Strollerderby : healthcare

Got a Sick Child? Go Online

JeanneSager — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:31:00 GMT

When I first read that more parents are going online after their kids get sick, I had thoughts of hundreds of graduates of Google University picking fights with the med. school grads trying to take care of their kids.

Good news: that's not what this story is about.

Not that parents can't find some good quality health information online. But there's enough fearmongering and misinformation online to make you never trust an MD again.

But a recent post over at the U.S. News and World Report parenting blog by Nancy Shute pointed to a phenomena that's been widely used, and yet widely overlooked: the online patient support group. Especially important for parents who don't want to leave their kids' hospital bedsides or have little time for nighttime support group meetings (and no money for a sitter when it's all going to the medical bills), online support groups offer not only a (virtual) shoulder to cry on but a go-to source for navigating the net full of all that fearmongering and misinformation.

They've read most of it and dissected it already. Plus, they've been where you are right now, and they can help you get to where they are. As Shute points out, they've also got a stake in finding the answers you want. Your doctors may be fantastic and incredibly intelligent, but they simply don't have the same kind of time to devote to your incessant quest for knowledge.

And online, we very often can find it - and in ways that we couldn't in our hometowns. Where there might be 100 kids with food allergies at your kid's elementary school, there are hundreds of thousands of parents dealing with them over at Kids With Food Allergies. Where only one in four thousand kids is born with cystic fibrosis across the entire U.S., hundreds of their moms and dads are blogging at CysticFibrosis.com.

Of course, you can't trust it all - read any blog (even Strollerderby), and there's a tendency for parents to post medical advice (here they leave it in comments), and for other parents to say, "oh, that's interesting, I didn't know that, I'll have to do that." Where people are quicker to discount the spoken word, a possible loon in an in-the-flesh support group, something about seeing the words written on a computer screen makes parents (people in general really) more trusting.

Would you prefer an in-the-flesh support group or are you all about online?

Image: OETSG

Morning News - Mike Tyson's Daughter Injured

Brett Singer — Tue, 26 May 2009 00:37:00 GMT

This is a strange and sad story. Mike Tyson's daughter was found hanging by a treadmill cord. She is now in critical condition at St. Joe's hospital in Phoenix. According to reports, it was a "tragic accident"; the 4-year-old became tangled in the cord while playing. Tyson was not home at the time but has rushed back to join his family at the hospital, according to Fox Phoenix.

Wondering where the Guantanamo detainees will go if they get released? How about Italy? Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (who has accused of picking his nose and eating it) said that "his country will consider accepting an unspecified number of detainees from the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." Hey, I bet the food there is better.

I'm no business expect, but when I read that Microsoft is planning to name their new search engine Bing, my initial reaction was to say "wow. That's a horrible idea." We'll see if I'm right. The company that brought the world Windows ME and Microsoft Bob is planning to spend up to $100 million dollars advertising their new search thingy. Bing, huh? Oookay.

I thought this was already confirmed, but I guess not -- Mel Gibson's new girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva, is pregnant. Look at that photo. Mel is looking really old. But still, you can see what a younger woman sees in him (money). I mean, seriously (money). What woman wouldn't want to date Mel (money)?

A chicago resident has died from swine flu, aka H1N1, or, as I call it, heinie. (Get it? H1N1? The 1's look like i's, sort of? And heinie is a funny word? Oh, never mind.) This isn't funny, of course. Just trying to add a little levity to the situation. This is the 12th person in the United States to die as a result of swine flu; the virus has killed 91 people worldwide. What I wonder is how many people die from other kinds of flu? That is, is swine flu worse or just getting more press? Regardless, I'm still stocking up on hand sanitizer for myself and the children.

And finally, I leave you with this: Congress and President Obama is still planning to "overhaul" the U.S. healthcare system, which basically sucks unless you have a good job. Even if you do, it can still suck. I freely admit that I don't know how to change it, but there are too many people walking around without health coverage and that can't be a good thing.

More tomorrow...

Image: Wikipedia

Dad Charges Daughter With Grand Theft Auto

Moms Taking Drugs to Stop Lactation

Did This Woman Commit Suicide Because She Couldn't Breastfeed?

Crocheted Doll Gives Birth

Women Switched at Birth Find Out 56 Years Later

Kids are Suffering in Emergency Rooms Nationwide

JeanneSager — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:00:00 GMT

No one wants to spend a night with their child in the emergency room. But the numbers of kids spending hours in the nation's ERs waiting to be seen by doctors is on the rise.

The problem? It's the economy (duh).

Without health insurance to cover an expensive doctor's visit, parents are turning to the emergency room for their primary care. And they're bringing their kids.

Forty-four percent of children's hospitals in the U.S. have reported a spike in emergency room visits. That's just child-specific hospitals, but numbers are up at other hospitals too (where patients are both adults and kids). This comes on the heels of already growing numbers - even when the economy was steady, the CDC reported a decade-long hike in emergency room visits from 1996 to 2006. Of them, kids made up the largest number, followed by adults over the age of seventy-five.

The chief problem is health insurance, and one in nine kids is estimated to be without it (and of those kids, nine in ten has at least one working parent and is a U.S. citizen). Even folks who qualify for Medicaid often end up carting their kids to the ER because private doctors won't accept it.

But kids are waiting longer and longer periods of time before getting treatment. That's both in the ER (where more visits combined with fewer emergency rooms means longer waits) and out - where parents who worry about the hospital bill are delaying the trip to the hospital. A recent Kaiser survey found at least twenty-seven percent of Americans have actually delayed care because of the cost, And that's what has medical practitioners worried.

