you sick to your stomach. I think this so-called doctor should be arrested and subjected to his own experiment.

From the Seattle PI

The U.S. Department of Agriculture will send an inspector to a hospital where a neurosurgeon demonstrating a medical device to salespeople deliberately induced a brain aneurysm in a dog, which was later destroyed.

The Cleveland Clinic, known for its heart center and for treating high-profile patients such as royalty, said that it had not authorized the procedure. The hospital reported itself to the USDA, which regulates animal testing.

A neurosurgeon caused the brain aneurysm in the anesthetized animal Wednesday at the clinic’s Lerner Research Institute in Cleveland to demonstrate a medical device to a group of 20 to 25 salespeople. The large, mixed-breed dog was destroyed afterward because of the damage caused by the aneurysm, the clinic said.

Yes, you read it right. This arrogant asshold of a doctor, who is supposed to have some regard for life, tortured and killed a dog to demonstrate a device to salespeople. Salespeople. Let’s repeat that a few times. He killed a dog for a demo to non-medical geeks whose only interest is in selling the product.

Could he have used a dummy? Of course. But did he? No.

The Cleveland Clinic will not release his name or say if he has been suspended. I think he should be fired, be stripped of his medical license, and then used for the next demo. He thinks that salespeople need to see a living specimen. Well, we got a volunteer, and let’s induce an aneurysm on him while he is wide awake.

I wonder what the salespeople thought. I would have stopped the procedure and called the police, the Humane Society, the press, PETA, anyone. And then plastered his name all over the news. Is this the kind of neurosurgeon you want digging into your brain?