And it sounds like the actual cause of death was one of the superbugs that are rife in dirty NHS hospitals
A father described yesterday how he watched helplessly as his 13-month-old son died after a four-hour hospital wait because doctors said that they were too busy to treat him. Zia Islam said that Ahil was taken to hospital after he suffered minor burns when a cup of tea fell on him at home.
Giving evidence at the child’s inquest, Mr Islam, a 37-year-old IT consultant from Watford, said that Ahil was transferred from a specialist burns unit to Watford General Hospital in October 2005 when his condition took a turn for the worse a few days after the mishap.
The boy and his mother arrived at 11am at the hospital’s Accident & Emergency department, where he later joined them. He said that despite the infant starting a fever, vomiting and suffering severe diarrhoea, they were kept waiting for four hours.
Mr Islam claimed that he and his wife, Nazmin, were treated as though there was “nothing wrong” with their son.
He said: “When I got to A&E, my wife and Ahil were in the waiting room. He was crying and I asked, ‘What are you both doing here... haven’t you been seen yet?’ I was getting very anxious.
“One doctor told me Ahil was seriously sick, another told me they were all busy. Before anyone could see him properly, he was suffering from extreme diarrhoea in the waiting room. Every time a doctor came past, he was getting progressively weaker.” The senior house officer examined Ahil nearly 90 minutes after his arrival. He thought he might have a chest infection and sent him for X-rays.
Mr Islam added: “As time progressed he was getting weaker, he was crying but he was beginning to lie still. At 2.15pm he went to the cubicle for a blood test. At around 3.45pm his breathing deteriorated, his eyes closed, and the doctors tried to resuscitate him.
“The only time there was a sense of urgency was when they tried to resuscitate him.When you are the parent of a very sick child, there is a limit to what you can do. You cannot offend someone or you will not get the best out of them.”
He said that he felt that he had not done everything possible. “I did not shout or make a scene — if I had we might not be sitting here today.” The hospital has admitted liability.
Dr Craig Platt, a paediatric pathologist at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital, said that the cause of death was “most likely” to have been from a blood infection known as Staphylococcus aureus septicaemia triggered by 3 per cent burns. The infection is found in nearly half of children and normally remains dormant. However, in Ahil it caused a condition similar to toxic shock syndrome.
Ahil was first taken to the Watford casualty unit after the accident at home on September 30. He was transferred to the burns unit at Mount Vernon Hospital, northwest London, and discharged after treatment. But over the next two days he developed a fever, vomiting and then severe diarrhoea. His condition worsened and his parents took him back to Mount Vernon where he was kept in overnight. The next morning doctors decided he needed emergency treatment and he was sent back to Watford.
Source
National Center for Public Policy Research Applauds President Bush's State of the Union Health Care Proposals
The National Center for Public Policy Research applauds President Bush's State of the Union proposal to change the tax treatment of health insurance. Under current law, only employers receive a tax deduction for providing health insurance to their employees, and the deduction is unlimited. President Bush's proposal lets individuals who purchase health insurance have the same tax deduction. It also puts a limit on the tax deduction of $7,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a family. "That is the best idea for health insurance since the enactment of health savings accounts," said NCPPR senior policy analyst David Hogberg. "This really helps level the playing field for the tax treatment of health insurance." Presently the tax code favors employees receiving their health insurance through their employer. "That really puts individuals at a disadvantage," said Hogberg. "This change will help lower the cost for those people who purchase insurance on the individual market."
The proposal to limit the tax deduction also deserves praise. With the current unlimited tax deduction, employees have more incentive to demand higher cost insurance policies that cover every little health expense. This leads to higher demand for health care, which leads to higher health care costs. That, in turn, boosts costs for health insurance. "The limit on the tax deduction will reduce the incentive to buy expensive, wasteful policies," said Hogberg. "That will result in lower health insurance costs for everyone."
Hogberg also disagrees with the criticism of Bush's proposal coming from some quarters of Congress. Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) said, "This is a dangerous policy that ultimately shifts cost and risk from employers to employees and could result in a higher number of uninsured." Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA), said, "Under the guise of tax breaks, the president is pursuing a policy designed to destroy the employer-based health care system through which 160 million people receive coverage."
"In fact, Bush's proposals would help stem the decline in employer-provided coverage," said Hogberg. "The cap on the deduction will help lower health insurance costs, making it easier for employers to provide coverage." Hogberg also noted that the proposals are likely to reduce the number of uninsured. "Many people who are uninsured do not have access to employer-provided coverage. Giving the tax break to those without employer-based coverage will make it easier for them to afford health insurance." "Overall, Bush's proposal is a big step in the right direction," said Hogberg.
Source
THE CASTRO IRONY
What is the definition of irony? It may come any day now when Fidel Castro dies - the victim of his highly touted system of socialized medicine in the worker's paradise of Cuba. Even though Castro imported a doctor from Spain to treat his diverticulitis - an infection in the large intestine that rarely proves fatal in capitalist countries - the Communist dictator is said to be in grave condition following three failed surgeries.
It's not only irony, it's poetic justice. U.S. doctors look with stunned amazement at the relatively simple health-care problem Castro faced and the results - a hospitalization that has continued since late July. They suggest that medical procedures on Castro were botched. I would suggest the doctors caring for Castro did everything they could to save him. We're just now learning the truth about Cuba's health-care system after decades of lies.
Socialists in this country have been holding up Cuba as a model for medical care. How many times have you heard this lie? Yet, the real proof is that the best of Cuba's medical establishment couldn't successfully treat Castro for a routine ailment after six months. Is Hillary Clinton paying attention to this? Is Nancy Pelosi watching? Is Harry Reid understanding the significance of this amazing story?
Keep in mind, this is happening to the Comandante - not some sugar-cane harvesting peasant. It shows you just how bad socialized medicine gets. It atrophies to the point where it is incapable of healing, even when doctors' lives may depend upon it.
Without getting into the gory details of his illness, suffice it to say that diverticulitis causes bulges in the large intestines that get infected. The normal treatment is a colostomy, the removal of part of the intestine, the creation of an opening in the abdomen and the attachment of an external bag for the patient's excrement. A second operation is required to rejoin the intestine. But Castro's medical brain trust, in consultation with the Patient in Chief, opted for a shorter procedure - one that led to a second infection and two more surgeries. When Castro dies, it will likely be because toxins from his own sick body poisoned him.
But it is the toxic ideas of Castro that have taken their toll on his homeland of Cuba and spread through much of Latin America and the rest of the world. Despite his many crimes against humanity, Castro is still perceived throughout much of the Western world as a kind of harmless folk hero.
One of Castro's best-known slogans was "Socialism or death!" Many Cubans have asked, over the years of Castro's reign, "What's the difference?" Now, even Fidel will see it is no choice - they are one in the same.
No doubt there will be some who don't learn the obvious lesson from Castro's bout with socialized medicine. They will continue to insist it is a better way - a fairer system, a more equitable one, one that focuses on saving lives rather than profits. Let me leave you with one last thought: When was the last time you heard of some wealthy sick guy who chose to go to Cuba for treatment rather than, say, the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins University? It doesn't happen. It never will happen. The only people who believe Cuban medical care is equal to or superior to what we have in the United States are those who teach at universities, attend them or pay to see Michael Moore movies.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
No comments:
Post a Comment