Kids' bodies are changing quickly and their immune systems are less developed. They're at greater risk than the average adult, and they need healthcare more desperately than the average adult. Which means parents have to make tough choices - as hard as it may be, and as many sacrifices as it might take, that emergency room visit might be the best option.

Have you suddenly found yourself in an emergency room when you'd never visited one before?

Image: CBS News

Swine Flu Claims First US Victim

JeanneSager — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:23:00 GMT

The swine flu pandemic has claimed its first victim here in America, according to U.S. officials, and he was just shy of his second birthday.

Although the toddler was in Texas, he was actually a Mexican native visiting the states with his family.

The little boy (listed as twenty-three months by Houston, Texas health officials and twenty-two months by U.S. officials) entered the country in early April with "underlying health issues" according to representatives of the CDC. He developed flu symptoms on April 8 and died on April 13. Considering Mexico is still being considered Point O for the swine flu infection, the chances that he brought the disease with him to the states are almost one hundred percent, although health officials say there's little chance he infected his fellow travelers as he wasn't contagious at that point. His family has so far tested clean for the swine flu and remains healthy.

This is a sad and tragic occurrence, but I think we all knew it was coming. The American healthcare system is not infallible, and the deaths in Mexico cannot all be blaimed on the sub-standard care available to poorer residents of that country. The very young and the very old are more highly susceptible to disease (fifty-three children have died this year already from seasonal flu in the states), and that includes swine flu.

But does the fact that a life has actually be claimed inside the borders of our country change your opinion of the pandemic? Chatting up other local parents, we all agreed that we were a little nervous, but rather more confidant by living in our relatively isolated area and access to better healthcare. But that was when we only had sick kids in America. Now we have a tragic death of a little boy (not much younger than my child). Are you more afraid?

Image: Business Week

Home Birth: A Right or a Must?

JeanneSager — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:38:00 GMT

I wasn't surprised to read Melanie Reid's assumption that home birthing moms are all sandal-wearing hippie freaks (OK, I added that last part). It's the way a lot of people look at women who decided to deliver a baby at home. That's not to say I agreed with her.

But even with her narrow description of the type of woman who decides to give birth at home, Reid's piece in the Times of London this week hit upon some pretty shocking numbers: home birthing is on the rise after decades of decline, but so too are the numbers of people pushing to make home birth THE way to give birth.

And that, I have to admit, I'm not kosher with.

Because for all the wonderful things that home birth offers, and all the reasons I think it should be available to any mother who wants to try it, the one thing I have heard from most moms who have actually given birth at home is that what empowered them to do it was knowing the hospital was just a phone call - and an ambulance ride - away should they need it.

I'm not sure if Reid has met your average home birther, to be honest. She calls the countries where home birthing rates are low as the "sensible" ones, and calls hospitals"the only intelligent, progressive, logical place to give birth." Ask your average home birthing advocate, and she will actually tell you hospitals ARE progressive, intelligent, logical places to give birth - if you need them. The truly sensible home birthers decided to make the choice based on medical assessments, which you very well might call progressive - considering back in the day there was no doctor checking for fetal distress before a woman on the prairie gave birth in her house. If the hospital becomes necessary, the sensible homebirthers say OK, and get there . . . pronto.

As our own home birthing Strollerderby writer Madeline Holler pointed out in her Babble essay on the topic, when she asked her midwife all the what ifs, the dangerous ones pointed to a trip to the hospital - no matter what:

What if the cord slips out before the baby? (We go straight to the hospital.) Bleeding? (Hospital.) Premature labor? (Hospital.)

But, as Reid explains, there's a difference between helping women to realize their dreams of a homebirth and actively advocating we all head in that direction. Wales actually put out a target of having at least ten percent of women give birth at home (this was in 2002, and their target year was 2007 - they're two years past and nowhere near it).

Why?

Because for all its advantages (and there are plenty - read Madeline's essay, she's been there, done that, and can explain them much better than a hospital birther like me), the hospital birth remains its back up because it has something a home can't have: the means to deal with complications. Midwives have modern medical training and are fantastic for your average birth, but outside of a hospital setting, if something DOES go wrong, where do they send you? You got it.

Which means pushing women to have a homebirth, rather than simply accommodating those who want to give it a go, does indeed put us back toward the dark ages. It means putting more women at risk, more babies at risk. The reason a select few women give birth at home in countries like the U.K. and the U.S. is not only because, as Reid claims "We're squeamish. We are hardwired to go to hospital and have our babies there. It's what we do. It's in our modern DNA."

It's because that's a better option for a lot of women. Not all. But a lot. Women like me who had to have pitocin adminstered because my daughter just WOULD NOT come out. Or women like my friend whose son had been improperly measured by her midwife and came out with shoulder distortion because he was just too darn big for her tiny frame. It's better for women with pre-existing conditions, babies with elevated heart rates.

Pushing for the opposite, pushing women to return to their homes, to take away their access to the modern advances of technology heightens the risks for women, gives insurance companies the excuse NOT to cover services and demeans the needs many women experience during labor and delivery. So some women can do just fine in a birthing pool at home. So some women make it through balancing on a ball in their bedroom. Not all of us can.

Very simply: it's one thing to chose a home birth. It's another to get the most out of home birth.

Image: TrueBirth

Breastfeeding Debates: Just a Tempest in a Sippy Cup?

Mattress Ad Features Homebirth

Did Having a Baby Make You Start Thinking About Your Ex?

Homebirthing Advocate's Baby Dies During Homebirth

Also on Babble:

My Illegal Home Birth

When Mom Doesn't Know Best

JeanneSager — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:30:00 GMT

Ever wonder how hospitals end up taking control of a child's healthcare when there's a perfectly able mother standing bedside?

When the mother sounds like she's a total whack-a-doodle.

Montreal Children's Hospital has gained permission from the courts to continue treating a fifteen-year-old girl badly burned in a house fire for the next two years. Her mother, who suffered minor injuries in the same fire, says she wants the girl to be taken off life support and sent home. But she couldn't bother showing up to court to tell the judge that.

The girl was burned over fifteen percent of her body, including internal - airway - burns on March 7. Doctors are optimistic - after all, they've called for at least two years of further treatment - but say she will need surgery and is currently on medicines to treat infection and help with her severe pain.

According to the National Post, the mom has taken to showing up at odd hours at the hospital to visit her daughter and was caught wiping the child's face with industrial cleaning cloths (like the kind you'd use to disinfect your bathroom) and playing with the girl's respirator. They don't out and out say it, but everything about this mother seems to scream "she wants her child to die." It may be much simpler - denial, maybe? A lack of trust for the medical community?

I always wonder what drives a parent to play superman (or supermom, in this case) and claim they know more than a set of physicians. Being your child's health advocate is one thing; outright claims that you know more than the people who went to school for this for a long, long time signal someone is delusional. And if the mother couldn't bother showing up in court to fight her side - or send a lawyer to represent her - you have to ask, does she care?

Image: Montreal Children's

From Playboy to Medical School: Jenny McCarthy Now a Doctor

JeanneSager — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:01:00 GMT

Love her or hate her, former Playboy Bunny and Singled Out host Jenny McCarthy is donning a white coat for her new role: doctor. Her voice for the fight to cure autism has earned McCarthy her medical degree from Harvard Med.

The announcement comes just as McCarthy's fifth book, co-authored with autism specialist Dr. Jerry Kartzinel, hits shelves. The work behind Healing and Preventing Autism and McCarthy's extensive research of the subject was subject of a face-off with science editor Jeffrey Kluger this week in TIME Magazine.

But it's that work that has earned McCarthy the attention of Harvard Med, one of the most respected institutions in America. They've decided to grant McCarthy the degree not as an honorary title but with full credentials. She will still have to pass the boards in order to actually practice medicine.

Does the Harvard Med. seal of approval change your opinions of McCarthy?

Image: Amazon

Congress: End Amber Alerts by 2010, MicroChip Newborns

JeanneSager — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:26:00 GMT

After news that an Amber Alert was cancelled last week when a missing child miraculously walked in her front door, is it any surprise that Congress is taking seriously the toll that helicopter parents are putting on law enforcement with their overreactions?

Congress has put out the call for all newborns born in American hospitals to be microchipped, beginning July 1, 2010. The simple process can be done in the hospital nursery by pediatricians, who will then log the newborn's vital statistics into a national database linked to the FBI for all law enforcement to access. When an officer encounters a child, he will be able to use a scanner to immediately determine if this is the missing child in question.

Funds to outfit the hospitals with the proper equipment, similar to those used in most veterinary offices, and to provide police with scanners will come from President Obama's latest stimulus bill.

Children born before that date are grandfathered - so to speak - but parents will have the option of taking their children to their local hospitals to have the chips implanted just under the skin in a quick outpatient procedure. The chips will be placed near the shoulder for easy access by the scanners, but because of their very small size, there should be no lasting scars on a child's skin.

Will you be taking Junior in?

Image: Zazzle

They Say: Blame Hospitals for Breastfeeding Failures

JeanneSager — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:31:00 GMT

Reading this study, I couldn't help but feel a little vindicated. I've always felt like a big fat failure at breastfeeding - despite all my best efforts, I didn't make it very long. And I put a lot of that blame on the misinformation swirling around the maternity ward where I gave birth to my daughter.

Guess what?

A new study says hospitals are largely to blame for the failure of breastfeeding moms in America. And that includes hospitals where attempts are being made to encourage breastfeeding.

The study by the Boston University School of Public Health looked at data on some fifteen hundred women in the nation who had recently given birth. At least seventy percent of first-time moms said they wanted to breastfeed exclusively. Good news, right? Except by the time the babies were a week old, only HALF of the women were exclusively breastfeeding.

Guilty as charged.

Which is why even this article about the study made me angry. One of the chief problems I've found with many maternity wards (not all, but many) is the lack of breastfeeding education for members of the staff. And the same misinformation peddled in hospitals that hurts breastfeeding rates is being pushed out in articles like this one: ie. "some new mothers really are too exhausted to breast feed right away, or they can't produce enough breast milk for their baby's nutritional needs."

No. No. No. No.

I heard this in the hospital after my daughter was born, and I bought it hook, line and sinker. It's one of the main reasons I exhausted myself in the first two weeks of my daughter's life, attempting to breastfeed every two hours, attempting to pump every other hour to increase my milk production because the nurses at the hospital had me convinced I wasn't producing enough. Yes, that meant I was up every hour on the hour for two solid weeks - I was literally tethered to the breast pump.

The problem? Most women DON'T produce milk in the first few days of their child's life. We produce colostrum, the incredibly rich and incredibly thin liquid that's a sort of pre-milk. And that's all the baby needs. As breastfeeding expert Laura Keegan said in a recent piece I wrote about the most common hurdles for new moms right here on Babble, "If you are pumping, be aware that pumping small amounts is not an indicator of a low milk supply."

Colustrum is in every breastfeeding book out there, so why don't nurses working on maternity wards know about it? Although I don't agree that formula is poison, I will say that convincing a mother she isn't making enough . . . so she needs to supplement . . . is poisoning her mind. Her body CAN'T make more, and she's being told she's a failure. Yet, her body is doing exactly what it's supposed to do.

What else is wrong with the above statment? The idea that moms are too exhausted immediately following birth to breastfeed. Yes, we're tired. But after that first feed, so is the baby. In fact, while nurses at my hospital practically tanned the hides of my husband and myself for not waking our daughter every two hours to eat, newborn babies are exhausted too. They just went through the same labor Mom went through. And so sleeping for a few hours is one hundred percent normal. Babies will not starve if they suckle only a few times at the very beginning. And Mom, by the way, may be exhausted. I was. But I've yet to see a mother who isn't on drugs from a C-section or already showing severe signs of postpartum depression who isn't itching to get her hands on that baby in the first twenty-four hours.

So sticking a bottle in the baby's mouth to let his mother sleep is wrong; she should have the chance to make that decision. But so is harping on a breastfeeding mother every few moments - pushing her to breastfeed now, when the baby is sleeping and she could be getting the sleep she missed when you woke her in the middle of the night for a feeding.

There is a movement that's gaining speed in American hospitals, sponsored by UNICEF, that can make all the difference. Baby Friendly Hospitals require all staff - be it the nurses, the doctors, whoever - have up-to-date breastfeeding education. They make lactation consultants available to every mother and allow babies to room-in with their mothers, so she can determine when the baby's hungry and when she wants to attempt feedings.

It takes effort to become Baby Friendly, but if breast is best is ever going to really take hold, misinformation has to stop at the beginning - the place where the baby is born. When you're losing the mothers (like me) who walk in the door with the very best of intentions, the women who already know breast is best and WANT to make it work, you have to step back and realize the machine is broken. It's time to fix it.

Images: BabyFriendlyUSA

UPDATE: Bye Bye BPA: WHICH Bottles Will Go Bisphenol Free

They Say: Early Pacifier Use Can Undermine Breastfeeding

Also on Babble:

Your Breastfeeding Timeline

Asthma Coaches Keep Kids Breathing

JeanneSager — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:33:00 GMT

It might be time to welcome a new member to the team of healthcare professionals helping keep your kid healthy - their asthma coach.

In a study at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, community health workers randomly assigned to make home visits and phone calls to low-income parents to teach them about asthma and encourage positive management behaviors decreased the need for hospitalization for kids.

Just over thirty-six percent of the kids, ages two through eight, who were assigned an asthma coach were hospitalized during the two-year study. By comparison, just over fifty-nine percent of the kids assigned to "usual care" (ie. a pediatrician only) were hospitalized during that same time period. There was no reduction in the number of emergency room visits.

It's important to note that asthma is not being cured by the coaches - they're simply providing parents with the skills to better manage their children's care. And although this study was based on low-income families, it's fair to say that EVERY family could use an education that doesn't come straight from Google.

A lot of parents are wary of allowing a professional to come into their homes to make suggestions on how to care for their kids, and I can't blame them. I don't want someone walking into my house to tell me why I'm a bad parent. But even the most caring pediatrician doesn't have adequate time to explain every detail and answer every question. With a disease like asthma - which can often be exacerbated by environment - these home visits seem that much more crucial to getting a handle on a child's disease management. A trained professional can make a real difference in a child's life - and as much as we hate to admit it, sometimes we parents need their help.

Would you call on an asthma coach?

Image: TopNews

Parents Say Hospital Took Son's Organs Without Consent

JeanneSager — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 13:18:00 GMT

A set of distraught parents say their son should have survived surgery after a snowboarding accident, but he was suffocated by healthcare workers so they could take his organs.

Pretty heady charges, especially for a hospital - you know, the people who take an oath to "first do no harm."

Although there isn't enough information out there to tell whether the hospital is actually guilty of suffocating Gregory Jacobs, the debate over whether the hospital had rights to move in and take his organs is the one parents need to focus on. Jacobs' parents say the hospital moved in to take his organs without their consent. The hospital won't comment on pending litigation.

Should we as parents have the final say?

Parents are understandably devastated after the death of a child - and often in no positition to debate whether they want to turn their child's body over to a doctor with a knife. But after death, time is of the essence. Most organs must be harvested and used within six to seventy-two hours of death. Organs are needed from kids - for kids - because they're the right size for another child's body (think about it, you can't put a 50-year-old man's heart in the body of a sixteen-month-old - the chest is just too darn small), but a significant amount of kids still die because the pediatric population of organ donors is limited.

Our kids are our kids. I can't imagine ANYTHING as bad as losing them, but if it's already happened, I'd like to think I'd have the bigger picture in mind. If I lost my child, I could still save someone else from that same pain.

Kindergartner Saves Diabetic Dad from Coma

JeanneSager — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:03:00 GMT

Danny Stephen has had a tough go of it. Diagnosed twenty-six years ago with diabetes, he's struggled in recent months to buy the medical supplies needed to take care of himself after being laid off from his job in construction.

What's more, Danny Stephen is a single dad - his wife Michelle died following a stroke in the fall.

For all those lemons thrown curveball-style his way, Danny Stephen is still filling up on lemonade (sugar free, natch). He's got a son, five-year-old Jude, who last weekend rescued Danny from a diabetic coma by forcefeeding him sweets.

With his dad flitting in and out of consciousness all day, Jude kept himself out of trouble at the Stephens' Florida home. But when dinner time came and Dad wasn't up, Jude went to his side, but Danny literally couldn't move. He could only mumble nonsense - even his attempt to get the boy to understand he needed juice to pump up his sugar levels were for naught. The boy thought he was saying "Jude." But Jude eventually got the juice, along with honey and cupcakes, which he practically shoved down his father's throat - enough to bring Danny Stephen out of the coma. Paramedics said without the tot's intervention, Danny would have died.

If you're sobbing at this story - from the passing of mom to dad losing his job to the little hero - you're not alone. The other part of me is just stark raving mad. Danny Stephen couldn't afford medical supplies, so a little boy almost lost his second parent in as many years.

What kind of country do we live in where a single dad can't get test strips to keep track of his blood sugar levels? Criticize socialized medicine all you want (and it does have its faults), but the basic medical supplies are taken care of - even for single parents who have lost their jobs in the midst of an economic crisis. Or we could keep going along as we are - leaving men like Danny Stephen to be rescued by their quick-witted kindergartners.

On a lighter note, the first comment on the site of the Tampa Bay newspaper that broke the story comes from a medical company owner - he's putting up all the test strips Danny Stephen could use. Bravo.

Image: TopNews

Hospital Hangs on to Children's Bodies for Two Years

JeanneSager — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:40:00 GMT

It's almost the exact opposite of the stillborn baby thrown in a New Jersey hospital's trash - and just as horrifying.

When a British mother suffered her second miscarriage, she went to the hospital to see if she could arrange a funeral for little Jonah.

He had already been cremated, the hospital told her. But her first son, miscarried two years ago at twelve weeks, was still in the hospital, they said. Would she like him?

Leanne McCabe had been told baby Ty was cremated shortly after her miscarriage because of a British law that requires babies stillborn before twenty-four weeks be "disposed of" by the hospital, usually via cremation. Why she never returned for his cremains is unclear (although it IS clear she wasn't aware that his body was still lying in a mortuary two years later).

McCabe's discovery has since led to the hospital's admission that hers isn't the only stillborn baby awaiting his parents' final wishes to be carried out. Two more suffered what hospital administration dubbed a "delay."

I know it's coincidence that this story came up just over a week after the missing New Jersey baby tale. It's hardly a pandemic. But what do these stories say about how the world treats stillborn and miscarried babies? Do these hospital officials think they matter less or that the outrage would be diminished because the children never actually breathed in the real world?

Moms who suffer through miscarriage and stillbirth already suffer with the misperception that their grief should somehow be less because, well, "at least you didn't have a child and lose it." No, in many ways they didn't have a child - they had a baby who they never got to enjoy, but that doesn't diminish their feelings of love or the depth of their loss. And their children all deserve the same amount of respect in the end.

Image/Source: BBC

Protect Children: Prohibit Divorce

Baby Born Two Days After Mom's Death

Kid and Kangaroo Best of Friends

Mom Says Hospital Fouled Childbirth - Twice

JeanneSager — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:15:00 GMT

What would you do if you thought your OB/GYN caused your baby irreperable harm during delivery? Would you go back?

A mom from Queens returned to the hospital where she'd delivered her first son to deliver her second - and once again, she says the doctors "yanked" on her child, causing a debilitating nerve injury that may lead to permanent paralysis.

The boys, a year apart, are both suffering from ERB's palsy. It's a condition Annemarie Dhana's lawsuit claims is caused by malpractice at childbirth.

"In both cases their shoulders became stuck after the head was delivered. In both cases excessive force was used to deliver the babies, resulting in ERB's palsy," according to a sworn affidavit, signed by Dhana.

The trouble is, during childbirth, how do you know if the doctor is using excessive force or doing what is necessary to get that baby out? Every delivery is different, and so is every doctor or midwife - and their preferred methods for delivery.

Despite repeated (Ok, obsessive) viewings of The Baby Story before delivering my daughter, I had never seen a mom being handed a towel by her doctor so she could pull and he could pull - offering her leverage. It's a practice my OB/GYN apparently uses (successfully, I might add) with a lot of moms - as other women whose children were delivered by him shared the same story. But none of us had ever heard of it before.

What jumps out at me about this case was Dhana's decision to go back to the same hospital where her lawsuit says prenatal care from her first pregnancy was lacking. Throw in the botched delivery, and I would have been running from in the other direction - especially considering she is in Queens, where it has to be easier to find another healthcare facility than it would be in rural upstate New York (where I live, and frankly got lucky considering my lack of options for obstetrical care).

Most of the commenters said as much over at the New York Daily News, where this story first appeared. But let's consider this mom's options:

If this were a case of a health insurance company forcing her to return to the same medical facility where she'd received substandard care, it's could be another example of the failings of our healthcare system in this country. In-network versus out-of-network should be set aside in favor of "good for patient" vs. "bad for patient."

If this were Dhana's own choice, however, I wonder, could she have known that the first case, the ERB's palsy in her elder son, wasn't just a fluke? Was this a case of a mom who didn't bother to do her homework on her medical choices, or more a case of a mom who simply didn't know? Her children are just a year apart, so she was struggling with a child who had a severe medical condition and a pregnancy at the same time.

Would you call this fishy or do you think this mom has a case?

Image: The Daily Mail

Mother Sues OB Who Said She Deserved Pain—And Gave It to Her

Cops End Search for Baby Thrown in Hospital Trash

They Say: Vicks VapoRub Bad for Baby

Duggar's Eldest Married: Babies on the Way?

Adoption Application Turned Down Due to Prospective Father's BMI

Boy Saves Brother's Life With Bone Marrow

Brett Singer — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:00:00 GMT

Sometimes it's good to just read a nice story. Especially around the holidays.

Yes, I'm sappy, but this has to make you smile.

Back in October, Daniel Badmus, a five-year-old boy from Ontario, CA, donated bone marrow to his four-year-old brother John. John suffers from sickle cell anemia, described as, "a genetic condition in which there aren't enough healthy red blood cells to carry oxygen throughout the body."

Daniel, the donor, received an award today from the Canadian Armed Forces. They also held a torch ceremony in his honor. (Not sure what that means but it sounds like a good thing.)

I have to admit that this sort of story (a) always chokes me up a little bit, and (b) makes me think about paying attention to my own health so that I can be there for my kids for as long as possible. There's also (c), where I think about whether or not I would have the courage to do what five-year-old Daniel did. I hope I would. He's a brave guy. Good for him.

Source/Image: citynews.ca

Read more:

Working Parents Smackdown Part 2 – Dads With Jobs vs Moms With Jobs

High School Student in Hospital After Scavenger Hunt

Autistic Girl Kicked Out Of Girl Scouts

Rite Aid Says They Will Stop Selling Expired Baby Products

They Say – Most Toys Are Toxic

Brain Wave Study Sheds Light On Autism

Last Gasp of a Dying Patriarchy?

Kate Tuttle — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:01:00 GMT

As the inauguration countdown enters its last 60 days, the Bush administration is doing what any of us do when we're about to leave a job -- no, not downloading company secrets and stealing all the good pens -- they're tidying up, finishing those outstanding tasks that they just won't feel right if they leave undone. You know, like limiting women's access to reproductive healthcare! This story came up while talking about a battle over contraception in the Philippines: for the past several months, the administration has pushed for new rules requiring any healthcare organization that receives federal funding to "protect" workers who had "conscience"-based objections to performing or assisting in abortion or sterilizatin-related activity. The rule's definition of abortion, as many have pointed out, would also apply to hormonal birth control devices such as the pill or Nuva ring.

Leaving aside the objections of the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the attorneys general of 13 states, and about a third of the congress (so far), the rule is rejected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as totally unnecessary, despite the adminstration's stance that it's merely seeking to protect workers from being discriminated against for their convictions. It's unclear whether the administration, or anyone else, has ever met anyone whose job was put in jeopardy for such actions (and it's kind of hard for me to understand why someone who has religious objections to providing healthcare would work in the field, but maybe that's just me). So who's for the new rule? The Catholic Health Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, among other religious groups.

Perhaps the most hypocritical part of the proposal is that it violates the Bush adminstration's own rules about this kind of last-minute action. According to the New York Times, "the White House said in May that new regulations should be proposed by June 1 and issued by Nov. 1. The “provider conscience” rule missed both deadlines."

Speaking of deadlines: if the rule is put into place, it would be overturned by a new President Obama as soon as he takes office, but even then it will take three to six months (and a lot of wasted taxpayer money) for the reversal to be complete. I propose, then, that any unwanted children resulting from this rule -- let's say, born to a woman who was raped and denied the morning-after pill by her friendly local conscience-driven pharmacist -- be named George and immediately sent down to Crawford, Texas. I hear there's a retiree and his wife who will raise them up to be good Christians.

They Say: Genetic Testing Doesn't Make Parents Any More Anxious

JeanneSager — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:57:00 GMT

Would knowing your child inherited your family's worst genes make you worry more? If it does, you're in the minority according to a new study in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine.

Researchers at the University of Michigan used survey information from more than one thousand parents to conclude parents are just as worried about their family's medical history as they would be by the results of genetic testing. As testing for genetic risk factors has become more accessible to the general public, healthcare practitioners have worried that parents will overreact to the results. This study has done much to allay that fear, putting the observed risk factors (a grandparents' battle with cancer, for example) above test results in making parents fret.

Personally, I think forewarned is forearmed. When my father-in-law learned a medical condition he was suffering from could be inherited, I confess my first thoughts were of my daughter. I pushed my husband to get tested - so we'd be able to act if he had inherited the condition and keep him around to one day walk her down the aisle. We also needed to know for her sake - to see if she'd need a test and then treatment as well. The threat of the family history had me sweating bullets until my husband's test came back negative. The genetic line had stopped with my father-in-law. Phewwww.

What's scarier? The possible or the absolutely positive?

Image: LA Times

Father Can't See His Little Boy, But Can He Give Him His Organs?

Do You Have a Drinking Problem? Talk To the Kids' Doc.

Child Safety, Child Schmafety

They Say: Our Kids Are Developing a (Legal) Drug Habit

Have a Uterus? McCain Wants You to Pay More for Health Insurance

JeanneSager — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:31:00 GMT

Turns out the biggest difference between men and women in America might not be their "down there parts," but what health insurance companies think those there parts will cost them. A study in yesterday's New York Times states women ages 19 to 55 who are paying for individual health insurance plans are being charged significantly more than male counterparts for the same plans.

The reason? Women are using more insurance, the companies say. But thanks go to the sharp-witted writers at Jezebel, who were quick to point out that research has shown seeking care earlier (they often call it preventative care?) saves people down the line. Saves their lives, and saves them money. Because preventive care, well, it prevents major illness.

Jezebel's report also pointed out something American voters need to keep in mind come Tuesday. Senator John McCain's chief healthcare plans call for "tax credits" that we as Americans would then use to pay for our own health insurance plans - the ones that cost women more. He's against the (currently relatively widespread) practice of employer-based health insurance plans, or group plans, whereby insurance plans are bought in bulk by an employer to wrangle a lower cost for each individual plan. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (you see the little EEO or EOE acronyms in a lot of newspaper classifieds) watches over employer-based health plans and prohibits gender-based discrimination. In other words - our civil rights in the workplace guarantee we can't be charged more for our employer-based health plan than the guy at the next desk. Walk out of the workplace, however, and the game changes.

The Times report even quotes a Humana representative who claims, "Bearing children increases other health risks later in life, such as urinary incontinence, which may require treatment with medication or surgery.” Say what?

A woman who popped out a baby, but has a yearly check-up at the general practitioner plus her annual "foot-in-the-stirrups, let's get this over with doc, I hope you have warm hands this time" visit is apparently going to wet herself down the road. And that's going to cost them. But the guy who hasn't been to a doctor in a decade and sits on his ass eating Cheetos and screaming, red-faced at SportsCenter all day, every day is going to cost them less down the line?

I can invest in Depends, but he's a walking heart attack.

And, apparently, Senator McCain thinks he shouldn't have to pay as much for cardiac catheterization, an eventual quadruple bypass, a lifetime of blood pressure monitoring and heart medications, a twice-yearly stress test . . . should I go on? . . . as long as he doesn't have a uterus.

Image: CrunchGear

Anti-Palin Ad Targets Parents With Teenage Rape Victim's Plea

Hey Sarah Palin, Make Your Kids Go to School

Salvation Army Says: We'll Take Palin's Clothes!

They say: no one with a uterus should vote for McCain

Palin's Kids Traveling on the State's Dime, She's Trying to Claim "State Business"

GOP Shows Obama With Fried Chicken and Watermelon

They say: McCain not thrilled with Palin and she wants to run in 2012

They (Should) Say: 6 is the New 60

Insurance Companies Still Trying to Claim Autism's Not a Medical Problem

JeanneSager — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:39:00 GMT

In case you were still under the assumption that health insurance companies were put on earth to help take care of our kids' health, don't worry. We thought that once too. But non-profit autism advocacy group Autism Speaks says just eight states in the nation have laws requiring group insurance plans to cover diagnosis and treatment of autistic kids. Insurance companies in the rest of the U.S. are still eager to debate whether treatment is "educational" or "medical."

Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, told the Associated Press this week that the industry is wary of laws that order a specific treatment because research may come up with something new around the corner. OK, that I get. But they'd rather we just don't treat the kids?

Well, according to Pisano, it's not necessarily a health issue. The insurance industry's passing the buck to the educational system.

Sounds a lot like the insurance companies we all know and love . . . to hate. Meanwhile, couples like Reza and Arzu Forough have had to move back in with Grandma to afford the cost of their 12-year-old's care. They both work full-time, both have health insurance. If son Shayan were to throw a tantrum, fall, break his leg and need a cast, chances are the insurance company would pay for it. But it won't pay for the treatment that the Foroughs credit with helping him learn to talk about his frustrations rather than throw a tantrum.

Bills are winding their way through the legislatures in a number of states, and Autism Speaks has begun campaigning in even more to get the topic into legislator's heads for 2009. The non-profit's goal is to have legislation on the books in all 50 states to help families of autistic kids.

Next step? Making those insurance plans affordable.

They Say: Parents Don't Know Kids are Too Fat or Too Thin

Father and Daughter Battle Breast Cancer Together

New Jersey Lays Down the Law: Vaccinate All Kids Against the Flu

Samples of Medicines Not Getting to Poor Kids

JeanneSager — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:04:00 GMT

I was all set to object to this piece on a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics that essentially advises pediatricians NOT to give parents free samples of prescriptions. What about all the uninsured parents out there? What about the insured who have crappy coverage? What about poor starving writers' kids? Apparently, 80 percent aren't getting the loot anyway.

The study by the CDC found more than half a million kids received samples of drugs the FDA later issued safety warnings for. That included 38,000 parents of kids under 2 who received an eczema treatment the FDA later said was not recommended for children under 2 anyway. That's bad, yes, but I don't see how a sample handed to a family was any worse than a prescription. The child is still being exposed to potentially dangerous pharmaceuticals. Without the samples, they'd just be PAYING for that exposure. Thanks FDA!

What the study also uncovered was that 80 percent of the kids receiving samples had insurance. So a measly 20 percent of the samples were given to parents of kids who would have to cough up the entire cost of a prescription? Isn't the point of samples to give to people who can't afford the drug? Technically, no. A look at any release issued by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America defending the use of samples shows the benefits to the uninsured are third on the list. The other benefits are supposed to be for the physician and patients as a whole - by giving doctors a chance to see what medicine works for what patients.

Sadly, I'm not surprised to see few uninsured kids are getting samples. Because I know more than a few uninsured who don't take their kids to the pediatrician. Ever. My own physician and my daughter's pediatrican - regularly ask, how is your insurance? When I tell the truth - it sucks - they usually pony up. And I'm not afraid to ask for the prescription cards that some pharmaceutical companies are putting out these days to cover a portion of the copay. Which gives me hope that the figures are a little off - 80 percent of those kids may have had insurance, but how good was that insurance?

Image: ABC News

Five-Year-Old Catches STD From Dad's Towel?

Mob Mol Who Smuggled Sperm Says Prison System Hates Her Child for Being Born

New Coke: The New Birth Control?

La. Legislator Says: Let's Pay the Poor to Stop Making Babies

They Say: Get Your Kid the Flu Shot

They Say: no cold medicine for kids 4 and under

We Know Some Toys are Infectious, but This Will Put a Pox on You

Hillary Clinton on Repro Rights

Brett Singer — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:00:00 GMT

Hillary Clinton (actually, its Hillary Rodham Clinton again; not sure if she used the middle name while she was still a Presidential candidate) and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood had an Op-Ed piece in the Times a couple of days ago that I thought would be of interest.

The Op-Ed discusses, "a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would…require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable. Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception."

A clear definition of abortion is left out, which means it is open to the interpretation of the health care provider. "The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider’s conscience. But where are the protections for patients?"

"The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25," which is just a couple of days away. If you feel strongly about this issue, call your Senator or Congressperson.

Source: NYTimes

UPDATE: Tainted Milk Tally tops 50,000

Arkansas Evangelist's compound raided, six children removed

Preventing Teen Pregnancy, One Tick at a Time

Second Best for the Hard-to-Adopt?

Abortion Blogger Gives Liberal Parents a Bad Name

Babies R Us tells breastfeeding mother to get out

Mom leaves kids in a Jersey parking lot

Teaching Evolution as Theory not fact

They Say: no link between autism and measles vaccine

Children opposed to healthcare (Onion Video)

Brett Singer — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:00:00 GMT

You know, so often with issues that face our society, we fail to ask: what about the children?

Healthcare is a hot-button issue in the upcoming Presidential election. The Onion presents reports on a study that shows that kids, when asked if they would like to go to the doctor more often, respond "NOOOO!!!!!" in overwhelming numbers. "The vast majority of children," they say, "do not want healthcare."

This is, of course, a joke. But it rings true, especially the closing line of the video.

Egyptian woman gives birth to septuplets because she wanted a boy

5 reasons it's a good thing I had boys

Is 'Nothing But Tears' Shampoo a Good Idea?

S&M Barbie

Baby Penis Album only five bucks

Bored games

Like father like son

Oy vey, Miley showed her tuchas again

Hunka hunka burnin Barbie

Upcoming Sesame Street Guests

10 Things Adults Don't Mind (that Kids Try to Avoid)

More Kids Stuff I like that my kids don't care about

5 things that would make parents' lives easier

It all started when Mary needed a laxative

Political Nanny: Elizabeth Edwards and Hillary, BFFs?

Madeline Holler — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:18:00 GMT

Didn't Elizabeth Edwards famously dislike Hillary Clinton? Apparently, Edwards can separate the woman from the policy wonk. In terms of universal healthcare, the two couldn't be better BFFs.

Which makes it all the more mysterious why she hasn't come out and endorsed Hillary. Voters in North Carolina seem to want Elizabeth, or her husband John Edwards, to pick someone already! Even if they pick different sides.

From NYTimes.com

Elizabeth Highfill of Wilmington said: “People are waiting to see what she says. In North Carolina, Elizabeth is more important. I’m not going to be surprised if she endorses Hillary and he endorses Obama.”

Edwards has apparently insisted he won't endorse before the upcoming North Carolina and Indiana primaries. Sigh. We'd sure like someone to pick something.

Does an Edwards endorsement (pick and Edwards, any Edwards) mean something to you? Why do you think they're not endorsing?

Photo: NYTimes.com

French Universal Healthcare Covers Les Femmes' Entire Personal Universe

Madeline Holler — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:01:00 GMT

Mon Dieu! The French are so, are so ... French? Did you read this in the New York Times, an expat American's dispatch about how, after giving birth, she got her vagina re-educated? A the state's expense. Like the thousands of other women giving birth there each year. I didn't even know my vagina forgot the main themes, ideas and historical dates after I gave birth. Shoud it have studied more during pregnancy? Is vaginal re-education a part of the International Baccaleureate?

She explains, to my relief, re-education is more about regaining the strength in the pelvic floor and elasticity of the perineum. (I'll stop crunching study guides with my thighs.) Unlike your six-week post-partum check-up, French women get referred to a counselor who asks them questions about peeing and does some poking around, eventually leading the new moms in some hands-on (and in) crotch crunches. After that, they make another appointment.

... Mónica shows me a slender white wand — the kind of device you might have seen for sale in Times Square a decade ago — which she’ll introduce in the next phase. The wand will add electro-stimulation to my mini situps. By the 10th session we’ll be ready to try out a kind of video game, in which sensors on my groin measure whether I’m contracting the muscles enough to stay above a running orange line on the computer screen.

There's also state-sponsored abs re-education, she says.

Seriously? I had to pay for childbirth education out of pocket and it mainly involved videos and snacking on cubes of cheese. I can't imagine my insurance company kicking in tuition for abs classes or anything even remotely involved in the education of my netherparts.

She goes on to compare the U.S. and France: healthcare costs (about half as much in France) and infant mortality rates (also, significantly lower), wait times (slightly longer in France but, at this point, who cares?)

Anybody else feel free perineal re-education is just another reason to envy French women? Or do you think our unsupervised Kegels are good enough to keep once--pregnant American women from peeing when they sneeze?

Bush Refuses Treatment for Wounded Healthcare System

Madeline Holler — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:33:00 GMT

As promised, President Bush vetoed a children’s health insurance bill that passed in both the House and Senate and had unusual bi-partisan support. The bill would have expanded the number of children covered by State Children’s Health Insurance Program to 10 million, whereas now the same program covers 6.6 million.

The president argued the bill moved Schip away from its initial purpose of paying to cover poor children and instead start providing for children from middle-class families. Which would be a crime? Does he know how a large part of the middle class lives nowadays?

While a “middle-class” income might seem like a goldmine in some parts of the country, it is barely adequate in plenty of cities, where housing costs and income are completely out of whack (I’m looking at YOU, Los Angeles County!). Pile on the high cost of fuel and increasing costs of food -- the year-over-year increases in healthcare premiums can quickly become hard to reach. Most uninsured families have at least one person employed full time. That's just wrong that a full-time worker who can't afford health insurance also can't get help with it.

At our pediatrician’s recently, I overheard a woman who was holding a toddler ask how much the shots would cost. The assistant had to ask around and look things up and started listing off the shots, this one’s $80, that one is $210. Didn’t her child have health insurance? Did she earn too much for Schip but not enough to pay for a plan? Even the most basic plans cover child vaccinations, right?

What’s you’re solution for healthcare in the U.S.? Canadian-style? Great Britain-style? Leave it alone? Scrap it all and start over? Are you glad Bush vetoed this bill and prevented families and companies from taking advantage of a government healthcare program, as he argued?